Is the Constitution a failed experiment?

LibertyEagle said:
However, if one looks back to the Founders' writings about the issues and also the language of the day, it's pretty easy to see what they intended.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the interpretation changes depending on which Founder you read. If you read Hamilton, having a Central Bank is ok.
 
"Is the Constitution a failed experiment?"

An absolute and unqualified "yes," if answered from the perspective of an individual desiring real freedom.

On the other hand, an absolute and unqualified "no," if answered from the perspective of those, like the Federalists and their ideological heirs in power, who want(ed) yet another mercantilist system of plunder with themselves at the top of the food chain.
 
"Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much... more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Lysander Spooner "NO TREASON NO. VI., THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY"
 
brandon said:
"Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much... more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Lysander Spooner "NO TREASON NO. VI., THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY"
Click to expand...

Since the Constitution is not a contract that binds nobody, then everybody has liberty. No one has to pay taxes. There is no drug war. Etc.

The only people not free are those who don't want to be free.
 
CCTelander said:
"Is the Constitution a failed experiment?"

An absolute and unqualified "yes," if answered from the perspective of an individual desiring real freedom.

On the other hand, an absolute and unqualified "no," if answered from the perspective of those, like the Federalists and their ideological heirs in power, who want(ed) yet another mercantilist system of plunder with themselves at the top of the food chain.
Click to expand...

No US Constitution means chaos, anarchy and poverty. Just take a look at Haiti, Mexico, or South America.
 
South Park Fan said:
To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, the Constitution either permits the form of government we have today or is powerless to stop it.
Click to expand...

With all respect to Spooner, this is not necessarily so, bearing in mind that any constitution is only as good as those responsible for living by it. A perfect constitution is a meaningless conceptual construct if nobody abides by it. Likewise, a formal conceptual tyranny is equally meaningless under the same conditions.
 
awake said:
The Constitution is a contract between the people and their government
Click to expand...

Dead wrong. If it is a contract at all, it is one between all the individuals. It serves us not well to maintain false notions about conceptual constructs such as "government" that imply actually extant entities. In practice, so-called "government" is just a set of individuals performing certain agreed-upon functions in ostensible service to all the individuals, including themselves. In order to be legitimate, those functions must map to an element in the conceptual structure called "government" and must comply with specifications that have been established for it. That is what legitimate government amounts to in practice, and that is almost universally what we do not have.

On the whole, people have not even the most remote idea what "government" really is. Their false notions lead them to all manner of erroneous inferences and conclusions about what it is, its purpose, and the limits of its legitimate powers. These ill-begotten notions are rampant even here amongst this set of rather intelligent and interested people. This is bad news, folks. Very bad.

Because of the nature of language and thought and the influences they have on each other and upon how we act, it behooves us to begin at the beginning and make the effort to clean up our habits in order that we may think and act with less error, with greater precision, greater truth, and hopefully greater and better effect. Going back to basics is rarely attractive, and whether you choose to is your choice to make. But I warn you that until you begin the task of deconstructing your ways of thinking and outwardly expressing yourselves - what you say and how - you will remain trapped in these seemingly innocuous modes of flawed thought, speech, and action and will never be able to attain what might otherwise be - the greater truth - the better result.

That said, I question the "contract theory" because at least one element of contracts is missing, and if ANY element constituting a contract is missing, no contract exists. The missing element is mutual consent between all the parties. Without consent, there is no contract. That is why statements that are signed under duress are invalid, whether or not courts so find. We are not asked whether we consent to the provisions of the constitution or law. We are, therefore, not under contractual agreement to observe them. Yet we are forced to, which violates blanket notions of non-aggression.

, a very potent one at that. But what you have today is that both parties are failing to observe the terms in pursuit of progressiveness.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by this.

The liberty movement wishes to observe the terms of this contract in the literal sense of the words written. The people having the time of their lives looting and murdering their fellow man for lust of power do not want to go back.
Click to expand...
This is the age old saw. That is why, at the bottom of it all, we must reserve our physical means of asserting our legitimate positions in favor of liberty. That invariably means weapons and the willingness to use them if circumstance calls for it. The reductio ad absurdum here is, of course, a pure feudalism. Not a likely outcome, but results uncomfortably similar to it are readily possible. This is why the Golden Rule is so absolutely critical to the establishment and maintenance of optimum personal liberty. Without this, we are done for. Lost. Worse than dead.


If there isn't enough people who wish to uphold the contract, then indeed it becomes just "a g@d damned piece of paper".
Click to expand...
Precisely so, though "contract" could as easily be replaced with "principle", which I believe is a better term. "Law" would also apply, but carries with it too many bad connotations of the tyrant's capricious will.
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
"Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much... more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Lysander Spooner "NO TREASON NO. VI., THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY"
Click to expand...

Your points are on the money, thereby further underscoring and supporting my assertion taht "government" is a fiction with no material reality of its own to speak of. That, of course, has not stopped one mob of human beings from assuming the lable and mantle of "government" and forcing the rest to do as they bid, as you put it, at the end of the bayonet.
 
Galileo Galilei said:
No US Constitution means chaos, anarchy and poverty. Just take a look at Haiti, Mexico, or South America.
Click to expand...

You reasoning is absurdly nonsequitur. For thousands of year people lived in order and harmony without a written constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
No Matter Who Wins the November Election, Zionists Will Control the White House
Replies
2
Views
304
unknown
unknown
PAF
Timely Lessons About Tyranny from the Father of the Constitution
Replies
0
Views
432
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
"Our Enemy, the State" [Mises Institute Supporters Summit 2024]
Replies
16
Views
5K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
America Has Only Two Religions: Democrat and Republican
Replies
0
Views
488
PAF
PAF
Brian4Liberty
A Marxist Professor’s (Failed) Attempt to Explain How Socialism Would Deliver a PS5
Replies
3
Views
974
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Back
Top