"The Constitution was intended to expand power of the government"

[Travlyr]

HAHAHAHAH! Yet they owned slaves, how convenient.

While it wasn't right... slavery was the institutionalized norm for the times all over the world. There are many black people and women who helped establish our republic. It doesn't sound like you have studied much history.

 

[NMCB3]

Why is it you say I have no knowledge of human nature. You think there is such thing as altruists who will magically get elected by the ever intelligent majority of the masses to secure your freedom and liberty? That is about as utopian, and contrary to everything we know as is the "Socialist Man". Besides, that is a non-sequitor. The issue at hand is when you hand over the power to tax, you become a slave. A totalitarian state will always arise once this power over you is given. To think you are going to "limit" the destruction or tyranny, because you write it down and hand over any sort of mechanism to fight back (If you resist the Feds, they will kill you), is absurd. Hence, the perfect analogy of the arsonist. If you hand him the lighter you are giving him the object of destruction. Same with the Constitution.

It's why there has never been a "limited" Government that ever stay limited. Why do you try to harken back to failed systems? How about you learn from their mistakes and shun the State? Embrace voluntary governance, and reject compulsory taxation, courts, law, etc. Makes no sense to me, but I guess you like giving to your children the ultimate benefit of a tyranny.

I have to agree with you. At one time I believed in the Constitution but after much self education on the matter I now reject it and the tyrannical state it has spawned. A failed system indeed.

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

While it wasn't right... slavery was the institutionalized norm for the times all over the world. There are many black people and women who helped establish our republic. It doesn't sound like you have studied much history.

That just makes my point. If they were wrong on slavery, how much other shit did they fuck up?

Come on people, they were aristocrats from their time looking out to preserve their wealth. Sure they wanted freedom, but only for themselves.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Your ad hominem attacks reveal your inability to articulate your point. If you come here for Liberty, how does this forum fulfill that, given that you vehemently disagree with its mission and think that people who do agree with it are idiots?

I can't have a rational conversation with you because you spin everything I say like Bill O'Reilly, or Rudy Ghouliani. First off, if you could find where I attacked your character, and not your statements, then please quote that, because I can't find it. Why won't you ever argue my points? You can't have an intelligent conversation when the person you are conversing with never gives a rebuttal.

This forum fulfills it because there are other people than you Deborah who don't show a sort of blind worship to a document that was ultimately a failure (as is any which gives power to tax). You never rebut any arguments that go against your worldview, you instead block them out. Why are you so intellectually dishonest with yourself?

I like to think I am at least somewhat less dogmatic and open to reasoned objections to my worldview. I don't just mindlessly read only David Gordon, or Mises. I take the time out to read the other side, and other libertarian viewpoints like Roderick Long, Wendy McElroy, Robert LeFevre, Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Anthony de Jasay, etc.

I still don't understand how you think the majority of people will vote to keep your liberty. Where is this enlightened man?

 

[dude58677]

Your ad hominem attacks reveal your inability to articulate your point. If you come here for Liberty, how does this forum fulfill that, given that you vehemently disagree with its mission and think that people who do agree with it are idiots?

Right on.

 

[Deborah K]

Why is it you say I have no knowledge of human nature. You think there is such thing as altruists who will magically get elected by the ever intelligent majority of the masses to secure your freedom and liberty? That is about as utopian, and contrary to everything we know as is the "Socialist Man". Besides, that is a non-sequitor. The issue at hand is when you hand over the power to tax, you become a slave. A totalitarian state will always arise once this power over you is given. To think you are going to "limit" the destruction or tyranny, because you write it down and hand over any sort of mechanism to fight back (If you resist the Feds, they will kill you), is absurd. Hence, the perfect analogy of the arsonist. If you hand him the lighter you are giving him the object of destruction. Same with the Constitution.

It's why there has never been a "limited" Government that ever stay limited. Why do you try to harken back to failed systems? How about you learn from their mistakes and shun the State? Embrace voluntary governance, and reject compulsory taxation, courts, law, etc. Makes no sense to me, but I guess you like giving to your children the ultimate benefit of a tyranny.

It is pointless to debate with the likes of people who have no respect for the opinions of others. You, and others like you, think you are the ultimate authority on freedom, and in your zeal to convince yourselves that you have won the argument, you use tactics which include brow beating, insults and condescension. If your goal is to convert people to anarchy using such tactics, then I don't see how you are any different than the power structure you are so inclined to condemn.

