Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause For Freedom

[nobody's_hero]

I'm still not sure how you can just as easily maintain anarchism. I'm not talking about immediate, short term anarchism. I'm talking about how you defend against the same creeping tyranny that usurped the Constitution and the natural rights it was intended to defend.

Regardless of which form of government (or lack of) you choose, does it not still hinge upon the people to remain constantly engaged in keeping it civil?

I believe so, and government by any other name (even it if is a private law system) is still an organization which seeks to maintain order. Who would legitimize the private courts? Those who bid the highest? How is that any better than the system we have now in which the people with the connections make the rules?

 

[powerofreason]

There are things the state wants to get away with today, and can't, not because the Constitution forbids them but because people know they're unconstitutional.

I don't believe that to be true. I think people don't want troops on the streets because they know theres something wrong about that, regardless of what the Constitution says. Theres hardly anyone nowadays (besides you people) that believe in abiding by the Constitution just for the sake of it. If the government shredded the bill of rights today, would that change anything? Of course not, because its just a piece of paper. People would still demand free speech. People of course use the bill of rights to justify having certain rights but if it didn't exist people would still demand those rights anyways using different reasoning.

England does not have a written Constitution. And despite having had government in that country well before there was government in America they aren't really doing too bad relative to us. They're only a bit farther along the path to complete tyranny/control.

 

[powerofreason]

Regardless of which form of government (or lack of) you choose, does it not still hinge upon the people to remain constantly engaged in keeping it civil?

Once anarchy has been established history shows that the only thing that can really dislodge the anarchy is a foreign power or perhaps some type of popular domestic movement that led to the anarchy in the first place. In which case the anarchy is just a transitional anarchy.

 

[mport1]

I'm no fan of the Constitution anymore. A lot of people here really should read the Lysander Spooner's short book, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - available free online here.

 

[acptulsa]

People of course use the bill of rights to justify having certain rights but if it didn't exist people would still demand those rights anyways using different reasoning.

You don't know that. But I do know that there's a couple of generations older than you who were actually educated in the Constitution, and if you don't think they'll howl if the government tries to do to them what it does to you kids, you're nuts.

England does not have a written Constitution.

The hell you say. They've been doing the Constitutional Monarchy thing since the Magna Carta, child. That's like three quarters of a millenium. Been sleeping?

 

[powerofreason]

Coercive government is responsible for so much human suffering and wealth destruction that people will love the private alternatives that will spring forth from the marketplace. There's been no case of anarchy as far as I can tell that was ended by some popular movement by the people. Its always some outsider tyrant/usurper.

 

[powerofreason]

You don't know that. But I do know that there's a couple of generations older than you who were actually educated in the Constitution, and if you don't think they'll howl if the government tries to do to them what it does to you kids, you're nuts.



The hell you say. They've been doing the Constitutional Monarchy thing since the Magna Carta, child. That's like three quarters of a millenium. Been sleeping?

Where's their constitution? Show me it. Its not written down fool. Its just passed down traditions.

 

[acptulsa]

Coercive government is responsible for so much human suffering and wealth destruction that people will love the private alternatives that will spring forth from the marketplace. There's been no case of anarchy as far as I can tell that was ended by some popular movement by the people. Its always some outsider tyrant/usurper.

Lovely black and white world you live in. Now, find me a tyrant/usurper who ever, ever rose to power over a people without the slightest consent from those people--aside from invading emperors, that is. I dare you.

Where's their constitution? Show me it. Its not written down fool. Its just passed down traditions.

It still takes power from the monarch and gives it to an elected Parliament. Maybe if they had ever gotten all their traditions written down and codified they wouldn't be ahead of us on the race to tyranny, eh? Written contracts were always easier to enforce than oral contracts. Makes more sense than some of your arguments...

 

[nobody's_hero]

England does not have a written Constitution. And despite having had government in that country well before there was government in America they aren't really doing too bad relative to us. They're only a bit farther along the path to complete tyranny/control.

England also has a long history of people vying for power, even in the absence of a Constitution. As I said earlier, it is just as utopian to think that there will never be someone who seeks to exploit and enslave others in the absence of government, as it is to think that paper alone will stop the tyrants.

