I'm done making excuses for the State

[CCTelander]

And you advocate no better option.

He advocates a MUCH better option. Your obdurate refusal to recognize and acknowledge this in no way detracts from its factual nature.

 

[CCTelander]

The Founding Fathers implemented quite a bit of tyranny. It was not just later generations.

Exactly. The idealized version of early America that most CONstitutionalists believe in is hopelessly naive and uninformed.

 

[Travlyr]

Exactly. The idealized version of early America that most CONstitutionalists believe in is hopelessly naive and uninformed.

You mean the U.S. Constitution that does not authorize a police state, and says assassinations are illegal, real money is legal tender, and wars must be approved by congress. That Constitution? Certainly, as many have pointed out it is not perfect. But when we get enough people to enforce the rule of law upon the rulers of our day, then Americans (indeed people around the world) can once again enjoy, liberty, peace, and prosperity. We are presently nearing critical mass. It is too bad that we must fight the oligarchy, the media, and people who like to claim the "moral highroad."

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Actually that is the whole point. The governments that killed 260 million people in the 20th century did not get Constitutional authority to do it. They used media lies and propaganda to control societies and war profiteer. The powers-that-be consider themselves above the law. Anarchy.

This is why so many of us are working daily to return society back to the rule of law. We are working hard to stop their immoral shenanigans.

"If we could only get people to just defend the damn Constitution!" - Travylr

"If we could only get people to just defend the damn NAP!" - Ancaps

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Now what does that mean.

Defend the Constitution from what? How?

Defend the NAP from what? How?



Which one is more likely to be sustainable?
Which one allows for more liberty? Who interprets the Constitution? Who interprets the NAP?
How are they funded under each system? Who do they claim authority over?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

The powers-that-be consider themselves above the law. Anarchy.

You've got it exactly backwards:

 

[Travlyr]

"If we could only get people to just defend the damn Constitution!" - Travylr

I never said that. Where the hell did you get that quote? You just make shit up and put my name on it? ... no respect.

Enforcing Constitutional rule of law is a much easier challenge than destroying the State.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Actually, it isn't. "The state", like institutionalized slavery, is an idea. It's a pattern of interactions, not a beast that must be "destroyed".

The constitution, on the other hand, must constantly be defended from agents of the state (or people who act in the name of the concept of the state), who want to act outside of it while also interpreting it's meaning.

To "destroy" the state, it needs to be de-legitimized in the minds of people who believe it to be just.

To uphold the constitution, against the state, it must be legitimized... to the state.


I think it was pretty obvious I was summarizing to point out that both sides require the same thing. The US was founded on constitutionalism and it's a part of the national culture and we're still seeing blatant disregard. Are you implying that constitutionalism can exist without people to defend it?

 

[Travlyr]

Actually, it isn't. "The state", like institutionalized slavery, is an idea. It's a pattern of interactions, not a beast that must be "destroyed".

The constitution, on the other hand, must constantly be defended from agents of the state (or people who act in the name of the concept of the state), who want to act outside of it while also interpreting it's meaning.

To "destroy" the state, it needs to be de-legitimized in the minds of people who believe it to be just.

To uphold the constitution, against the state, it must be legitimized... to the state.


I think it was pretty obvious I was summarizing to point out that both sides require the same thing. The US was founded on constitutionalism and it's a part of the national culture and we're still seeing blatant disregard. Are you implying that constitutionalism can exist without people to defend it?

Not at all. I pointed out earlier that constitutional rule of law was respected and even revered by people as recently as 100 years ago. The powers-that-be had all the advantages at the time through secrecy and control of media, education, and the political process. They lost that advantage at the start of the 21st century. The Internet is the truth machine.

The Constitution was followed fairly strictly prior to 1860. From then up until about 1930 it was not as closely followed, yet it still was the basis for rule of law. Cases in point: Senators were chosen by State legislatures; WWI was a declared war; Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; Gold & Silver was fully redeemable, etc. Certainly it wasn't followed to a T, but mostly the population revered the Constitution as the law of the land.

Shortly after 1913 the international bankers, who plotted against the American people, performed a clever peaceful coup d'état against the United States government with their propaganda and trickery. On Sunday, the weekend before Christmas 1913 with 1/3 of Congress already on vacation, congress performed massive compromises between the House & Senate versions of the bill and barely passed it into law. President Wilson was taken by surprise and was not going to sign it, but they forced his hand on December 23, 1913 and the American people gave the bankers a fine Christmas present which would haunt their grandchildren and great-grandchildren 100 years later.

The American Constitution was officially and effectively subverted with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Once the bankers had control, they shortly thereafter ousted all Senators and Representatives who voted against them and installed their own puppets. Then the international oligarchy set out to build an empire by taking over the media outlets, educational institutions, enslaving the world deeply in debt, and warring on the world to advance their mercantilism for profit and control.

I also pointed out that it is counterfeiting that enslaves people, and that counterfeiting is the source of the police state and aggressive violence.

It is not Wilson, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Hamilton who are to blame for our woes. They have all since passed on. Nothing is perfect in our world, but America was the land of opportunity for many people for generations ... a refuge from tyranny abroad.

Counterfeiting is what enslaves. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 undermined the rule of law, and it legitimized the power to counterfeit for a small group of bankers who understood that mixing money with force is power.

Counterfeiters are also at the heart of violence. The only way a counterfeiter can stay in power is to jail or kill competition because if anyone and everyone is allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's counterfeit money is any good. Since a counterfeiter's monopoly is required to maintain power, then police are required to ferret out any competition ... hence the aggressive initiation of force.