 

[dude58677]

I didn't think you had anything intelligent to contribute.

It was intellegient. Your arguments are so stupid they aren't even worth wasting time on. I'm here to tell you off, not play one of your games which is to drag me into a endless frivolous debate.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I have to agree with you. At one time I believed in the Constitution but after much self education on the matter I now reject it and the tyrannical state it has spawned. A failed system indeed.

Congratulations. Someone with an open mind. On the nature of the State, I find Rothbard and Jasay are the two best. If you have the time I recommend reading The State by Anthony de Jasay, and The Anatomy of the State by Rothbard. (There is also Our Enemy the State by Nock, and The Law by Bastiat)

The fact of the matter is, that it is utter suicide to legally give someone the power to steal your labor (tax), and expect to "limit" it. When it (State) can call armies at his beckon, and raise gendarmes to plunder and kill you, what pray tell is your chance of liberty?

 

[Travlyr]

That just makes my point. If they were wrong on slavery, how much other shit did they fuck up?

Come on people, they were aristocrats from their time looking out to preserve their wealth. Sure they wanted freedom, but only for themselves.

It wasn't all peaches and cream for the "aristocrats" at the time.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=198876

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is pointless to debate with the likes of people who have no respect for the opinions of others. You, and others like you, think you are the ultimate authority on freedom, and in your zeal to convince yourselves that you have won the argument, you use tactics which include brow beating, insults and condescension. If your goal is to convert people to anarchy using such tactics, then I don't see how you are any different than the power structure you are so inclined to condemn.

Where have I ever brow-beat anyone? If you are going to allege things about me at least back it up with evidence. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. Again, this is the same tired tactics of Hannity, O'Reilly, Romney, etc.

I have respect for others opinions, but I will not show deference to them, and I will try and correct them when the opportunity arises. You don't even give the common courtesy of rebutting or responding to anything I say. You try and change the subject as often as the wind blows. You never respond to my questions and concerns raised. You never try and defend your position.

My goal is try to get people to think without showing some magical divine deference to tradition and "olden times". Given their circumstances, they did pretty well in crafting the Articles of Confederation. A document which a so-called limited Government activist should embrace (Not the centralization of the Constitution...). I could at least respect the Night Watchmen consistency if you defended that document, but to defend the Constitution is pretty loose.

So I ask again, are you going to actually try and refute anything I say, or are you going to try and slyly demean my character and change the subject to wherever it may go -- anywhere other than where my prose targets?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It was intellegient. Your arguments are so stupid they aren't even worth wasting time on. I'm here to tell you off, not play one of your games which is to drag me into a endless frivolous debate.

You can tell me off all day long. Maybe you missed one of these recent posts in the thread.

He posts pretty harshly, confrontationally, and maybe overconfidently on issues of legal terminology, but he's posted here in good faith for a long time.

We had an income tax before the 16th A. The 16th A, as LFOD stated, did not create a new tax.

The income tax is and always has been an indirect tax.

Is Dude58677 actually Galileo's alter-ego? Is he going to become the second biggest troll on RPF? We shall see. Live Free or Die a socialist? Don't make me laugh

This thread has 2,134 views and odds are very strong in my favor I educated someone. It probably wasn't because of my charming personality, it likely is because I showed up to the conversation with historical facts and articulated them.

 

[dude58677]

Congratulations. Someone with an open mind. On the nature of the State, I find Rothbard and Jasay are the two best. If you have the time I recommend reading The State by Anthony de Jasay, and The Anatomy of the State by Rothbard. (There is also Our Enemy the State by Nock, and The Law by Bastiat)

The fact of the matter is, that it is utter suicide to legally give someone the power to steal your labor (tax), and expect to "limit" it. When it (State) can call armies at his beckon, and raise gendarmes to plunder and kill you, what pray tell is your chance of liberty?

You might think you are helping the cause of freedom but actually you are doing the opposite because you are making arguments for the Statists on how to continue destroying the document.

If we convince the public that the Constitution meant well then more people will be willing to get into office and cut government. After that then we can talk about getting rid of the State.

