-4 votes

The Absurdity of Constitutionalism (from a civilian perspective)

I agree 100% with RP on the Constitution when it comes to Congress, the President, and the Judicial.
----Meaning they swore and oath and should stick to it.

However "for us" (the civilians) it is ludicrous, on the order of belief in the toothfairy, to believe that "men" (let alone women) will keep their word if it benefits them (as individuals) to break it.

It's kindergarten/sunday school type thinking.

"Well 'they' gave their word, so now I will abdicate all my self-rule over to them, so that way they can give it back to me."

We would never go to a swap meet and pay someone for a product we couldn't take with us -- not even $10.

Why would we sign over our purchasing power to a system (forget individual politicians) that has proven 100% of the time to produce a predominance of snake-in-the-grass cut-throat leaders.

[Insert Einstein's Definition of Insanity and pass me a "yard sign"]

Corporatism uses the "ballot box" to destroy your purchasing power; all politicians who destroy said purchasing power get their power by-way of election and lobbying capital -- So! How can you eliminate corporatism using a corporatist system?

You can't eliminate free-market consumer-sovereignty by practicing free-market consumer-sovereignty -- you must get people to abdicate their free-will over to the snake oil salesmen and then you destroy that market. We know this last paragraph as FACT (it's simple logic).

Yet, when we approach the destruction of corporatism we look for corporatist tools to destroy it.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why vote down a forward thinking thread?

Octobox is on to something. I think he(she?) is a truly sovereign thinker and has a lot to contribute. Don't get offended by visionary thinking. I think he understands that RP is the transition to something greater then what the founders offered.

Octo: What does the second part mean?

"You can't eliminate free-market consumer-sovereignty by practicing free-market consumer-sovereignty -- you must get people to abdicate their free-will over to the snake oil salesmen and then you destroy that market."

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Perma: Sure

Let me state the whole thing differently.

You cannot eliminate corporatism by corporatist means

You cannot eliminate free-markets by free-market means

In both cases you need the opposite to destroy either system.

Corporatism requires an abdication of consumer-will
---Voting
---Lobbying
---Forming long-run Unions
---Guard Innovation via Copyrights

Free-Markets require 100% acceptance of consumer-will
---POS Voting
---Consumer Lobbying (from producer to consumer)
---Forming short-run Unions
---Guard Innovation via Superior Ideation

#21

This was an excellent troll thread, and you support it well.

9/10. would read again.

I'm struggling with the definition of "troll"

and "troll thread"

Are you suggesting that the Founding Fathers were pleased with the document of best fit; because we know for a fact that they WERE NOT pleased with it and before it was "dry" they are circumventing it or ignoring it entirely.

The "spirit" of the document was that all men are created equal -- that's it. That all men are protected in the persuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

There has not been ONE politician that has observed a 100% Constitutional voting record (save a couple).

None of that matters because never ONCE in all human history as Voting (circumvention of consumer-will) and Lobbying (bribery).

Further, the title of the post is "from a civilian perspective" -- I'm a civilian and this was my perspective.

One that is backed up by Mises', Spooner, Rothbard, and even RP himself.

So -- my question. What's up doc?

No, I doubt you're struggling with the concept of the term

"troll" at all. I think you are quite aware of what you're doing, and there's no fault in it really. You patrol your thread very well, and keep making the same circular arguments in defense of your deliberately abrasive thread title.

Look at how many responses it got! I think you probably got a hold of some select libertarian writings, went with it, and made this troll thread, maybe out of boredom, idk. But the tenacity of your policing your thread is just another indicator of the troll-level, which is quite high. 9/10 is a high rating!

Onward: I made this post to "chat" -- I thought this was a blog

The title is a reflection shared by the Founders, by Mises, by Rothbard, by Lysander Spooner -- I am not sure that my "annonymous" username on a blog I've frequented for over 3 years is a nefarious plot -- but yeah.

I was listening to talk radio today (something I rarely do over the last 2 years) but the host was talking about absolutist phrases meant to silence people, such as: "You racist" - "You sexist" - "You Truther"

I would add to this "You Troll" and "Troll-Level" (as if it's been codefied)

The point of your pejorative is to silence -- that's how you are using it as your tone does not suggest an invitation to further dialogue nor are you using civility with your candor.

Also -- "policing" -- I'm not preventing people from speaking nor am I creating rules or having people deleted.

