Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause For Freedom

[heavenlyboy34]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.[/quote]

Theo, this is so wrong, it's just laughable. Thank you for entertaining me with your blatant foolishness! You're like a simple caricature of a person-incapable of understanding a concept that has been explained to you numerous times by numerous members (and backed by voluminous literature). I wonder how long it took you to learn to sound so consistently foolish? You almost put GWB to shame! lolz!

 

[puppetmaster]

Either the Constitution is responsible for our current situation today or has failed to stop it, I might point out.

The constitution is a document. Only man can choose to use it or ignore it. Only man can deface it or defend it. I choose to defend it.

The problem is not in the constitution, The current problem rests solely on the back of Americans. America has allowed this to happen with the lack of resilience in supporting this document..

 

[t0rnado]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

Anarchy is tyranny? Right and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

The form of anarchy that includes no government. You can have a libertarian society without government. If foreign countries threaten you, then you can go fight them, but you can't force others to pay for your battles. Justice would be determined by the owner of the property on which a "crime" was committed. That's self-governance and self-responsibility. If you need the government to help solve your problems, then you're condoning tyranny. Once you use force to decide what is and isn't "good" for society, you promote authoritarianism.

 

[Theocrat]

Anarchy is Still Weak

You can't be serious. Anarcho-capitalism is merely self-government taken to its logical conclusion. If one has the right to self-government, then logically he has the right to choose not to be governed.

Tell me once again what force is imposed to those who do not choose to be self-governed in anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism only deals with production of goods and services in society (without governmental influence), not changing the sinful hearts of wicked men.

 

[CCTelander]

No Constitutionalist worships the Constitution. We value it because it restrains the jurisdiction of our federal government by giving it necessary but enumerated powers.

Exactly how has the constitution restrained the federal government? Seems to me that it hasn't been able to restrain much of anything. Which makes perfect sense in reality, since ink on paper aren't really capable of doing much of anything.

 

[CCTelander]

the constitution was a secretive power grab which illegally overthrew the articles of confederation and established a strong federal government. Shortly after the constitution was in place the federal government started rolling out statist authoritarian laws, such as the alien and sedition act. It's just gotten worse since.

qft

 

[South Park Fan]

Tell me once again what force is imposed to those who do not choose to be self-governed in anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism only deals with production of goods and services in society (without governmental influence), not changing the sinful hearts of wicked men.

If people choose not to be self-governed, that is their choice. However, they have no right to make that choice for others. (BTW, nice to see that you backtracked on anarchy infringing on self-government, since you are now arguing that people might not like self-government)

 

[Theocrat]

The Internal is At Stake

Exactly how has the constitution restrained the federal government? Seems to me that it hasn't been able to restrain much of anything. Which makes perfect sense in reality, since ink on paper aren't really capable of doing much of anything.

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.

 

[BillyDkid]

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.

 

[CCTelander]

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.

No, the problem IS "the institution of government." Always has been, always will be. Giving certain people, no matter how "good" or "righteous" they may be, power over other people NEVER works out well for those other people.

Not that we've cleared that up, let me just add that our current federal government is behaving in accordance with the principles which you hold dear--anarchy. It is not submissive to any final government or law (i.e. its constituents and the Constitution), it makes its own rules without the intrusion of an outside authority, and it does as it pleases without restraint, whether it takes property from citizens or grants rights to others that it feels deserves rights.

No, all levels of government are acting EXACTLY the way governments always act. Not in accordance with any principles of anarchy, but simply like the gang of thugs writ large that they actually are.

 

[Theocrat]

Anarchy Opens the Wound

If people choose not to be self-governed, that is their choice. However, they have no right to make that choice for others. (BTW, nice to see that you backtracked on anarchy infringing on self-government, since you are now arguing that people might not like self-government)

Anarchy is not going to stop people who themselves refuse to be self-governed from governing the lives of others, even without their permission. You say they have no right to do that, but so what? That is simply your opinion, and it's not going to stop a mob in anarchy from taking over the health and wealth of other people if their lusts and greed lead them to do so.

I only use self-government as a thorn in the flesh of anarchy apologists because it shows how anarchy provides no means of making self-government a necessary ethic for the freedom of any society. Anarchy only leaves each man to do that which is right in his own eyes. There is no self-government in that.

 

[CCTelander]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.[/quote]

Theo, this is so wrong, it's just laughable. Thank you for entertaining me with your blatant foolishness! You're like a simple caricature of a person-incapable of understanding a concept that has been explained to you numerous times by numerous members (and backed by voluminous literature). I wonder how long it took you to learn to sound so consistently foolish? You almost put GWB to shame! lolz!

Sorry HB34 but I have to disagree with you here. Theo can at least construct a sentence that can be read and understood, no matter how wrong its contents actually are. He's a cut or two above GWB in that regard, at least as far as I've seen.