 

[NMCB3]

Congratulations. Someone with an open mind. On the nature of the State, I find Roth bard and Cassy are the two best. If you have the time I recommend reading The State by Anthony DE Cassy, and The Anatomy of the State by Rothbard. (There is also Our Enemy the State by Nock, and The Law by Bastiat)

The fact of the matter is, that it is utter suicide to legally give someone the power to steal your labor (tax), and expect to "limit" it. When it (State) can call armies at his beckon, and raise gendarmes to plunder and kill you, what pray tell is your chance of liberty?

I`ve read "our enemy the state" Rothbards "the ethics of liberty" for a new liberty" Herbert Spencers "The Man Versus The State" Spooner, Mises Hazlett, Hayek, and dozens more. That is all part of my continuing education. I cant ignore the truth or sound logical reasoning, and the truth is if you believe that using force or violence against innocent people is wrong, then the state must be abolished because it is a one trick pony, violence is the only card it holds.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You might think you are helping the cause of freedom but actually you are doing the opposite because you are making arguments for the Statists on how to continue destroying the document.

If we convince the public that the Constitution meant well then more people will be willing to get into office and cut government. After that then we can talk about getting rid of the State.

Your argument is similar to the Marxist sentiment that once they get people in power, then they will cut the State. People usually don't relinquish the chains of power. It takes a special man who values liberty, self-determination, and ultimately a quiet lifestyle over the indulgence of power. Those men are few and far between. The Jeffersonians were once dominant. Even under there watch they did not cut the State, so I would imagine the same would be had under your Government. Hear me now -- I am no ones slave. Not yours. Not anyones. No one has any legitimate authority to plunder my labor.

Honestly, if you think my arguments of no compulsory government (E.g. State), give any oomph to Statists, you have never talked to any Statist. The Statists defend the Constitution. When you talk to them they use the Supremacy clause, General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, Power to Tax & Raise Armies, Post Roads, Executive powers, etc. You are defending a centralized authoritarian document....

 

[Anti Federalist]

I would have to say that your opponent may be correct. The Constitution is a tremendously flawed document when looked at in the context of sound governance pursuant to the ideals of personal liberty. To suggest that the brilliant minds of the likes of Madison and Hamilton were not aware of the problems inherent in the very structure of many of the sentences therein is to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. By no means could I call myself a Constitutional scholar, but I am aware that there was quite a lot of drama attached to the architecture of the new government and while I admire the likes of Jefferson, there are several other characters whose trustworthiness finds non-trivial question in my eyes. I believe it behooves us to view these men as human beings and not as demigods as many are so apt to do. Who is to say that there may not have been a traitor or two among even the greatest of those men - those who would craft clever loopholes in the interests of an agenda no in consonance with that of liberty, fairplay, and equal opportunity for all? Had he not been caught, would not Benedict Arnold likely be viewed through similarly rose-colored lenses today? We really must be smarter than this.

That aside, there are the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist documents, as well as voluminous other written works that exposed the framers intentions.

More to the point, who cares? Seriously, what does it matter? Why must we look to the framers for validation? I have seen some middling to better brilliance right here in this forum. What immutable law of nature denies us our voice and reason? I see none. It is readily demonstrable that freedom is the proper and natural state of human existence and that any initiation of force against the rightful actions of the individual cannot be justified under any circumstance whatsoever. It is readily demonstrable that even in America we are slaves to a mob of immoral usurpers that have no rightful claim to the authorities they presume to wield over the rest of us. The very concept of "government" is one of the most dangerous notions mankind has ever managed to vomit forth from the bowels of its most profoundly wretched members. Governance, OTOH, when set forth and administered in its properly minimal extent and in honest fashion, is a very different proposition.

The longer this charade proceeds, the more clearly I see that those wishing to be free must assert that state of existence for themselves with the unequivocal willingness to apply the held instrumentality of force in the degree and manner required to secure and maintain that state. The ONLY thing the usurpers understand is force.

Live_Free_Or_Die not trolling. He posts pretty harshly, confrontationally, and maybe overconfidently on issues of legal terminology, but he's posted here in good faith for a long time. Importantly, he's not exactly defending the income tax, so to speak. He's defending its legality on technical grounds, but he still recognizes it as extortion/theft.

Galileo, on the other hand is a bit dogmatic, and he tends to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a troll. He's called me a troll, he's called Amy a troll in this very thread, he's calling Live_Free_Or_Die a troll, and I honestly couldn't count how many honest regulars he has called a troll, simply for disagreeing with him. I'd take his opinion on who is and isn't a troll with a grain of salt.

