-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.

Lol thankfully this tread

Lol thankfully this tread will die soon. You still do not understand. Rules and laws are different. Rules are in places like libraries where they are arbitray things. Laws are agreements between people as to what can't be done to keep order so people weren't killin each other at will with no repercussion. But you are stuck on your kind of logic as am I so agree to disagree and glad this silly thread will have no more support from me.

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: Excellent Point

All Dead Societies had Laws.

All Law-based societies (according to RP) died from currency value destruction (currency monopolies).

Currency Monopolies require many laws.

Open Competition in Currency Market require "no laws?"

We've never had a free-society or open competition in the currency market; because of laws, right?

Laws (beget) Monopoly Positions

I'm not religious by the Bible says (paraphrase) "If man observes the One-Law he is free, If he ignores the One-Law he will created 10,000 upon 10,000 laws"

So what's the "one-law?" in pragmatic and rational terms.

I don't think currency

I don't think currency monopolies need many laws. Just one. A single entity controls the currency. I believe our country would still be a great one if congress had kept it's duty to coin money and punished any counterfeiting. Gold and silver would be legal tender and valued by supply and demand. I'm not religious either so I don't take bible passages to seriously as they don't reflect men's desires as much as it states what men should do.

The point is without law you will have violations of natural law. Murder, rape genocide, and more would be considerd an everyday accurance.

And noticing your "constitution" There is no judicial authority anywhere? So who decides who is in the wrong? If someone murders another, how are they held accountable? Also the more complicated cases where no one but the parties involved know what happened..who is to decipher the guilty party from the other?

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

Jeresy: Currency Monopolies always have many laws

because they are a "monopoly".

Before we say we "can" make a free-market functioning monopoly (in the long-run) what does RP advocate?

He advocates for "competition" in the Currency Market
---According to countless articles he's written, I encourage you to investigate this.

If you trust me that he has said this then lets ask "why" -- why do we want competition (non-monopoly) in the currency market?

Because it most drastically reduces the cost of currency transactions and thus can meet the pace of a purely competitive "free-market" -- it is perfectly reative (owing to non-regulation) to a non-regulated consumer market.

Monopolies (in the long-run) are places where the wealthy congregate to guarantee profitability.

In a free-society in the long-run the poor and middle class own everything. The rich become borrowers and the poor savers.

When there is perfect competition there is low profitability in the long-run (save for innovation); thus in a perfectly competitive currency market the poor and middle class own the currency because they are the "savers" (investors).

The Rich seek short-run gains (short run borrowing and short run ownership) -- onces the fast paced burst-profits are gone (meaning pure competition catches back up to the innovation -- zero barriers to entry) then the rich jump to the next start-up or innovation.

What is true in the market is true in the currency market -- all things must be "free to fail" in all markets if you want a free-market, smile.

I am

a libertarian at heart. I would be much pleased with a self governing system. However, I am also very confident that a truely constitutionally restrained federal government would not infringe on our personal liberties. A government which only duties were that of article 1 section 8 as originally intended would not be able to grant special privilages to group or companies. An income tax would be uncontitutional. Companies would have to succeed or fail on their own, and nothing would stand in the way of competition. No subsidies to benefit some at the cost of others.

My point being that a constitutional republic would not be very far off from a libertarian society except that one group would be elected occassionally to support national defense mainly. Every sector, education, police, and infrastucture could be maintained by private corporations competeting for the best and cheapest service. Freedom of choice would rein.

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: I get you. I agree with you, but let me make a

distinction here.

I was talking about constitutional-ism -- I've written a minarchist constitution for aiding in transition below (see links just below my last sentence).


Can you explain the difference. I was speaking of a belief in the constitution and restrained govt by it. isn't that was constitutionalism is?

Also to assume that your constitution cannot be abused as the current one has, seems kind of ignorant. Some of the brightest mind came up with the constitution.

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: Sure

Constitutionalism (like any "ism") leads to fanatical conformity or fanatical detachment.

The latter is every day (from then to now) -- before the ink was dry, every single politician ignored that document from then 'till now (fanatical detachment).

The former are those today who believe that the document should or would have sway over men (many in the Tea Party and RP Community).

The Founders were "detached" -- The document was the lind of best fit given all the variations on it each individual "Founder" would of wanted it. None of them were satisfied with what they ended up with -- they rushed it, IMO.