You,however, are name calling. This goes against DP Posting Guidelines, "I think"

Thanks,

But no thanks,

I'll follow Ron Paul.

SirFelix: Your pronouncement implies you were asked

to join or purchase something and your conclusion suggests that the RP-approach to Liberty (to vote and lobby) is the only way.

The title has the phrase "...from a civilian perspective"

How would you address the following.

Corporatism uses the "ballot box" to destroy your purchasing power; all politicians who destroy said purchasing power get their power by-way of election and lobbying capital -- So! How can you eliminate corporatism using a corporatist system?

ok, dude, please learn the meaning of "legal fiction"

and then perhaps, just perhaps, you can try to understand what a central bank and a corporation are composed of.

good luck!

I asked Sir Felix

Your "answer" is a side-show.

A central bank and a corporation are born from an abdication (or un-clear understanding) of individualism.

I do not respond to "dude" -- we are not buddies.

Good luck to you.

You again....

I'm not wasting any more time telling you how you are wrong. Instead, I'll ask you a question to see if we can get to the root of your problems...

What is the Constitution?

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

A Corporation Charter

A Contract to which only those who signed are bound
A Bond to repay the United States Debts Lasting 70 years upon those men who signed at the State
Conventions (the Constitutors)
A Bankruptcy reorganization
A Trust
A Constitution to govern a province of Rome
A Negotiable Instument
The Charter for a debt collection agency
An agreement between King George III and The State Citizens
A Charter to establish an "independent" debt collection outpost of City of London
A betrayal of The American Revolution
The best deal anyone ever cut with the King of England and The Bankers

The Great Grandfather of today's evil spawn the foreign owned corporation known as U.S. Government

An uninhabited jurisdiction completely abandoned in 1913.

The Oracle

The Grand Prize goes to you, Oracle.

You should do a similar rant about Our Founding Fathers nonsens.
Example I've seen on History Channel a program about spirits(alcohol spirits). Our Great Founding Father George Washington lead 3 times bigger army than he lead in Revolutionary War to collect taxes on Whiskey producers in order to pay the Revolutionary War debts. In the process of collection many Whiskey producers went bankrupt. Three years after that incident George Washington became the biggest whiskey producer in The Union.
I say: Founding Fathers my a**.

Just The Facts!

I just told it like it is!
The Constitution For The United States of America is all of the things I listed. It is a far better deal than most Americans have now, but it is nothing to fall down and worship.

The Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen Colonies. Now that is something to get excited about.

And yes George Washington rode out on his horse floating on 3'3" of water which had flooded the lands of Pennslyvannia thus granting Admiralty Jurisdiction to the Army? Huh?
The Post Office mail boxes also "float" on 3'3" of water. They are little Naval Vessels!

Their Constitution is great to study but it is their Constitution not ours, never was, never will be.

The Oracle

I hear you and second you,

I hear you and second you, brother.
I guess people who need Constitutions ( derived from the word constitutor-debtor) or leaders (our founding fathers or others) dont know who they are.
I dont need to hang on on those artificial ideas, symbols or models. I know who I am and know my sovereignity by heart and I am working toward the ability to fully express it. And I get there sooner or later.

TJ: I guess that is the difference between you and I

The Constitution is an attempt at correcting / preventing future errors in reasoning based on the natural inner war of men.

The War, wherein ALL-people act (in predominance) on Collectivist Solutions to Self-Interest -OR- Individualist Solutions toward Self-Interest.

Put a different way: Will people collectivize to regain perceived losses or Will people better-self (allow for mistakes to occur) to regain loss of rational decision making.

One looks to losses in economic-value in the long-run, demanding that the "sting" be put off on future generations or "other" people (slavery - reservationism - broken treaties - land theft - war profiteering -- Founders) while the other allows the sting to be felt on their own heads (as individuals) and looks to spare the innocent.

The latter "leader" (or groups of leaders) have never been seen in all European recorded History and obviously never in America. Sure individual leaders (like Ron Paul) but they do not have the power to overcome the short-run fearing collectivists who IF are given a model that allows for interpritation and grants the power to defer grief they must chose "deferred suffering" (based on self-interest and the interest of their highest bribers - lobbyists).

The Constitution "attempts" (on the surface) to eliminate this defect, but since NO ONE can be "held" by a piece of paper or oath in a system that has Voting and Lobbying (grief deferring powers) then THAT document is useless.