It all comes back to the people keeping their rulers (whether self-imposed rulers or just those who filled the void) under their thumbs. When they finally awaken and must make their case, perhaps it is not so unwise to have a written law with which to judge the wrongdoings, and to measure the extent of usurpation of the law.

 

[paulitics]

Anarchy already works. There's anarchy when you drive your car.

I don't think this is a good example of anarchy, because there are laws to keep people in check. If there aren't red lights to keep people from speeding through intersections, people will speed through intersections. Perhaps only the more reckless and thoughtless, but they still will.

Who would punish the reckless thug who runs over granny on the road? Who would decide what is just punishment? Why would the private police (I assume there would be at least this) not be subject to corruption as well? What would keep the police from truning into nothing more than a mob? What would keep the police from forming an alliance with another police force? What would keep them from forming a government (large police force) Who will stop other people in the town next to you from wanting to turn collectivist if it is their choice?

Will there be some contract to state in this area, only anarchy is allowed, or such and such consequence? Doesn't this become like the law itself?

Countless other areas of your life are examples of anarchy.

There are also countless other areas where socialism can work in a local area amongst a group of people. If it is consensual, anarchism or socialism can work. But, there would still need to be an agreement, a contract with rules in place, where there are punishments for not following anarachism or socialism. You can't have some people forming socialism and others anarchism together.

Anarchy or voluntaryism is NOT a fleeting moment thing. There would be no vacuum to fill if we had no government. That's what I think you and a lot of the other constitutionalists/minarchists aren't understanding. No government means not allowing one group the power over the rest of us.

In a perfect world, this can work. in a perfect world, socialism can work. Not allowing one group to exploit the others will happen how? How do you keep that from happening?

Besides going house to house, without a government it would be very difficult for any group to "take over".

Who says it has to be in their house? it can be a mob, a gang, anyone, while their working demanding their cut. You know, like a mob.

On the other hand, even if we somehow elected hundreds of libertarians to office, small government would quickly slip back into big government as soon as the first politician makes promises on what he will "get" for his constituents.

Yes it would eventually, but it would take time. Freedom requires a vigilant citizenry who is not naive about how the dirty filthy liars will cheat them. In other words, they have to pay attention. I don't believe anarchy is possible on a large scale, because eventually gangs, than mobs, than governments will form.

I'm a realist. You can't trust people to do the right thing, or to remain individualistic for long, if the benefits of not behaving this way are great. This is what greed is, and it will exist in anarchy just as much as in other societies. Marx didn't account for greed in the public sector. I think you guys are making the same mistake in the opposite direction.

Anarchy/voluntaryism is changing a mindset. Of course it's not an easy route, but if we do not change mindsets, we are going to have to live in this crappy socialist system for the rest of our lives .

I wish we could all live this way, but it's not possible unless human nature fundamentally changes, which won't ever happen.

 

[nobody's_hero]

You don't know that. But I do know that there's a couple of generations older than you who were actually educated in the Constitution, and if you don't think they'll howl if the government tries to do to them what it does to you kids, you're nuts.



The hell you say. They've been doing the Constitutional Monarchy thing since the Magna Carta, child. That's like three quarters of a millenium. Been sleeping?

Daniel Hannan has made the claim that England does not have a written Constitution (in the sense of one like the U.S.) several times on Freedom Watch. It does have a parliamentary system, of course. But, it is free to make practically whatever laws it sees fit.

 

[powerofreason]

Lovely black and white world you live in. Now, find me a tyrant/usurper who ever, ever rose to power over a people without the slightest consent from those people--aside from invading emperors, that is. I dare you.

Hmm. Well the Constitution started off this great thing called democracy/representative government. Guess what that led to? Hitler, for starters. If Germany were a monarchy could Hitler have seized power? Absolutely not. Refer back to that Kinsella quote I posted a few times. Sums up the evils the Constitution led to quite nicely.

Now, find me a tyrant/usurper who ever, ever rose to power over a people without the slightest consent from those people

Overwhelming military might is how anarchies are overturned. Its never with consent of the people. Find me an example that proves otherwise. I'm not sure what your point is here. But what is obvious to me is that you're almost completely unfamiliar with modern anarcho-capitalist thought. You're stuck in a false Constitutionalist/traditionalist paradigm.