The -ism (conformity or detachment) is fanatical in either case. In one it is an abdication of self-rule and the other a distancing from basic ethics regarding the swearing of oaths.

I do not believe "oaths" should be sworn by imperfect people. Especially not leaders who ONLY represent Wealthy / Land Owning WASP men during the period of Slavery and Reservationism.

The Constitution I wrote requires no "oaths" -- It removes the possibility of oath-breaking by stating emphatically what the limitations are. The document itself should disolve naturally; meaning within in it is a viral-theory that dissolves the need for Gov't. I do beleive that there needs to be a prepatory transition before that type of "plan" can be implemented.

RP's transition (or the basic idea of it) would be a good starting point -- I'm working on a write up of that.

Mr. Octobox, I really wish you would read and understand,,,,

,,,the whole Constitution before you attack it as the source of the current world's problems, especially the part about a well regulated militia, who are supposed to enforce the Constitution.

The reason the country is having major problems right now, is because the militia of the several states was disbanded years ago, according to Dr. Edwin Vieira a Constitutional Lawyer.

We all know and agree that the laws of the Constitution are not being followed,,,but did you know that Constitutional Law was supposed to be enforced in each town and village in the country and Washington D.C. by the well regulated militia?

Here is a link to an 8 part series concerning a well regulated militia:


Why do you think the militia is put down by the MSM?

Because they and quite possibly they alone could make government officials accountable for abuses and scorn of the Supreme Law of the Land, that has given us our bill of rights, and at the same time put guide lines on all politicians who abuse their power.


Just Octobox -- No need to get "formal"

I support the militia -- In fact you could call my Consumer-Sovereignty argument (it's Mises' argument really) a "Consumer-Militia argument."

We cannot hold 535 people accountable if we first "abdicate" our self-rule over to them so they can make the "representative" vote; while, we know (FOR A FACT) that lobbyist are dangling carrots and whispering alternate courses of action.

Beesting -- You should of read the OP Thread before you launched your "counter" offense.

Because you misinterprited it -- You missed the "spirit" of it.

As a Self-Ruled and Self-Styled Individualist it is my responsibility to monitor my Individualism; not a man or not men I do not know at all.

The "heart" of my message is -- "If we abdicate our self-rule over to a single man, who then gains the collective power of all his supporters, how then can I expect him to self-destruct by seeking my right to individualism?"

Also, you missed the whole opening where I agree with RP and his fight to get those bastards to keep to their oath; and he should.

However, he has been 100% un-able to do that and no one has ever in all human history (referring to the impossibility of getting a man who has attained abdicated authority to self-destruct by seeking individualism for all) -- it's just never happened once in all human history.

[Insert Einstein's definition of Insanity]

You know what else has never

You know what else has never happened once in all of human history? (As if ANYONE knows all of human history) A society successfully self-ruled by individuals.

People are not inherently good. They are opportunistic. For thousands of years we have evolved under the sole guidance of survival of the fittest. Those same people that corrupt our system of a constitutional republic are the same ones (and a lot more) that would take advantage of others if left to police themselves. So while I may agree with you idealistically, pragmatically it is impossible to achieve.

The Constitution is the best practical blueprint for the type of individualism that you are describing. WE are the problem with the Constitution. WE do not defend it. WE no longer enforce it as we've been dumbed down on a large scale and don't even understand it anymore.

P.S. I heart you. While I do get a little heated from time to time I do apologize if I have ever offended you. I enjoy debates and agree with you more than I let on.

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.

TJ: You know exactly what I mean by "knowing"

human history -- let's not become absolutists when we debate.

To be clear I'm saying in the study of the different eras and forms of rule (Empires, Monarchies, Mercantilism, the Industrial Capitalists, the Socialists, the Communists, the Militant Dictators, and Kingdoms) we've never seen a non-force-agency model -- save Tribal Anarchy as seen in the Americas, parts of Asia Minor, and pre-Arab / Pharoah Africa.

However, none of those "Tribal Anarchies" (meaning no over-arching gov't ruling the lands the tribes lived on or quelled fueds between tribes) -- none of them, had a highly developed society in the way the world views it now and in the way we've grown dependent. The ones that came close died out, pre-colonial contact. None of them had one gov't to rule the whole nation, which is the model the world is trying to make work.

