OK, I've started and immediately came to the old Sam Adams quote:
I'm on page one and it may take me 41.3 years to finish, as I read slowly, but I thought I would point out for the sake of conversation and perhaps some clarity that an equally true version of that quote could go like this:
The latter is precisely what Theye and their useful idiots have been doing. Lately, BLM and Antifa come to mind, along with the rest of the "leftist" progressive weaklings who have been praying to the god of tyranny their entire lives. They may be despicable for their cowardice, ignorance, and blind avarice, but we must give credit even unto such creatures when they show virtue, however little and misapplied it may be: they get out there and ACT. They act abhorrently, but they act, which is a whole lot more than most of the rest of us do. And that is why they stand a good chance of leading those for whom they serve as useful idiots to eventual victory over the vast remainder. It's a sad thought, but there you have it. Those who would lord over you are winning in a big way as the rest of us sit idly, moaning about it while doing nothing of substance to stop it.
Humans.
Update:
Because when they violate, we sit idly by and allow it. Words have come to mean nearly nothing in terms of acting as levers against official political vermin. Nor, in the absence of such effect, do we lynch them from street lamps. Therefore, there are no effective consequences for their felonious acts. Given this, what incentive have Theye to behave in accord with the Constitution? Answer: there is none and so here we find ourselves. No rocket surgery there.
Update:
Ooooo... in a world of better men, I might agree, but not in this one. The mean human being is not in fact a human being but a mere simulacrum - a beast in human clothing. He is imbued through deep marination with what I have come to call
The Four Necessities, which abbreviate to the convenient acronym "FAIL": Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, Lassitude.
Not to piss on your Constitutional parade, but the document is a cluster copulation of semantic and structural insufficiency. It was written for FREE men and not for those of lesser cloth. Sadly, America is now people with a strong majority of the latter and very few of the former. I might argue that America is a land with vanishingly few free men, but that's another discussion entirely.
The average man is a beast whose mental orientation comports strongly with Bastiat's quote on page 1. That is observable truth that no man of honesty and integrity may credibly deny, barring brain lesions or some other deep organic cognitive impairment. Because of this, a constitution, if we must insist on having such a document for free men - the apparent necessity of which, I will point out, pretty well proves my assertions about the nature of mean humanity - it must be far better conceived and executed than that under which we currently suffer, and I mean
suffer.
As I have mentioned in this forum more than once in the past, I wrote such a constitution about 30 years ago as an academic exercise to see whether I could do it. I could and I did and it vastly outstrips what we now have in terms of structure, semantic clarity, and overall utility in terms of the reasons for which such a document ostensibly is contrived: the protection and guaranty of the rights of free men against the predations, violations, and other trespasses of their fellows.
And in so doing, my contrivances taught me a lesson I shall never forsake: no document can protect a man, for it is naught but words on paper. Without the rightful mind, a man is just another beast, immune to the higher reasoning of men, and uncaring that it is so. The righteously free man has little to no protection against the mob of mean men who, regardless of intentions good or nefarious, would strip a man of his innate freedoms and feed him to the wolves for no other reason than he has asserted his valid claims to life in apparent violation of the broader and perhaps even tacit edict that he "share" that which is rightly his with his "brothers".
We live in a world lousy with mental decay and filth where the majority is quite content to see men with guns vent their rage upon those who serve as reminders to that majority of just how less-than they are; what cowards; what grasping children; what ignorants; what loafers. The mean man hates the superior man precisely because the latter serves as the sorest reminder to the former of just what a low and vile creature is; something less than quite human.
In case you were wondering about my own Frankenstein's Monster, my constitution was constructed of two parts which I called the Nucleus and the Orbit. The Nucleus was immutable, containing the principles of proper human relations and the various derivatives used as the basis of authority. It would include a dictionary of all terms used therein, as well as the ENTIRE body of Law (note the capitalization, vis-a-vis "law"), which was VERY small. It included the fundamental criteria that must be satisfied in order to determine whether an act is a crime. Because none of those things can conceivably change with time and circumstance, they are sacrosanct and immutable. This, of course, would lead many to freak out because they are not free men, but something else. A truly free man accepts the risks of freedom, which can be high - even terminally so. Lesser men, whom I call Weakmen, seek to hedge their bets by placing constraints and other limitations and exceptions upon actual, proper human freedom. The worst of the beasts are those who most closely simulate Freemen and therefore hold the unearned credibility of the Freeman and are thereby so often successful in gaining the acceptance of their corruptions of the landscape of true liberty by the vast legions of Weakmen. THAT is the precise reason for declaring the Nucleus untouchable, because men will by small degrees alter what is immutably correct to better serve their corrupted ends.
The Orbit contained all that was of a changeable nature, with the proviso that nothing therein could in any way violate the protections of the Nucleus, any such violation being null, void, without force of Law, and authorizing any Freeman to take any steps he deems fit to protect himself from trespass by anyone attempting to foist or otherwise enforce such invalid mandates upon him, up to and including killing every individual so acting against him.
Orbital law, or "statute" as I would prefer to label it for the purposes of distinguishing it from Law, might treat things of a privileged nature such as the formation of corporations, again were we to insist on continuing to employ such legal fictions. The way I see it, if one seeks to enjoy some special privilege, and I strongly question the validity of such things, they may also be required to toe a line concomitant with such. If, for example, you choose the protections of the "corporate veil", you may be required to waive certain other basic rights under what might be very specific circumstances, such as the prima facie case of criminal negligence such that your corporate right to privacy is thereby annulled by order of a judge, whose ass would be on the line in the case he were to issue such an order without valid basis.
Under my constitution, "government" would quake in its boots in minute by minute fashion at the very thought of violating the sovereign rights of Freemen with treble sentencing and damages compared with the same crimes committed by non-governmental individuals. There would be no qualified immunities for anyone, at any time, for any reason. You violate, you face the music, circumstance notwithstanding such as "we were at war". If you want to presume to govern, you bear all the attendant risks. That alone would keep "government" tiny. It would keep corruption low because ANY many would be empowered to hold any government official accountable, with the understanding that any false charge brought against a government official would earn one the same treble penalties.
Yes sir, under my constitution, the nation would be a far quieter and more prosperous place, all the while those committing violations of trespass upon their fellows being held their feet to the fire. Conditions would be such that it would so deeply behoove all men to adopt a posture of great caution and circumspection where his treatment of others was concerned. Mannerliness would rapidly become abidingly fashionable and most men would not dare bring injury of any palpable form to his fellows.
That constitution and the social order it would engender might succeed because I believe there are enough people of such cloth to make it so, but there are no guarantees. It could go all wildly wrong, but those are the risks one must accept if he is serious about breaking free from the bonds of
pretty slavery, which is the worst form of that vile institution and the one into which Americans appear to be so hopelessly locked.
Update:
Actually, it is. By all appearances, it is indefinitely sustainable so long as certain conditions hold.
