Are You a Strict Supporter of the Constitution?

[Xerographica]

RiseAgainst...in case you missed it...here was the question I posted for you supporters of the NAP...Why Shouldn't the Government Engage in Aggression?

 

[RiseAgainst]

RiseAgainst...in case you missed it...here was the question I posted for you supporters of the NAP...Why Shouldn't the Government Engage in Aggression?

Xerographica...in case you missed it...it's the same thread you've started three times a day pimping your own brand of thuggery.

Poll: Here's a question?

Option 1: You agree with me.
Option 2: You agree with me.
There are no more options.

I am right.

 

[Travlyr]

Stefan makes a huge blunder in this video. @ 0:43 "Supposedly governments were invented to make human life easier and safer." - Stefan

That is false. Laws of the land create governments.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Stefan makes a huge blunder in this video. @ 0:43 "Supposedly governments were invented to make human life easier and safer." - Stefan

That is false. Laws of the land create governments.

What color is the sky in your world? You are arguing semantics, as usual completely dodging the content.

 

[Xerographica]

RiseAgainst, if you felt that I forgot an option...then why didn't you just reply to the thread and let me know which option I missed?

 

[RiseAgainst]

RiseAgainst, if you felt that I forgot an option...then why didn't you just reply to the thread and let me know which option I missed?

And bump yet another of your threads which says nothing new?

 

[Travlyr]

What color is the sky in your world? You are arguing semantics, as usual completely dodging the content.

Blue sky in the daytime and black at night.

It is not semantics. If you start with a false premise, then your conclusion is false. Governments are not started to make life easier or safer.

When land claims are made, like a kingdom, then Kings rule over the land. In America, the land was divided up among the people. The founders decided to govern the land with laws by representation.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Stefan makes a huge blunder in this video. @ 0:43 "Supposedly governments were invented to make human life easier and safer." - Stefan

That is false. Laws of the land create governments.

No. It's relatively recently that states cared much about law (especially consistently applied law). To this day statists like to avoid holding the State to the same standard of law and morality that is applied to the rest of society.

 

[Travlyr]

No. It's relatively recently that states cared much about law (especially consistently applied law). To this day statists like to avoid holding the State to the same standard of law and morality that is applied to the rest of society.

States and Law were in it from the beginning.

Article. IV.

Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due [Modified by Amendment XIII].

Section. 3.New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

That is why we must use 100% redeemable currency and enforce the rule of law.

 

[erowe1]

Acceptance of the Constitution carried with it the acceptance of the states being bound by Federal laws. Part of those laws, laid out IN the Constitution were tax laws. Therefore acceptance of the Constitution was acceptance of the authority of the Federal government to tax you within constitutional limitations. Thus they tacitloy agreed to be taxed.

Acceptance of the Constitution foisted on the population by a subgroup within it using military force.

 

[Xerographica]

And bump yet another of your threads which says nothing new?

I don't care where you answer the question. Let me ask you again..why shouldn't the government engage in aggression?

1. because aggression is wrong
2. because the outcome is desirable
3. all of the above
4. other?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

States and Law were in it from the beginning.

That is why we must use 100% redeemable currency and enforce the rule of law.

I mean "state" in the traditional sense. Shorthand for "Nation-State".
[h=2]na·tion-state[/h]   [ney-shuh

n-steyt] Show IPAnouna sovereign state inhabited by a relatively homogeneous group of people who share a feeling of common nationality.

Hardly anyone had the concept of "states" as sections of a nation prior to the US. This is why we have a State Department, Secretary of State, etc.

Note also that the classical liberals who are critical to the history of all branches of the libertarian movement used "State" the way I used it above.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

U.S. Constitution: a document specifying the structure & organization of the federal government of the United States of America and the particular authorities & priveleges said government is to be permitted (or not permitted) to exercise.

Anarchy: the absence of the State.

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.”?

Too bad Spooner couldn't see the weakness of his own position. As anarchy was the natural state of man, 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.

Apple, meet orange. Orange, apple.

The Constitution can meaningfully be spoken of as "authorizing" or "preventing" things. Anarchy, however, can not.

