Can the Constitution Ever Truly Be Obeyed??

[webstar]

from HB

You're never going to avoid hypocrisy if you want to support the State-it is by nature full of contradictions.

this has nothing to do with supporting the State or opposing the State. Hypocrisy is when you say you believe one thing and do quite the opposite thing.

 

[libertygrl]

No, because I'm an anarchist. (I occasionally agree with theists, though I'm a non-theist...tho a spiritual one... myself. )

Oh, so what does an anarchist believe in if you don't mind all the questions! Isn't it like lawlessness and chaos?? I looked it up on Wikipedia and it just made me even more confused. There seems to be varying philosophies. I'm just taking a guess that you might fall into this school of thought -

"Individualist anarchism comprises several traditions which hold that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority."

 

[libertygrl]

It's not difficult to follow. It is clear as day as what is intended. It's just that the person who heads up the State (criminal organization) chooses the people who go to the Supreme Court (final arbiter), who then decide on the laws the Congress (parasites) make up to oppress people and whether they are legit or not. The judges get picked for a reason. To support their masters wishes, that is why they were picked. That's how.

Excellent point and a great way to explain this to my brother! Thanks.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, so what does an anarchist believe in if you don't mind all the questions! Isn't it like lawlessness and chaos?? I looked it up on Wikipedia and it just made me even more confused. There seems to be varying philosophies. I'm just taking a guess that you might fall into this school of thought -

"Individualist anarchism comprises several traditions which hold that "individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority."

That is a pretty good, but not all-encompassing quote.

I couldn't explain it in a short post (just as I couldn't simply explain objectivism, Socratism, etc in a short post). Basically, the premise is that the State has no legitimate role in our lives. Also, that the State is merely a group of people who claim a monopoly on the use of force.

We, as intelligent creatures, have full rights to our bodies and our properties (and to defend them as needed). The reason we have these rights is because we own ourselves. (See "natural rights" for more)

In regards to law, anarchists believe in private law and law enforcement (Conza's sig has some great literature you should read). The anarchist position is to eliminate government law enforcement agencies/militias, and replace them with profitable businesses that are subject to law.

I have to run now, but I'll add more later if I can. Thanks for asking!

HB34.

 

[SimpleName]

A major problem with the Constitution is the checks and balances. It is a nice concept and all, but the Founders really dropped the ball when they didn't factor in all of branches being intertwined in corruption. The President should not have been given the power to appoint justices. It is just so easy for several justices to die in one period of time and some maniac (every president in the last 100 years) to appoint a bunch of extremists nuts. And veto bills when there is such partisanship? Impossible. They must have seen political parties become popular in their system.

 

[Conza88]

I do not tolerate hypocsiry - regardless if comes from fellow libertarians, democrats, republicans, communists or fascists. I have no patience for anyone who has to reinvent definitions or put normal common sense through a series of convoluted hoops to justify their own hypocrisy when their own actions do not match their beliefs. I think that is one big reason why we continue to get less than one half of one percent of the vote.

There is no hypocrisy. And you are yet to prove that there is.

Keep tilting at windmills.