The Constitution is NOT the best practical blueprint -- it's what the founders finally agreed upon and most of them were highly disatisfied by it. Most of them ignored the obvious intent and the less obvious spirit of it before the ink even dried.

I think the Founders more than anything else we've done would be most suprised that we are still holding on to it, than we ignore their debates and letters against it.

We keep it because it is the best document to NEVER allow free-markets to rain and can only evolve into a fascist society (corporatism -- or Crony Capitalism).

It's not that we no longer enforce it -- It was NEVER enforced.

I agree with you 100%; we've never seen a society successfully self-ruled by individuals.

You cannot have individualism if there is an opportunity for force-agency collectivism (voting - lobbying or abdication and bribery).

To assume local gov't would not grow is a mis interpretation of

what government is.

You can either be tricked into attaching the constitution to government and accepting that everybody will become moral in order to advance local and state government over Federal Government, or you can attach the constitution to a free marketplace and as an individual you can invest in your own ideas as opposed to others.

The only government should be the self.

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

Well said

What Anarchists Don't Realize

John Adams once said,

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

There are certain prerequisites which are necessary for a constitutional republic to be successful. It begins with the moral/spiritual nature of the people. If the people are not, first, self-governed by a saving relationship to their Creator (Who is the only legitimate Authority for the derivation of life, liberty, and property), then the republic will reflect that by electing immoral persons to office.

As long as men are sinful, there will always be a need for civil governments to restrain those who will not be civil in society. After all, civil governments exist to punish evildoers, not righteous people. When those in the seats of government begin to interfere with the rights of otherwise good citizens, then those people need to be thrown out of office. Our Founders understood this, and they enumerated powers and even separated the powers of our republican form of government to ensure too much power wasn't given to one person (due to the temptation of our hearts to crave more power). It's just that the people have become ignorant and/or lazy about the history and nature of our republic and how it's supposed to function.

It is the individuals in office which control whether civil government will be good or evil, not the institution itself. A gun, for example, can be used to murder someone, and it often is used that way. But it makes no sense to outlaw all guns just because of its misuse by some. Yet, many anarchists will argue by that reasoning when it comes to the civil magistrate, and it is fallacious and unnecessary.

I'm sorry, but our republic was meant to be ruled by law, not human whims and lust. Yet, when people turn away from God and live for themselves, that is what the consequence will be in society. People will no longer look to an authoritative source for right behavior (such as a political constitution in matters of civics), and they will take their own values for granted as the source of truth and right behavior. Ironically, that is what anarchy itself leads to.

Our federal government is a prime example of what anarchy looks like because those elected therein will not be ruled by a supreme authority, that is, the Constitution. Anarchy teaches that it is right to not have any rulers above one's self. So, why then do anarchists complain when our federal government, or even worse, the Federal Reserve, acts in its own interests without the authority of the people?

Once again, the people must be moral and religious (in the Christian sense) in order for our government to function in the way it was designed. Unfortunately, many on this very forum will be contributing factors to the continuing failure of our republic by their own autonomy and sinful behavior. A free market nor arbitrary voluntary associations are not the solution to our problems when men's hearts are already in rebellion towards their Maker.

There is no absurdity of constitutionalism. The absurdity is in the wishful thinking of anarchists that a society of no government will be beneficial to all. Human nature will simply not allow it. Anything that will make an anarchy free will keep a constitutional republic limited in its powers.

Theonomist: I think you've raised some good points

Once again, the people must be moral and religious (in the Christian sense) in order for our government to function in the way it was designed.

Moral -- yes!
Christian -- no!
Religious -- no!

Remember the Founders were Christian and a Christian Nation justified Slavery and Reservationism.
----I would argue that Moses and Jesus fought against not in favor of these two abominations.

Our federal government is a prime example of what anarchy looks like because those elected therein will not be ruled by a supreme authority, that is, the Constitution.

#1 I argue for Indvidualism -- though by definition "Anarchy" means "No Authority" which means Individualism.

#2 Our Gov't is an "authority" and therefore cannot be an "anarchy" (no authority). Our Gov't obeys the Banking Clan and Corporate/Union Lobbies.