 

[powerofreason]

Its funny that I always hear statists make the argument that anarchy would require a change in human nature to work. But the exact opposite is true! Look at the trail of death and destruction that governments have left just in the 20th century! What system could be worse? Certainly not a peaceful anarchy that lacks the institutionalized violence of government. Since government is the biggest criminal of all an anarchist society is just left with the small fraction of crime carried out by private criminals which can easily be dealt with in many different ways. And remember that black markets (and the inept public police who are in reality the crime cleanup crew) enable massive profits for mafias/organized crime. Without black markets crime just won't pay.

 

[acptulsa]

Hmm. Well the Constitution started off this great thing called democracy/representative government. Guess what that led to? Hitler, for starters. If Germany were a monarchy could Hitler have seized power?

So, you honestly consider Kaiser Wilhelm II an improvement?! The guy who was too insane for Bismarck to stomach?!

Go appoint yourself a king if you love monarchy so much. I'll be living somewhere else...

Overwhelming military might is how anarchies are overturned. Its never with consent of the people.

Find me an anarchy that hasn't been, and isn't about to be, overturned.

Its funny that I always hear statists make the argument that anarchy would require a change in human nature to work. But the exact opposite is true! Look at the trail of death and destruction that governments have left just in the 20th century! What system could be worse?

A mafia is worse. Power needs balancing. This is a simple, practical matter. And there are always things that are worse. Your penchant for worshipping monarchs tells me you don't understand history deeply enough to learn anything practical from it.

Google the Inquisition, son. Then learn how it was the least bad of its ilk in Europe at the time. Get a clue.

 

[paulitics]

Daniel Hannan has made the claim that England does not have a written Constitution (in the sense of one like the U.S.) several times on Freedom Watch. It does have a parliamentary system, of course. But, it is free to make practically whatever laws it sees fit.

Yep, and his whole point was that America is much harder to take down because of our constittution.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Hmm. Well the Constitution started off this great thing called democracy/representative government. Guess what that led to? Hitler, for starters. If Germany were a monarchy could Hitler have seized power? Absolutely not. Refer back to that Kinsella quote I posted a few times. Sums up the evils the Constitution led to quite nicely.

The Constitution did not create Hitler. That's about the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Hitler created Hitler, with help from millions of sheeple who wanted nothing more than to impose their will over others.

People like that exist with or without a Constitution.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Yep, and his whole point was that America is much harder to take down because of our constittution.

I'd say his point was that we at least have something to point at and say, "Look, government: You have failed at this, this, and this. You do not have the authority in the contract to do that, that, or that. The evidence against you is overwhelming."

I still agree that it isn't the fault of the Constitution, but it is a fault of the people who failed to enforce it, or use it to their advantage when their liberties were jeopardized.

 

[powerofreason]

The Constitution did not create Hitler. That's about the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Hitler created Hitler, with help from millions of sheeple who wanted nothing more than to impose their will over others.

People like that exist with or without a Constitution.

Sure, but its democracy that allows them to hoodwink the people and take over. The question is how much longer would it have taken for modern democracy to catch on if not for the Constitution.

 

[paulitics]

Its funny that I always hear statists make the argument that anarchy would require a change in human nature to work. But the exact opposite is true! Look at the trail of death and destruction that governments have left just in the 20th century! What system could be worse? Certainly not a peaceful anarchy that lacks the institutionalized violence of government. Since government is the biggest criminal of all an anarchist society is just left with the small fraction of crime carried out by private criminals which can easily be dealt with in many different ways.

Ok, in the peaceful anarchy, what makes a small fraction of crime possible?Why are you assuming this? Wy won't it not be rampant with gangs, mobs, or the private police force that becomes corrupt itself? can you intellectually prove that corruption won't exist, and that the powerful won't expolit the weak without assuming a change in human nature.
And how will the private criminals be dealt with? Who will deal with them, and how will corruption not occur?

 

[acptulsa]

Sure, but its democracy that allows them to hoodwink the people and take over. The question is how much longer would it have taken for modern democracy to catch on if not for the Constitution.

No, his question was 'how can you parlay the question above into the statement you made with a straight face--and did you expect to get away with it?'