Are You a Strict Supporter of the Constitution?

[RiseAgainst]

the constitution was the document of compromise. do you think you can the even a majority of americans to abandon all ideas of government?
plsu, i'm not even sold on the idea of private courts and security. sure you can make the case for local mafias over national mafias, but they are still mafia's with a monopoly use of force in area, regardless of words you assign to them.
for instance, you claim a right has been damaged by me in your private court. what makes you think i will show up to your private court? how will the court force me to comply? it all comes down to force. i'd rather have a local elected official over one who was paid by you to oversee your accusation.

http://mises.org/resources/2716/The-Production-of-Security

 

[torchbearer]

http://mises.org/resources/2716/The-Production-of-Security

someone you paid is a bit bias towards it client.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I am a strict Constitutionalist. Representative governance to determine laws of the land is preferable to a King owning all of it and making the serfs do all the work.

Spectrum of options fail. A gang of thugs vs. one tyrant are not your only options.

 

[Wesker1982]

the constitution was the document of compromise. do you think you can the even a majority of americans to abandon all ideas of government?
plsu, i'm not even sold on the idea of private courts and security. sure you can make the case for local mafias over national mafias, but they are still mafia's with a monopoly use of force in area, regardless of words you assign to them.
for instance, you claim a right has been damaged by me in your private court. what makes you think i will show up to your private court? how will the court force me to comply? it all comes down to force. i'd rather have a local elected official over one who was paid by you to oversee your accusation.

How society would function in the absence of any socialism is a different topic.

 

[Wesker1982]

someone you paid is a bit bias towards it client.

Can someone make me the mod of the philosophy forum? All I would really like to do is take this post and make it a new OP, that way this thread doesn't get derailed.

 

[Travlyr]

Spectrum of options fail. A gang of thugs vs. one tyrant are not your only options.

I like being a land owner and having a say in the laws of the land.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Can someone make me the mod of the philosophy forum? All I would really like to do is take this post and make it a new OP, that way this thread doesn't get derailed.

[sarcasm]

No. You're an anarchist/voluntaryist. Making an anarchist a moderator is like dividing by zero, I'm pretty sure the world would disappear into a vacuum.

[/sarcasm]

 

[torchbearer]

How society would function in the absence of any socialism is a different topic.

i have thought about it at both extremes, but a lot of thought in it.
i grew up in a very small rural community. about 200 people who actually had a 100% voluntary minarchist government. we have a community water tower that was paid via voluntary contributions. a project that one could not do on its own. anyone who wants to use it pays for its use and nothing more. we have a voluntary fire department. all equipment was gathered through charity. the only flaw we have is no law enforcement. law is handle by fued. no one would trust a private court, and the churches(two of them) may could help, but the process has never organically evolved. we have a peaceful community except for the occassional case of someone shooting someone's hunting dog that ends up with someone elses kin hangin in a barn.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I like being a land owner and having a say in the laws of the land.

And there are plenty of ways to do that without shoving your gun in peoples face.

 

[Travlyr]

And there are plenty of ways to do that without shoving your gun in peoples face.

Name one.

 

[Wesker1982]

How society would function in the absence of any socialism is a different topic.

HINT HINT

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you're a strict supporter of the constitution...can you please explain how the small committee of government planners that wrote the constitution knew what the proper scope of government was. If a small committee of government planners could know the proper scope of government then how is that any different from socialism?

As Dr. Paul says, the proper role of the government is to protect life and liberty. Period.

How many people does it take to answer the question of what the private sector should produce? Every single one of us. How do we answer the question? With our wallets.

How many people would it take to answer the question of what the public sector should produce? Every single one of us. How would we answer that question? With our wallets.

Where are you getting the idea that the Constitution dictates what "the private sector should produce"?

If we truly want to determine the proper scope of government then taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes.

Or not have any income taxes at all, once we get government back within its constitutional boundaries and get rid of the 16th amendment.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, the OP is asking this question of people who are supporters of the Constitution. At least that is what he put in his title. If you are an anarchist, why are you posting in this thread? Just curious.

 

[Travlyr]

If you're a strict supporter of the constitution...can you please explain how the small committee of government planners that wrote the constitution knew what the proper scope of government was. If a small committee of government planners could know the proper scope of government then how is that any different from socialism?

How many people does it take to answer the question of what the private sector should produce? Every single one of us. How do we answer the question? With our wallets.

How many people would it take to answer the question of what the public sector should produce? Every single one of us. How would we answer that question? With our wallets.

If we truly want to determine the proper scope of government then taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes.

Imagine if somebody randomly showed up at your doorstep and asked you how much you were going to pay them. What would your response be? The logical response would be..."to do what?" You wouldn't pay somebody without first knowing what their skills were.

Why bother arguing with each other over how much taxes we should pay? If we want to figure out what the ideal tax rate should be then we first need to discover what skills the government has. We first need to answer the question of what the government is good at doing.

You, as an individual, already have your own answer regarding what the government is good at doing. But are you so confident in your answer that you would be willing to impose your answer onto the entire country? If so...how is that any different from a dictatorship?

We need to discover the answer together as a country by allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. And if all you can bring to the discussion is "taxes are theft" then don't bother.

The first thing that must happen for pragmatic solutions to work is 100% redeemable currency. Until then, nothing else is compatible.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Name one.

Voluntarism, mutualism, anarcho-capitalism...

 

[Travlyr]

Voluntarism, mutualism, anarcho-capitalism...

That is virtually what the Constitution accomplishes when it is followed strictly and amended correctly.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It was good up until the last sentence.

That is true.

I'm not sure if this in reference to the last sentence of my post, or RA's post. Since RA's post was just the Spooner quote, I'll assume it was mine.

My last sentence was:

The 1st group - sociopaths & parasites - will *always*, in the end, defeat the 3rd.

Given how Spooner defines his groups, I don't see what's wrong with that (admittedly pessimistic) conclusion:
1st group: Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.
3rd group: A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

 

[RiseAgainst]

That is virtually what the Constitution accomplishes when it is followed strictly and amended correctly.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

~Lysander Spooner

Your assertion that the constitution is a "voluntarist" document has been tested for the past 236 years. I assume you are 100% in agreement with the current government then, right?

 

[Travlyr]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

~Lysander Spooner

Your assertion that the constitution is a "voluntarist" document has been tested for the past 236 years. I assume you are 100% in agreement with the current government then, right?

What part of 100% redeemable sound money do you not get?

Does it seem to you that the current rulers are obeying the constitution? I refer you to Amendments 1-10 otherwise known as "The Bill of Rights"

 

[erowe1]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

~Lysander Spooner

Does the logic of that quote work? Can we also say, “But whether anarchy really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”?