 

[Pericles]

U.S. Constitution: a document specifying the structure & organization of the federal government of the United States of America and the particular authorities & priveleges said government is to be permitted (or not permitted) to exercise.

Anarchy: the absence of the State.





Apple, meet orange. Orange, apple.

The Constitution can reasonably be spoken of as "authorizing" or "preventing" things. Anarchy, however, can not.

Then enlighten us as to why anarchy has been unable to last for any period of time, and due to this failure to perpetuate itself, still deserves any serious study?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Then enlighten us as to why anarchy has been unable to last for any period of time, and due to this failure to perpetuate itself, still deserves any serious study?

Anarchy exists in your everyday life. In your home, your business, a skating rink, etc. Every place the government is not managing is in a state of anarchy. It merits study for the same reason Spontaneous Order (or any other observable thing) merits study. It's a real and observable phenomenon in nature.

 

[Travlyr]

Anarchy exists in your everyday life. In your home, your business, a skating rink, etc. Every place the government is not managing is in a state of anarchy. It merits study for the same reason Spontaneous Order (or any other observable thing) merits study. It's a real and observable phenomenon in nature.

I'm not sure what you mean by anarchy.

In our home we have rules and chores. Our rules are not enforced on our neighbors but guests are expected to follow some of them. Every place I have ever worked had rules and an enforcer. A very important rule at a skate rink is for everyone to go the same direction.

 

[RickBelmont]

There is no such thing as a level of strictness.

There is only rule of law. If you start to pick and choose which laws to enforce then it becomes cosmopolitan law, which inevitably leads to rule by law.

We are in the end stages of cosmopolitan law.

Sovereignty is tied to rule of law, as you violate the rule of law so goes your sovereignty.

If a law exists it must be followed or lawfully changed if it is unliked. Just look at the downward, and exponentially escalating, spiral of corruption after Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus (among other things like kidnapping and holding people against their will until they changed their votes etc).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not sure what you mean by anarchy.

In our home we have rules and chores. Our rules are not enforced on our neighbors but guests are expected to follow some of them. Every place I have ever worked had rules and an enforcer. A very important rule at a skate rink is for everyone to go the same direction.

I mean what I said. Here it is for you once again:
Anarchy exists in your everyday life. In your home, your business, a skating rink, etc. Every place the government is not managing is in a state of anarchy. It merits study for the same reason Spontaneous Order (or any other observable thing) merits study. It's a real and observable phenomenon in nature.

Stossel discusses spontaneous order (a soft phrase synonymous with anarchy):

 

[Occam's Banana]

Then enlighten us as to why anarchy has been unable to last for any period of time, and due to this failure to perpetuate itself, still deserves any serious study?

As opposed to what? The long duration & success of constitutionally-limited government? More on this in a moment, but first:

The purpose of my earlier post (the one you quoted) was not to defend anarchy or anarchism. It was merely to point out the fact that the Spooner quote is not susceptible to the criticism applied to it - for the reason I gave in my post (which has been improved by replacing the word "reasonably" with "meaningfully").

As for any assessment of anarchism as undeserving of "any serious study" because "anarchy has been unable to last for any period of time" &/or because of anarchy's "failure to perpetuate itself":

The two questions I asked at the start of this post are *not* rhetorical wisecracks.

For *every* socio-political "ism" (anarchism, constitutionalism, monarchism, tribalism, republicanism, imperialism, feudalism, etc., etc.) there is *some* point in the past at which one could say, "This 'ism' has been unable to last for any period of time, and due to this failure to perpetuate itself. we may conclude that this 'ism' is undeserving of any serious study."

Thus, there is only one possible destination for that approach (if we take it seriously as a filter for deciding which "isms" are or are not worthy of study), and that is: nihilism.

 

[kylejack]

Nations are like businesses. The exact reason there is more than one is so that you have the ability to choose form them all. If you don't like one you can leave it and go to another. The fact that you fail to recognize this as a viable option to your problem proves your short sightedness. Being taxed is inherent in the agreement to follow the Constitution, which is required to be a US citizen.

The Constitution grants those born here with the right to be a US citizen whether they follow the Constitution or not. I never asked to be a citizen and never signed a contract.