Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause For Freedom

[Theocrat]

Government and Markets Are Not Equal

Ron Paul is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Considering that 99.8% of the House of Reps and 100% of the Senate are statists, I think it is time to examine the reasons for that. I do not believe that individuals in government don't understand their limits, but just choose to ignore them, since they face no punishment for doing so.

I agree. Congressman Paul is the exception in Congress. He is the only federal legislator who understands the proper role of civil government in our country. That is the whole point of my argument. If we had more Ron Pauls in our federal government, we would have a pretty good federal government.

Why should government be analyzed less critically than any other institution?

You're making the assumption that civil government is the same type of institution as a company or firm in a market. They are not the same. The government is not in the business of competing for services. It is a different institution altogether, and it's one that is endowed with executing judgment and justice upon evildoers in society as a ministry of God. Markets are something totally different, being based on competition by means of supply and demand.

Those that "live by the sinful lusts of their hearts" tend to be the ones that enter politics, and as we've seen, they don't obey the social contract.

Granted. However, that only shows that human hearts must be reformed or transformed before a person can rightly be fit for a seat in government. John Adams' quote bears repeating here:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Again, sinful megalomaniacs tend to be more attracted to politics than any market profession. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't eliminate but increases the civil judicial restraints by allowing competition in that field.

I disagree with that because there are plenty of business owners in government in the past and presently whose hearts are sinfully megalomaniac when it comes to economic issues. Also, justice is not a "market commodity." It is not made valuable based on supply and demand. It is a different kind of service because it deals with objective truths about law, morality, and property which supersede mere market forces.

 

[powerofreason]

Repeat after me. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. However, I do agree with you that a piece of paper is not going to solve our problems alone.

Guess who else believed that?

Vladimir Lenin
Adolf Hitler
Pol-Pot
Chairman Mao
Stalin
Mussolini

They too believed that the people are the problem. Don't blame the victims, blame the oppressors!

 

[powerofreason]

Civilization comes through private ownership of property. To the extent that property rights are violated civilization breaks down more and more. Government is the NUMBER ONE violator of property rights on the planet. Government = Chaos, Anarchy = best possible situation.

The more government, the less order.

The less government, the more order.

No government = the most possible order under the circumstances.

 

[Brassmouth]

Guess who else believed that?

Vladimir Lenin
Adolf Hitler
Pol-Pot
Chairman Mao
Stalin
Mussolini

They too believed that the people are the problem. Don't blame the victims, blame the oppressors!

Save your fingers. I made that exact same point to Theo just a week or two ago. The guy doesn't learn, nor does he want to. He refuses to read any literature about the subjects he vehemently opposes. He has shut himself off from reality, and despises the truth.

Honestly, I don't know why he bothers coming here if he hates the truth so much.

 

[powerofreason]

Every single service that the government "provides" can be, and has been, provided by private individuals and companies. Coercive monopolies on law are an absolute disaster. The government inevitably grants more and more power to itself until there is complete tyranny and control. Minimal government has been tried under the best possible circumstances and has been proven to be a total failure. Its time to move on. There is no minimal government utopia.

 

[powerofreason]

Save your fingers. I made that exact same point to Theo just a week or two ago. The guy doesn't learn, nor does he want to. He refuses to read any literature about the subjects he vehemently opposes. He has shut himself off from reality, and despises the truth.

Honestly, I don't know why he bothers coming here if he hates the truth so much.

Well, hopefully others can read and learn as well. I know he is a lost cause. Its because he can't reconcile his religion with anarchy (although there are of course Christian anarchists). Thats why he won't entertain thoughts of conversion to the rational consistency of anarcho-capitalism.

 

[Dr.3D]

Honestly, I don't know why he bothers coming here if he hates the truth so much.

I'm pretty sure he comes here for the same reason I and most of the people on these forums do. We adhere to the ideology of restoring the republic. One can not have a constitutional republic unless there is a constitution.

