No, this is how it is now interpreted. And back then, there were no income taxes.
Yet, there were forced taxes -- forcibly taking the property of people when they trade alcohol is no more moral than taking part of their income.
If you wish to restore the Constitutional republic, and you have a better way to fund the limited gov't that will be necessary, then by all means enlighten us.
I wish to restore the constitutional republic, because it is far better than what we've now got (even though it does still condone some theft).
I think all organizations and individuals should be funded by voluntary transactions. That would include user fees, donations, trade, work salaries, etc.
Perhaps this is where an an-cap system can best be applied. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed per say to minarchy, voluntarism, an-cap, etc. I just don't believe man's nature is all of the sudden going to change because of it.
As you note, we're going to need to change the way people are currently thinking and behaving if we're going to get a constitutional republic, a voluntaryist society -- or even just a bit more liberty. I think helping people change their views and behaviors is what both of us are working to do.
We fixed the discrimination through the constitutional process.
What I was saying is that nowhere near a majority approved of the constitution. It's really not an important point, though, since majority opinion doesn't determine what's right or wrong anyway.
Government morphs into the same thing. I contend that an an-cap society would do the same thing based on the historical fact that people will be sheeple and man's nature dictates the desire to dominate.
If man's nature is as hopeless as you say, a stable constitutional republic is impossible too. I think people's opinions about certain things can be changed. Many people are sheeple -- but herds of sheep do change direction, if enough individual sheep do.
Those who won freedom from the British were people too, after all, and we are made of the same stuff.
Please. I don't want to debate the merits or lack thereof of one system over another. I think I've already made the point ad nauseam that my issue is not with the system it's with how to contend with man's nature.
I agree that the problem is public consensus as to what is moral and immoral. I believe, however, that this can be changed. Society has made great strides towards freedom in the past, and we can do it again.
I am tired of the blanket statements that equate to: If you are a constitutionalist you are a statist and therefore can't consider yourself a Christian. Give me a freakin break.
I certainly would not say this, and do not believe this. I'm just being honest about my moral beliefs, that taking property by force is wrong.
A person fighting to restore constitutional limitations is a person fighting for more freedom, and I consider them an ally. We don't have to decide whether we're going to Boston or NY to know we're both heading east from Los Angeles.
I certainly would not presume to say what opinions a Christian may hold. Most great Christians I know do not share my political beliefs. Many of them, actually, don't think of politics that much at all, or consider it important. My parents, are an example (they're missionaries). Frankly, I think what they're doing is more important than what I'm doing. I have to pursue the causes that are on my heart, however, and working to end what I see as a major injustice of our time is important to me.
Of course, personally, since I believe all morality comes from God, and I believe taking property in this way is morally wrong, I believe it is not God's will.