As for his inability to understand the concept of anarcho-capitalism, well, you're pretty much right on in that regard.

 

[South Park Fan]

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.

Well, as someone else in this thread already said, either the Constitution permits all of the abuses we have today or it has no power to stop it. Either way, it's useless.

Civil government is the problem, because even if one focuses merely on the utilitarian aspect of it, most good people will go into respectable professions in the market, so this leaves most of the bad people to go into politics, thus insuring the perpetual growth of government. If one gets rid of civil government, then the problem goes away, and bad people are forced to either change their ways or live in poverty.

 

[South Park Fan]

Anarchy is not going to stop people who themselves refuse to be self-governed from governing the lives of others, even without their permission. You say they have no right to do that, but so what? That is simply your opinion, and it's not going to stop a mob in anarchy from taking over the health and wealth of other people if their lusts and greed lead them to do so.

And the government hasn't taken over the health and wealth of people now? Basically, even your worst-case scenario for anarcho-capitalism is essentially no different than having a government. Thus, we have nothing to lose by advocating it.

I only use self-government as a thorn in the flesh of anarchy apologists because it shows how anarchy provides no means of making self-government a necessary ethic for the freedom of any society. Anarchy only leaves each man to do that which is right in his own eyes. There is no self-government in that.

So, establishing a coercive monopoly over certain services IS the path to self-government?

 

[Theocrat]

What BillyDkid Said

Well, as someone else in this thread already said, either the Constitution permits all of the abuses we have today or it has no power to stop it. Either way, it's useless.

Civil government is the problem, because even if one focuses merely on the utilitarian aspect of it, most good people will go into respectable professions in the market, so this leaves most of the bad people to go into politics, thus insuring the perpetual growth of government. If one gets rid of civil government, then the problem goes away, and bad people are forced to either change their ways or live in poverty.

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.

That sums up what your post left out, South Park Fan.

 

[Theocrat]

You Keep Missing the Point

And the government hasn't taken over the health and wealth of people now? Basically, even your worst-case scenario for anarcho-capitalism is essentially no different than having a government. Thus, we have nothing to lose by advocating it.

It has done those things, but that is because the individuals who are involved in the seats of government do not understand the limits of their Constitutional authority. Once again, it's not the government that is at fault here. It's the people. If it really were the fault of government itself, then there would be no Ron Paul in Congress.

So, establishing a coercive monopoly over certain services IS the path to self-government?

I reject the term "coercive monopoly" because it presupposes that civil government is no different an entity than a market household or firm. I do not believe that.

Self-government is necessary to good government, not the other way around. Because there will always be men who live by the sinful lusts of their hearts, we will always need civil governments. Period. To remove that civil judicial restraint (as in an anarchy) is to allow sinful megalomaniacs in a society free reign to exploit the masses by their own desires and intents, whether it's by market forces or not.

 

[South Park Fan]

It ain't about Constitution worship. It's about the principle of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men.

Anarcho-capitalists are not opposed to the rule of law. We just oppose the monopolization of law. In fact, having a state, which by its very existance is above the law, is a perversion of the rule of law. Only by having laws apply to everyone can you have the rule of law.

It is about rule based on principle rather than arbitrary views.

How can there by rule based on principle when the state is permitted to steal but individuals are not? That sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

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.
.

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.

 

[South Park Fan]

It has done those things, but that is because the individuals who are involved in the seats of government do not understand the limits of their Constitutional authority. Once again, it's not the government that is at fault here. It's the people. If it really were the fault of government itself, then there would be no Ron Paul in Congress.

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 reject the term "coercive monopoly" because it presupposes that civil government is no different an entity than a market household or firm. I do not believe that.

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

Self-government is necessary to good government, not the other way around. Because there will always be men who live by the sinful lusts of their hearts, we will always need civil governments.

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.

To remove that civil judicial restraint (as in an anarchy) is to allow sinful megalomaniacs in a society free reign to exploit the masses by their own desires and intents, whether it's by market forces or not.

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.

 

[carla8478]

As I have looked through this thread I have become exhausted. I have also observed that there is much work to be done. I have seen many arguments with much articulation and extended vocabulary words. Arguments in which many of the authors attempt to portray themselves as experts.

Well, I do not claim to be an expert, but I do know this. Before making an argument you must know your subject. You must have knowledge of principles to base your argument upon. Read and study the constitution, read the Federalist Papers, study the history that brought about our form of government. Then, when you can come from a position of in depth knowledge, then present your argument.

For example I saw one post espousing the evils of democracy and how maybe our Founding Fathers should have just decided to keep a monarchy. Just for whoever wrote that, the Founding Fathers established a republic, not a democracy. One of our problems has been that very few people today realize we were suppose to have a republic. Acting as a democracy is causing some of our problems. But the Founding Fathers did not set it up this way. They are not to blame for this.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

+1776

It took this long for the rule of law to come up...