 

[Brassmouth]

Well, hopefully others can read and learn as well. I know he is a lost cause. Its because he can't reconcile his religion with anarchy (although there are of course Christian anarchists). Thats why he won't entertain thoughts of conversion to the rational consistency of anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, that's my rationale as well.

 

[South Park Fan]

I agree. Congressman Paul is the exception in Congress. He is the only federal legislator who understands the proper role of civil government in our country. That is the whole point of my argument. If we had more Ron Pauls in our federal government, we would have a pretty good federal government.

And if I had wheels, I'd be a wagon.

You're making the assumption that civil government is the same type of institution as a company or firm in a market. They are not the same. The government is not in the business of competing for services. It is a different institution altogether, and it's one that is endowed with executing judgment and justice upon evildoers in society as a ministry of God. Markets are something totally different, being based on competition by means of supply and demand.

Circular argument.

Granted. However, that only shows that human hearts must be reformed or transformed before a person can rightly be fit for a seat in government. John Adams' quote bears repeating here:

And who is going to enforce that?

 

[South Park Fan]

Well, hopefully others can read and learn as well. I know he is a lost cause. Its because he can't reconcile his religion with anarchy (although there are of course Christian anarchists). Thats why he won't entertain thoughts of conversion to the rational consistency of anarcho-capitalism.

Agreed. We should remember that we were all minarchists at one point, too.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Obviously anyone who's looked at American history for the past 200 years can see that the Constitution hasn't done anything to constrain the government, since they just ignore it. The only way to effectively constrain government in the long-term is to abolish it.

Anyone who has looked at 10,000 years of human history can see that government (or more accurately, organizations of humans) always exists in some form. It's just a matter of size and scale. For the individual, the smaller the better. For the rulers, the larger the better.

 

[powerofreason]

Anyone who has looked at 10,000 years of human history can see that government (or more accurately, organizations of humans) always exists in some form. It's just a matter of size and scale. For the individual, the smaller the better. For the rulers, the larger the better.

Thats actually not true. There are at least a few solid historical examples of anarchist societies. And even if that weren't true that doesn't give you moral cover to endorse the existence of a monster organization. Even a baby monster organization, which will of course grow up to be a full grown monster one day.

And, I've actually noticed that blaming tyrannical governments on the citizens is like blaming a wife who is beaten constantly for not being able to control her husband. Remember, democracy only provides the ILLUSION of control by the people. Long term, the result is always the same. TYRANNY.

 

[PaulaGem]

So what would you "worship".... the Magna Carta?

 

[CCTelander]

Your sentiments above go back to what I've said about the importance of human hearts being the focus of our failure, not the institution of the civil government itself. Blaming the Constitution on the failures of our country is like blaming spoons for obese people being fat.

While I agree that human nature is at the core of the issue, that doesn't let "the institution of government" or the constitution off the hook.

Your own scriptures paint "the institution of government" in a very dismal light. See I Samuel Chapter 8, Verses 4-18 as an example, to wit:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also.

Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

I notice that your bible's God characterizes the desire for a human government as a rejection of his authority. Furthermore, while I've read the bible numerous times, I can't recall a single instance wherein God or Christ EVER characterized human government in a favorable manner.

Seems to me, as a Christian, you ought to OPPOSE human government, not embrace it.

As to the constitution, its adoption amounted to little more than a Federalist coup d'etat. While the Federalists didn't get everything they wanted, they certainly got enough to make the constitution a charter for virtually unlimited government. Why so many who claim to love liberty support it is beyond me. Maybe they've never actually read it?

 

[CCTelander]

It ain't about Constitution worship. It's about the principle of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. It is about rule based on principle rather than arbitrary views. Without the rule of law we have no basis for a civilized existence. I'm not talking about "law and order". I am talking about government that is constrained by the law and for us the Constitution is the law of the land. Without that all you have is expediency and the will of those in power.