A free market nor arbitrary voluntary associations are not the solution to our problems when men's hearts are already in rebellion towards their Maker

Men's "hearts" are living under tyranny and oppression and tax slavery. You cannot expect them to seek out "God" when they cannot properly be men in their own home nor over their own possessions.

A "free-market" and "voluntary" associations are EXACTLY what Jesus taught.
----"know ye not that ye are Gods"
----"..the kingdom of God is within you"
----"..be still and know that I Am God"

I don't see in those quotes a Christ who wants us to bow before men or organization -- do you?

Men believe one-by-one (at their own pace) and they are thus "saved" one-by-one (when they are receptive).

We can't expect a Collectivizing Gov't, Collectivizing Educational and Job Creation System to produce men of "Anarchy" (no authority) or Individualism -- instead we have emasculated men who are catty, whiny, and in-decisive.

I'm afraid your understanding of Gov't is as off as your understanding of Christ -- this can be fixed individually.

The Anarchist you describe is a derivative of a socialist system

as opposed to Anarchy in a free market system which would carry different phsychological incentives. You assume that the delegation of resources to a body of government creates a medium for productive growth when the role of the government does no more than assume the responsibility of appropriating resources within the marketplace. Allowing the government to intervene at a local level with markets creates monopolies no matter which way you cut it. You assume that brio-regionalism wouldn’t exist because anarchists would just do as they feel with no repercussion, as if a community could not effectively eliminate unwanted crime in a free market. Whether somebody is Christian, Buddhist, Tao, Atheist, Agnostic, it does not matter what their moral code is, it matters what conditions exist for that moral code to develop… and with government, somebody else will represent your morals

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

This post explains perfectly

This post explains perfectly why Dr. Paul is the "reluctant politician". When you asked "if the country were free, would you be listening to AJ?" in your post below, you are also pointing out the other side of the proverbial coin... that Dr. Paul would just as soon be living his life as a family man in a truly free country than schlepping around the District of Criminals.

He knows that the only way to achieve this is through education, that education equates to knowledge, and that knowledge can be powerful when put into action. This is the key to putting the power back into the hands of the individual.

Thank you Paul_S and Permaculture (et al)

for saying the same thing as I in unique and varied manner.

We must work the same logic over and over again -- coming up with varied ways of saying it so we can reach the greatest number of minds.

I love to hear the philosophy I believe in come back at me from a new angle.

Innovating the Idealtional Machine is as important as the Innovation itself.

Imagine if Shakespere spent all his time creatively arguing for Consumer-Individualism, Localism, and Urban Farming.

Back at ya!


Free includes debt-free!

Government is a market, it is a market for power...

to delegate the responsibility of the marketplace to a third party. Government even at the State level may function at a faster pace than the Federal Government however it is still delegating the responsibilities of the marketplace to local governance.
The only way to have a free market is to delegate the responsibility of the marketplace to the individual, leaving the dollar votes to account for the responsibility of the marketplace.

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

Free and Common Law. Validates Spooner.


Free includes debt-free!

If government did not hand out favors and money

Then lobbying would be profitless expense.

Step One: Government must not hand out favors and money

Free includes debt-free!

nuff said, brother!

nuff said, brother!

Ventura 2012

See Spooner

That was well written. an American treasure


Free includes debt-free!

rp1: The Constitution of No-Authority!!

Awesome and Elloquent words by Spooner.

Spooner was also Will Smith's name in "I-Robot" -- his character despised Corporatism (not by words) and despised "artificial intelligence" and what he considered (though not spoken) an abdication of self-defense; abdicating safety over to machines seemed ludricrous.

I would propose that our abdication over to these non-humane politicians and the resulting purchasing slavery is identical to both Spooners Arguments.


Have your read I Robot by Isaac Asimov?

Even better, you would get a kick out of the Foundation Trilogy by Asimov ore even the whole series.

I would be interested in how his sub-creation (The Galaxy of the future) fits in your socio-economic schema.

On reflection, the writings of Asimov, Tolkien and Herman Hesse are central referents in my social thinking. Have you visited Terminus, the Shire. Maybe Castilia for a Glass Bead Game Celebration?

Free includes debt-free!

Paul_S: I loved the Glass Bead Game

...one of the best books I've ever read.

I've never read the Foundation Trilogy; do you think it's online for free?