I don't know who's actually correct on the question of the income tax's Constitutionality. I mean, it's pretty obvious that an income tax signed into law in 1861 and 1862 by Abraham Lincoln of all people is not itself strong evidence of Constitutionality, since a.) unconstitutional laws are passed all the time, and b.) this was the same guy who destroyed federalism...and I guess this is partially how he funded it. Similarly, Supreme Court decisions by themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, since the SC regularly rules in a manner totally contradictory to the text of the Constitution.

So everyone who has a problem with the Constitution is a socialist? Well excuse me all to Hell. Somebody send a memo out to Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Doug Casey, Boston T. Party and others informing them that they have been stripped of their "Party status" until further notice, and that they must report to Minitrue at 0600 hours for formal re-education.

Even when the shit piles up in a thread so quick and so deep that you need wings to stay above it, there are always nuggets of gold to be found.

Well done gentlemen.

 

[dude58677]

Your argument is similar to the Marxist sentiment that once they get people in power, then they will cut the State. People usually don't relinquish the chains of power. It takes a special man who values liberty, self-determination, and ultimately a quiet lifestyle over the indulgence of power. Those men are few and far between. The Jeffersonians were once dominant. Even under there watch they did not cut the State, so I would imagine the same would be had under your Government. Hear me now -- I am no ones slave. Not yours. Not anyones. No one has any legitimate authority to plunder my labor.

Honestly, if you think my arguments of no compulsory government (E.g. State), give any oomph to Statists, you have never talked to any Statist. The Statists defend the Constitution. When you talk to them they use the Supremacy clause, General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, Power to Tax & Raise Armies, Post Roads, Executive powers, etc. You are defending a centralized authoritarian document....

That makes sense, so what ways can we protect ourselves from the State? I know a society can function without a government such as a full free market. But as we speak there are still governments(mafia's) imposing their way on us. Ignoring a mafia isn't going to make it go away. Trying to imagine a world without it, won't make it go away. What can we do in the meantime? We're obviously not going to rely on the Bill of Rights.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That makes sense, so what ways can we protect ourselves from the State? I know a society can function without a government such as a full free market. But as we speak there are still governments(mafia's) imposing their way on us. Ignoring a mafia isn't going to make it go away. Trying to imagine a world without it, won't make it go away. What can we do in the meantime? We're obviously not going to rely on the Bill of Rights.

Simply don't follow their edicts. Civil Disobedience, Agorism, entreprenuership (developing the institutions now to replace the State), etc. The State gets its power from consent. Even if a small minority were to refuse consent it would come down pretty fast. Look at the success in New Hampshire. If you contested, and refused consent to every action by the State it would topple pretty fast. They even have to shut court down now in NH and refuse to try cases because the system is so backed up. That's one small way. Ultimately though, we have to change the "schelling point" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling_point), of society. It's going to be a long road, and our greatest successes will happen when the old generation dies off, and is replaced with the younger and newer generation who understands, and values freedom and liberty.

Sunshine patriots need not apply.

PS: Here is a great piece written by one of the all-time great thinkers -- La Boetie (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)

PPS: Geographical prominence. Those of us who love and value liberty must get together. Being spread out and severely placed in the minority is detrimental. It is for this reason I am moving to NH next year. We need all the voluntaryists, and liberty lovers, activists, etc. we can get. The more the merrier!

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That makes sense, so what ways can we protect ourselves from the State? I know a society can function without a government such as a full free market. But as we speak there are still governments(mafia's) imposing their way on us. Ignoring a mafia isn't going to make it go away. Trying to imagine a world without it, won't make it go away. What can we do in the meantime? We're obviously not going to rely on the Bill of Rights.

Your Pick:

1. Create a majority of force

2. Breed a majority of force

3. Convince a majority of force

4. Kill a majority of force

5. Comply with a majority of force

 

[Jace]

..

 

[low preference guy]

Just for the record, if anyone tries to get rid of the US Constitution, I consider that an act of war. All enemies, foreign and domestic. My knives are sharpened and my powder is dry.

That is all.

now it would be a foolish idea, but when it replaced the articles of confederation, it was a mistake. many founders warned us it would lead to a big central government, and they were right.