Are you a Constitutionalist or an Anarchist?

[FrankRep]

You're right that dictators almost always fill the void left by violent revolutions. But to be an anarcho-capitalist is not to advocate violent revolution.

Luckily, everyone is America is non-violent.

 

[Young Paleocon]

I'm still up in the air. Bordering on Anarcho-capitalism as I realize governmental failures in all fields, yet am not sure if anarchism is applicable, or if the majority of the population just have a knee-jerk reaction towards statism as capitalism raises our standard of living. However, it is important to recognize in theory, so far, that anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion of the free-market/small government ethos. Mainly because small government is nearly impossible to maintain due to capitalism blossoming in a limited government environment and since the state has the monopoly of force it will harness the capitalist elements i.e. means of production, money supply, and is able to attain large amounts of revenue, (at least in our current fascist scenario) and success due to people and markets and use them against the people. The only way I can see right now of a sustained limited government is if something like the Swiss model is used. Namely: a small homogeneous country, 500 year confederalist tradition, pushed into a neutral state for practical reasons, and maintaining a strong local education system allowing for a more educated public that can partake in referendum whilst also having a constitution.

 

[rp08orbust]

And if I don't give my consent?

What happens to me?

Nothing--you won't receive the government's services.

 

[Imperial]

Neither. I think describing ourselves as "Constitutionalists" is a poor way to go about it. I think our Constitution is flawed, and any other governing document we produce will also be flawed.

What matters is human action. How humans work to make their world better. No Constitution will change that. If the law is bad, disregard the law. If you want to change the law but it is bad now, and you want others to follow it once you change it, you should probably follow them to an extent.

I find anarchy flawed as well, probably because of Nozick's analysis and the fact that given the short duration of human lives and the fact that perception controls the existence of any true free market.

 

[FrankRep]

The Constitution is the best comprise between total Anarchy and Communism.

Lets just support the Constitution.

 

[South Park Fan]

More like a government by consent.

A true government by consent would require the consent of every individual that the government claims to govern. If an individual decides not to consent and chooses to govern himself, you are either faced with allowing that individual to do so, which would lead to panarchy/voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism, or you must force that individual to "consent" to your government, in which case it would no longer be a government by consent but a government by force.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Supporting the IMF with $12 Trillion in debt?

Lets look at China. They have the money and the power right now.

I'm not so sure about that anymore.

China's banks are an accident waiting to happen to every one of us

 

[Young Paleocon]

The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

Actually the Jacobins and the Committee on Public Safety constructed the first communistic regime on a national scale so it was quite the opposite of anarchism. One should not confuse political infighting with anarcho-capitalism.

 

[FrankRep]

I think our Constitution is flawed, and any other governing document we produce will also be flawed.

People in general are flawed. If we were angels, anarchy would work, we are no angels.

 

[Dr.3D]

A true government by consent would require the consent of every individual that the government claims to govern. If an individual decides not to consent and chooses to govern himself, you are either faced with allowing that individual to do so, which would lead to panarchy/voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism, or you must force that individual to "consent" to your government, in which case it would no longer be a government by consent but a government by force.

Actually, the constitution is supposed to restrain the power of the government and ensure the rights of the individual are not infringed upon. It does not give the government any powers not included in it.

 

[Epic]

People in general are flawed. If we were angels, anarchy would work, we are no angels.

If we were angels, government would work. But we aren't, so we should keep bad people in check the best way possible ---> not allowing them monopolies on force.

 

[South Park Fan]

People in general are flawed. If we were angels, anarchy would work, we are no angels.

And since we are not angels, we shouldn't be giving an agency full of non-angels a coercive monopoly over law.

 

[FrankRep]

If we were angels, government would work. But we aren't, so we should keep bad people in check the best way possible ---> not allowing them monopolies on force.

If we were angels, there is no need for government.

 

[South Park Fan]

Actually, the constitution is supposed to restrain the power of the government and ensure the rights of the individual are not infringed upon. It does not give the government any powers not included in it.

Well, obviously the Constitution fails at restraining government and ensuring individual rights.

 

[BuddyRey]

I was a Minarchist a year ago. But after reading Morris & Linda Tannehill's The Market for Liberty and several works by Murray Rothbard, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "good government" since the presence of government is predicated on at least some form of coercion, even if on a limited basis.

 

[South Park Fan]

If we were angels, there is no need for government.

Exactly, so either way government is not the answer!

 

[Dr.3D]

Well, obviously the Constitution fails at restraining government and ensuring individual rights.

Only because the people are letting the government interpret the constitution.
The people are supposed to be enforcing the constitution, not the government.

 

[Kraig]

Neither. I think describing ourselves as "Constitutionalists" is a poor way to go about it. I think our Constitution is flawed, and any other governing document we produce will also be flawed.

What matters is human action. How humans work to make their world better. No Constitution will change that. If the law is bad, disregard the law. If you want to change the law but it is bad now, and you want others to follow it once you change it, you should probably follow them to an extent.

I find anarchy flawed as well, probably because of Nozick's analysis and the fact that given the short duration of human lives and the fact that perception controls the existence of any true free market.

What do you propose then? Anarchy is basically the absence of a constitution or anything like it, I don't see how you could be against both. What do you mean by Nozick's analysis and the short duration of human lives?

 

[South Park Fan]

Only because the people are letting the government interpret the constitution.
The people are supposed to be enforcing the constitution, not the government.

And how do you expect the people to enforce the Constitution?

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

look at those numbers. Its official. Ronpaulforums.com is dead.