"The rule of law" is the usual rallying cry of authoritarians. Law is nothing more than an opinion with a gun behind it, at least whenever coercive government of any kind is involved.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're awesome, CCT! You're like the "anti-Theocrat" of RPFs! ~hugs~

I wish there were more like you here.

While I agree that human nature is at the core of the issue, that doesn't let "the institution of government" or the constitution off the hook.

Your own scriptures paint "the institution of government" in a very dismal light. See I Samuel Chapter 8, Verses 4-18 as an example, to wit:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also.

Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

I notice that your bible's God characterizes the desire for a human government as a rejection of his authority. Furthermore, while I've read the bible numerous times, I can't recall a single instance wherein God or Christ EVER characterized human government in a favorable manner.

Seems to me, as a Christian, you ought to OPPOSE human government, not embrace it.

As to the constitution, its adoption amounted to little more than a Federalist coup d'etat. While the Federalists didn't get everything they wanted, they certainly got enough to make the constitution a charter for virtually unlimited government. Why so many who claim to love liberty support it is beyond me. Maybe they've never actually read it?

 

[CCTelander]

You're awesome, CCT! You're like the "anti-Theocrat" of RPFs! ~hugs~

I wish there were more like you here.

Hey, thanks! I do what I can!

I actually understand, I think, where Theo is at. I was raised in a fundamentalist home and had a lot of the same hang-ups with anarcho-capitalism that many of the minarchists here seem to have. Eventually though I got better!

 

[nobody's_hero]

I can say it no better than the man himself:

Thomas Jefferson: A Simple and Inexpensive Government


During the summer of 1800, the Republicans gathered their forces in an attempt to obtain the presidency for Thomas Jefferson. Though Jefferson did not campaign in the modern sense of the term, he did write many letters to friends and to newspaper editors, defending himself against the attacks of the Federalists. When Gideon Granger of Connecticut wrote to him that there would be some support for the Republican cause in that Federalist stronghold, Jefferson's reply of August 13, 1800, restated the main points of his political creed. In the portion of the letter reprinted here, he stressed his belief in strong state governments and in a weak federal government. In his understanding of the Constitution, "a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants" summed up the only way to avoid the distortion the document had undergone at the hands of Washington and Adams.

I received with great pleasure your favor of June 4, and am much comforted by the appearance of a change of opinion in your state; for though we may obtain, and I believe shall obtain, a majority in the legislature of the United States, attached to the preservation of the federal Constitution, according to its obvious principles and those on which it was known to be received; attached equally to the preservation to the states of those rights unquestionably remaining with them; friends to the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, and to economical government; opposed to standing armies, paper systems, war, and all connection, other than commerce, with any foreign nation; in short, a majority firm in all those principles which we have espoused, and the Federalists have opposed uniformly, still, should the whole body of New England continue in opposition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. It can never be harmonious and solid while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution, to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchise that.

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants, at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. And I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the United States (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the state governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government), it would become the most corrupt government on the earth. You have seen the practices by which the public servants have been able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, delusions by which they have varnished it for the eye of their constituents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office building, and office hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the general government!

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very unexpensive one--a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants. But, I repeat that this simple and economical mode of government can never be secured if the New England States continue to support the contrary system. I rejoice, therefore, in every appearance of their returning to those principles which I had always imagined to be almost innate in them.

In this state, a few persons were deluded by the X. Y. Z. duperies. You saw the effect of it in our last congressional representatives, chosen under their influence. This experiment on their credulity is now seen into, and our next representation will be as republican as it has heretofore been. On the whole, we hope that, by a part of the Union having held on to the principles of the Constitution, time has been given to the states to recover from the temporary frenzy into which they had been decoyed, to rally round the Constitution, and to rescue it from the destruction with which it had been threatened even at their own hands. [emphasis mine]

http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116899

"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802.

 

[Objectivist]

Ideas are bulletproof and I'll wear that vest.

 

[Cowlesy]

Everyone take a deep breath....

Read this...
+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to relational which often result in disruption, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

and continue.

Signed,
The Referee