I'm so sick of all the anarchist nonsense on this board, and even more sick of anti-constitution talk.
Anarchists believe in no government but yet believe in the rule of law in some capacity. This is a contradiction, but basically I interpret this as extremely local rule of law for crimes that only affect another's rights. This is actually very consistent with the views of federalists like Hamilton and Madison. Bear with me.
The Articles of Confederation was an admirable attempt at extremely little national government, and it did not work. I wish it did, believe me, but it would only lead to completely independent states. That possibly wouldn't be SO bad, but I believe in the sovereignty of nations. Our revolution was fought and won united, and we share a national identity. Therefore, keeping the states united is a justifiable and noble purpose of the national government, in my opinion.
Under the Articles, States argued about differing currencies, taxation of state to state imports, etc. Plus, the national government could only ask the states for money, so the war debt was not paid. And it could only ask for soldiers, so no war against foreign tyrannical control could be fought. This could only be disastrous for the United States. They would be not only weak, but utterly untrustworthy as well. How could you trust an ally whose members can't get along to be faithful to your alliance? We would have fallen under the Articles, and all that was won in the American Revolution would be lost. The world's number 1 symbol for freedom would be lost.
The Constitution had two purposes--one driven by the federalists and one by the anti-federalists. The main text of the constitution lays out a very small, succinct list of national powers, most of which exist to keep states from arguing. There is no tyrannical control allowed in this constitution as long as they are read through the lens of the original intent of its authors. Perhaps the largest power is to regulate interstate commerce, which was intended only to prevent states from ripping each other off. Modern tyrants use this clause as justification to regulate anything which at some point had anything to do with transportation from one state to another, which provides the federal government with near limitless control over the economy.
The other purpose of the Constitution was ensured by the anti-federalist through the Bill of Rights. This, of course, was intended to provide written protection of a few essential civil rights. The 14th Amendment applied these restrictions to state and local governments.
Now to the main point... There is nothing in the Constitution that could be considered too powerful, so long as the people keep the government strictly to it, unless you believe in the complete sovereignty of each individual state. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, only state or local governments can make laws that really restrict the actions of people. Maybe you believe that even states are too large to have this much power, and I can understand that argument, but certainly the Constitution with its Amendments (aside from the 16th Amendment) does not allow for Washington-born tyranny.
What I'm saying is the theoretical American government is not inconsistent with the goals of anarchists who believe in the rule of law. The problem is NOT the Constitution nor the founders. The Constitution, conversely, is near perfection in terms of limiting government to only those things which it absolutely must have for the preservation of the nation. The problem is the inherent laziness, weakness, and ignorance of people. Rather than supporting the elimination of the Constitution and the national government, we Ron Paul followers ought to convince people that their federal government is huge and tyrannical because we have let it get that way. The Constitution needs to be our focus rather than its destruction. It's Ron Paul's focus, too.
