Are you a Constitutionalist or an Anarchist?

[Brassmouth]

Saying that, doesn't make it true about them all. I bet you can find several anarchists that voted for Ron Paul.

There is an anarchist "self-defense" justification for voting, espoused by Spooner and Rothbard.

It doesn't seem to be very popular though. Not even Rockwell and Co. adhere to it.

Last election I was a minarchist, so I voted. Not sure if I'll ever vote again.

(Yay, my 1,000th post. )

 

[acptulsa]

You and I regularly fall on the same side of complicated debates, acptulsa, I'm surprised to see this much vitriol and fervor from you in favor of groupthink and usurpation of freedoms of association.

It's just that the issue has been hashed and rehashed so often, here. And you know it isn't that I don't appreciate the irony of a constitution that defines a collective in the process of binding together a nation being the bulwark upon which an individual depends to safeguard his individuality. It's just that I don't think anarchy can be realistically depended upon to do the same. As we have seen from the Constitution, just because a nation is founded upon a set of values and principles doesn't mean it can't be perverted from them. It's just that I maintain it's easier to subvert a--whatever--when it has no underlying moral/legal code codified and institutionalized to begin with.

I still consider as a practical matter only anarchy to be most closely related to democracy--and with all the shortfalls and pitfalls.

 

[Sandman33]

But then isn't the Constitution at fault for putting the fallible 'citizenry' in charge? (BTW, there is no basis for this claim, the Constitution puts the onus on Congress to pass laws that are Necessary and proper to carry out the edicts of the document)

The people were hoodwinked by "their leaders" into thinking what was being done was, in fact, Constitutional. So it was the "leaders" not the people?

And if it was the people, what has given you the confidence that the general public would do any better once Ron Paul 'resets' the power to Constitutional limits?

No. The people SHOULD be in charge. The people were lied to by their Congressmen and the people put up with it when they shouldn't have.

The constitution itself is perfect as long as the citizens have the gumption and the bravery to uphold it. It's only as good as the people that it protects.

It's the peoples fault it got this far and the people are going to have to take it back.

 

[Optatron]

For the Anarchists: We are a Constitutional Republic.

For the Constitutionalists : we lost our way, wake up and do something.

 

[Crash Martinez]

It's only as good as the people that it protects.

Obviously, then, it doesn't protect them!

 

[Pod]

There is an anarchist "self-defense" justification for voting, espoused by Spooner and Rothbard.

It doesn't seem to be very popular though. Not even Rockwell and Co. adhere to it.

Last election I was a minarchist, so I voted. Not sure if I'll ever vote again.

I voted in a referendum and may do so again. I never voted in an election and never will, but I`d encourage a neocon or some such ilk to cease with their sinful ways and vote Paul.

 

[LibertyEagle]

For the Constitutionalists : we lost our way, wake up and do something.

We know that. We're trying. Want to help?

 

[ClayTrainor]

I voted in a referendum and may do so again. I never voted in an election and never will, but I`d encourage a neocon or some such ilk to cease with their sinful ways and vote Paul.

how can you be so principled, that you couldn't go give Ron Paul another vote?

 

[Brassmouth]

how can you be so principled, that you couldn't go give Ron Paul another vote?

This thread is amorphous enough without a voting debate.

Why don't you make a separate thread on that subject, if you are so interested?

 

[Pod]

how can you be so principled, that you couldn't go give Ron Paul another vote?

I`m not an American, but I wouldn`t register with the Republicans even if I were. I`d tell any family to cast a vote for him if they were already registered though and mayhap campaigned for him if I had the time.

You help people become small government types, then the system inevitably has them become disgruntled small government types. And once they are disgruntled.... well you can figure it out.

 

[FrankRep]

I guess the question would be:

How do we reverse the direction American is going?

 

[acptulsa]

I guess the question would be:

How do we reverse the direction American is going?

Well, not by dividing ourselves against ourselves over trifles...

 

[Imperial]

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?

All governing documents will be flawed in some manner. However, I accept having them anyway. I will never be able to convince everybody of my ideals. Despite a law being whole-heartedly wrong in my heart, say laws against possession of heroin, that doesn't necessarily mean I should break it. I certainly would have the authority to, but go back to the point I cant convince everyone. Someone else could whole-heartedly believe that banning heroin is right. If I want them to respect the laws I institute, I choose to play the electoral game. So, I will follow flawed laws in order that people respect them when I can win the game in my efforts. I have just decided to fight in a manner different than an-caps.

The key is I am not a Constitutionalist bc I am not arguing following the law just because the law is good. It is only a means to an end in that it provides a framework to better facilitate debate and power. Law ultimately should be based in morality, and that is often not the case with governmental coercion. I believe in a limited government but only in the force of law to the extent I need others to recognize force of law to allow government to function at all.

By Nozick's analysis, I meant the idea that anarchy will ultimately lead to some entity exerting its own monopoly on violence.

What I meant by the short duration of human lives and the problem of perception is that the concept of a free market is based on the consumer acting in his or her best interest. While competition is an important aspect that helps create free trade in our world, the fact that people die and that fraud and propaganda will always exist means that you will never have a truly free market when you have to reinvent the wheel and reteach all consumer knowledge to people, a type of "reinventing the wheel". Thus, i believe government has a role in creating an arbitrary framework to better facilitate markets, even though the government itself is a flawed mechanism. It also provides a framework to better facilitate consumer knowledge. Of course, the people will still have to check their own government too.

 

[klamath]

Do you really think they'd be foolish enough to invade a country with 80 million gun owners and no government to obtain a surrender from?

80 million gun owners shooting in 80 million different directions won't stop 100 thousands guns aimed in precise directions.

 

[Pod]

80 million gun owners shooting in 80 million different directions won't stop 100 thousands guns aimed in precise directions.

We`ll all shoot in one direction: Between the eyes.

 

[mdh]

You know me, I'm a rabid anarchist. Waving black flags is what I do.

Read some Lysander Spooner for a great take on the constitution.

Anarchists who wouldn't vote for Ron Paul get what they get, though, which is worse than what we'd get if Paul were president. Good ole fashioned logic, there, but for some reason some anarchists don't get it. Anarchism is perfection, but when you let perfect become the enemy of good, you're doing yourself harm.

 

[TGGRV]

We`ll all shoot in one direction: Between the eyes.

You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

 

[ARealConservative]

That's like saying a preacher doesn't sin.

no, it's like saying jesus doesn't sin.

 

[Brassmouth]

You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

What would they bomb? And what would that accomplish?

 

[Scofield]

80 million gun owners shooting in 80 million different directions won't stop 100 thousands guns aimed in precise directions.

How are those 100 thousand guns going to get into the country? Dock in Mexico and walk/drive up through Mexico and cross the border?

Do you really believe Mexico or Canada would allow a foreign nation to dock in their country, only for them to march to the United States to try conquer us?

You're delusional if you think anyone could/would invade the continental United States.