When the power to create money out-of-nothing is taken from the powers-in-charge, then the wars end, people become liberated, and prosperity ensues for the people.

Ron Paul points that out too. See sig.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Ron Paul points that out too. See sig.

You know what else Ron Paul said?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written." Ron Paul, End the Fed

Ron: Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander....
but... and his point is very well taken.
Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.

The Internet is the truth machine.

Yeah, but it doesn't work if you disregard ideas on grounds that they are 'heretical' to constitutionalism.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

 

[Czolgosz]

Your and my freedom will *always* require an adequate defense from those who strip us of it. Welcome to Humanity.

The U.S. Constitution is/was an advancement in freedom for the individual. I think it a worthwhile endeavor to restore it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Your and my freedom will *always* require an adequate defense from those who strip us of it. Welcome to Humanity.

The U.S. Constitution is/was an advancement in freedom for the individual. I think it a worthwhile endeavor to restore it.

I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing against what you're saying.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing against what you're saying.

Exactly... we just want to take that line of thought further and advocate advancing individual freedom beyond it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You've yet to address my claim regarding the objectivity of individual sovereignty. Further, if everything is relative, then none of these philosophies are worth haggling over, nor is Ron Paul's campaign worth working for. If nothing matters, then... nothing matters. Who cares? Shut up.

There you go. If you don't like what people say, just tell them to shut up. By the way, I have addressed your claim. The fact that you are sovereign over yourself doesn't make it morally right for others to respect that sovereignty. That is an arbitrary standard that you employ. By the way, I have never said there is no such thing as morality. I have said that you can't say one thing is moral and another isn't, if you don't have an objective source or arbitrator. Facts don't determine morality.

Really?

Yes, really. What's so bad about institutionalizing violence if people are violent anyway? Who's to say that the institution doesn't prevent more violence than it creates? What makes you think the people in control of the institution are so much worse than others?

I guess it's pointless to debate with you, because even though I've already stated that I don't think that people would be less violent in an anarchist society than they are in a society with a state, you keep portraying that as my position. Perhaps you'd be interested in debating with this guy, instead:

You're against violence, but apparently you have no problem insulting someone's intelligence. Another arbitrary moral standard.

Anarchism isn't a form of government, and doesn't claim to prevent violence... it just doesn't institutionalize it.

What's so great about not institutionalizing violence?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Uh, no. You did.

This is pointless...

I have a hard time believing the point wasn't still valid. Everyone is greedy and immoral, not just those in control of the government. Saying statists advocate violence is just as valid as saying anarchists advocate violence, since violence would occur under both systems, and a monopoly on violence would also occur under both systems. However, I see your game. You're simply trying to avoid a debate by saying your time is better spent elsewhere. What a great way to avoid getting cornered by logic.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You might ask the QUARTER BILLION or so innocent people killed by government during the 20th Century alone, but you might have trouble getting a response.

All the "private" violence throughout history doesn't amount to a drop in that bucket.

So that's what this is all about. Some governments have been violent in the past, therefore all governments are inherently violent. Good argument.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Sorry Trav but I'm not in any kind of mood to dance around with you. You're obviously not ready to face the fact that the position you advocate is morally inferior to the positions of those advocating a stateless society. Maybe you'll come around in time. Many of us have come from positions similar to your own. Time will tell.

The point of my previous post was simply this: While "private" violence certainly is something we should do our best to minimize, it can never hold a candle to the violence committed by governments. In fact, violence on a MASSIVE scale is pretty much the ONLY thing governments are good at.

I just love it when people act like their view is "morally superior." I'll ask you again: according to whose moral standards?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He advocates a MUCH better option. Your obdurate refusal to recognize and acknowledge this in no way detracts from its factual nature.

I'm sorry, but do you not realize that this is not based on facts? Everything we are talking about here is philosophical conjecture. Your view is not factual, and your claim to the contrary does not make it so. If it were based on facts, we would have examples of stateless societies.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

The Constitution was followed fairly strictly prior to 1860. From then up until about 1930 it was not as closely followed, yet it still was the basis for rule of law. Cases in point: Senators were chosen by State legislatures; WWI was a declared war; Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; Gold & Silver was fully redeemable, etc. Certainly it wasn't followed to a T, but mostly the population revered the Constitution as the law of the land.

Shortly after 1913 the international bankers, who plotted against the American people, performed a clever peaceful coup d'état against the United States government with their propaganda and trickery. On Sunday, the weekend before Christmas 1913 with 1/3 of Congress already on vacation, congress performed massive compromises between the House & Senate versions of the bill and barely passed it into law. President Wilson was taken by surprise and was not going to sign it, but they forced his hand on December 23, 1913 and the American people gave the bankers a fine Christmas present which would haunt their grandchildren and great-grandchildren 100 years later.

The American Constitution was officially and effectively subverted with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Once the bankers had control, they shortly thereafter ousted all Senators and Representatives who voted against them and installed their own puppets. Then the international oligarchy set out to build an empire by taking over the media outlets, educational institutions, enslaving the world deeply in debt, and warring on the world to advance their mercantilism for profit and control.

The Founding Fathers create a Central Bank immediately after the Constitution was created, and we had two Central Banks up until 1937. We almost immediately had the Sedition Act, and other unlawful government restrictions on our rights as individuals. The Constitution was never followed. It has been violated since day one.