If we view the LOT of American Indians and Blacks as the LOT of individuals (ourselves) then we have not fared too well under the Constitution. If we as collectivists view their LOT as unfortunate yet not our own then the Constitution is the greatest document ever written.

The Founder were deeply disappointed in the Constitution, it was the best they could all agree on and before the ink dried they were ignoring it's spirit.

It is an emotionally charged document, it is not rational or concise. It is flowery and written for "legacy" not for liberty (clearly) -- a document does not take nor grant liberty (men acting on their highest self-interest with no power to monopolize nor group other than consumer to indentify are the ones who attain it).

My answer: "What is the Constitution?" It's a piece of paper

That hasn't been followed since the day it was signed. Remember the 1789 firefighting equipment?
Basically it's a dream. It's the official national myth.

you mean its sorta like money?!

*

As well as

A valid "legal system". Go to court today and you will learn the validity of the constitution. The very reason the Supreme Court has not ruled on the definition of "The Pursuit of happiness", else we would not be bound by victimless crimes and local municipalities wouldn't have their sacred cows imprisoning their citizens for profit.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Well...

1. The Constitution is not a piece of paper as I have a piece of paper in front of me and it is not a Constitution. I also see a copy of the constitution in front me electronically so wrong again.

2. It's not a dream as I'm pretty sure I'm awake right now and am still looking at it. Yep. Still there.

3. Myth? Well, I concede that by definition it might be a myth but it does exist in our physical world so...

Let me rephrase the question...

"What is the Constitution supposed to be?"

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Much better question

I'll leave that one to Octobox.
"The" Constitution is certainly a piece of paper though--I've seen it in the Capital Building rotunda. Without that piece of paper, no electronic copies would be possible.

The Constitution is an Agreement

That was written on a piece of paper, and from there was written on many pieces of paper, and has since then been typed onto a computer to be stored digitally on many databases.

It is an agreement, between the people who wrote it, as to how a U.S. Federal Government would be run. It is a contract.

Just because people break contracts does not mean they should not be made. Oaths are alright, but like Christ said, "Let your word be your word." (or something like that, basically saying, "Don't swear to God, just be true in your word - always.").

Look at all the Facebook trials, should we stop all private contracts simply because they can be/are broken from time-to-time. Should we stop making agreements because some people go back on their word? Or should we use the courts to hold people to their word and respect the contracts/agreements they made?

Do not worship the Constitution. As it says, our rights come from God, not from a Contract. But don't disregard it just because others do. It is the best agreement for Government that has ever been written (save for Charter 8, which has yet to be ratified - and that is soundly based on our Constitution and the improvements we've made to it).

Wake up!

Jack Wagner

IMO

The constitution is the law of the land, and without law we cannot have society.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Jersey: We have "society" yes, but not a free-society

according to Paul - Mises - Rothbard.

There has never been a free-society in all human history (nor were we ever close to it -- if "we" includes all people).

So -- A good question. Since "society" has always had laws and especially supreme laws can laws conform mans mind toward a free-society or does man seek circumvention around laws which begets more laws?

I'm inclined (at glancing all civilized history) to think the "begeting" principle is true -- men love loopholes to laws.

There has never been a "society" with no laws or where individuals hold the laws over themselves without coercion (self-rule).

Self-Rule = Free-Society
---right?

LOL

Society existed before law did I can guarantee you that!

Not any kind of real society

Not any kind of real society that I have heard of. Even the Roman's had law. You need some form of law to have a society. Even the Mayan had some form of law I'm sure. It may not have been written, but law dosen't have to be written when it's understood.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

I think you are confusing society and empires

Just a thought...

I know bigger is better.

I think you are

I think you are misunderstanding the word society which has nothing to do with who rules who. A society is a group of people living together. The Romans were a republic originally, a society ruled by law which made them great. Same concept in the US during it's creation. You're more then welcome to show me a society that did not use law (understoodl or written). The mayans were also a society that lived and worked together. Without some form of law naturally understood or otherwise men would kill rape and pillage each other without worry.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

So I see you got my point

"A society is a group of people living together" And you are asking me to name a group of people that lived together with out laws. Really? Thats the point I am trying to make. Its a chicken or an egg thing. You are claiming society can't exists with out laws. I am saying laws came about because of societies. Of course in your mind you win the argument because alas I can't name the societies in prehistoric times. But just b/c one group can't be named doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also there should be a distinction made here that there is a difference between rules and laws. Laws cannot be made with out a state. Rules can be made by private individuals.