1 vote

Constitutionalism Vs. Libertarianism

I am a huge fan of the Judge and DVR every episode of Freedom Watch. However, I think that his views on the Constitution are not necessarily correct.

It is arguable that the Constitution is anti-libertarian - after all, it was written by East Coast elites, passed illegally, supported by the Mercantalist-Centralist Federalists and sponsored by banksters. The Judge has a libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, but that doesn't make it the correct one.

Now, as I reject the government and Constitution altogether I think that, if we are going to bother with it, we should give it a libertarian spin wherever possible. But whether it is historically and legally correct is unlikely. Even if the USG is violating the Constiution that does not mean the correct interpretation is a libertarian one. After all, the classical liberals were not libertarians.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Best Political Description

I'm a Libertarian Constitutionalist.

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

-Lysander Spooner

OR. Constitutional

OR. Constitutional Libertarian.

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

-Lysander Spooner

Let's get back to a constitutional government

Then we'll have the debate whether we want to shrink government even less ;)

Constitutionalism is consistent with

libertarian minarchy, but not in the context of the current Constitution. There would have to be several Amendments, each dealing with a single topic. Some of these would be to repeal anti-liberty portions of the Constitution, some would be of the "Bill of Rights" type, which would explicitly protect certain God-given rights not currently mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And possibly there would be a few others which would remove ambiguities and misunderstandings with existing parts such as the Interstate Commerce clause.

I think we are all in agreement that following the existing Constitution would bring us closer to a libertarian society. However, there has to be some question in any objective mind as to whether "limited government" is stable in any meaningful sense.

bullhockey.. all the

bullhockey.. all the constitution does is restrain government from screwing with the people. Really has nothing to with restraining liberty and actually supports it. Except for the bs added later as far as taxation etc. which need to be repealed.

Say what?

The Constitution restrains government? I don't think so. I think it is a ritual deliberately designed to legitimize the superstition that some men have a right to rule others.

The power to tax was written into the Constitution. Did any of the framers of that document have a right to "levy taxes" on his neighbors? Doe ANY individual or group of individuals have such a right? Does "voting" to steal another person's property become morally right if the theft is named "taxation"? I don't think so.

The original Constitution had no protection for individual rights whatsoever; the Bill of Rights was added later, as a "sweetener" to get the states to ratify it. But did the "states" have the RIGHT to levy taxes? If so, from whom did they acquire that right? Certainly not every citizen consented to it. And no one can "consent" for someone else. The Constitution was a fraud from the get-go, the first step down a slippery slope to where we are today.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

ahh ok so then why are you

ahh ok so then why are you here since Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist?

Fighting for freedom,

rather than the Constitution.  I like it here because most folks on the DP are interested in individual liberty -- not government paperwork.  If it were a homogeneous group of authoritarian Constitution-worshipers, I'd leave. 

Ask yourself what you really prefer:  being free and self-responsible, or being owned by a kindly master. 

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Its consent by presence. If

Its consent by presence.

If you don't want to be taxed, leave.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Spoken like a good little citizen.

The gang named "government" does not own my life.  Moving onto the turf claimed by some other gang would not change that situation.  They have no moral claim on my property, my freedom or my life.   Theirs is not a legitimate claim; it is merely a  cult-like superstition (unfortunately backed up by real threats and guns.)

You seem to think that "government" OWNS all the land and people inside "its borders," that people have no rights save those granted by the rulers.  Is that how it is, Dr. No?  Are you just a happy slave?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

You speak as though

You speak as though "government" is some kind of entity that took over America, against the will of the people.

Our governments are formed by the people. They rule by our consent. The officials that run the government are elected by our consent and must govern by the rules and provisions outlined in the constitutions.

Imagine if you joined a fraternity that required 40 hours of community service as a membership requirement. Then, imagine you declined to do such service because "they have no moral claim on my property, my freedom of life". How silly would that be? If you don't want to do the community service, resign from the fraternity. The recourse of protest and amendment is available to you, but fundamentally, you would be partaking in the service with consent.

In a democratic society, people come together and decided that its society’s residents will abide by certain rules. Some of those rules include government programs, government assistance, regulation, etc.…all of which are outlined in state and federal constitutions. Government, federally, has the power to tax. And as a society, the agreement is there that being part of a society agrees to living by certain rules. Think of those rules as the price for living in the society.

"You seem to think that "government" OWNS all the land and people inside "its borders," that people have no rights save those granted by the rulers. Is that how it is, Dr. No? Are you just a happy slave?"

I believe people have natural rights, but I believe that people also have the obligation to honor contracts that they've signed or accepted without coercion. And government is a contract between people, especially in the United States, where everyone has freedom to move between states, or even the freedom to leave the country completely.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"The Myth of Consent

There are two basic ways in which people can interact: by mutual agreement, or by one person using threats or violence to force his will upon another.  The first can be labeled "consent" -- both sides willingly and voluntarily agreeing to what is to be done.  The second can be labeled "governing" -- one person controlling another.  Since these two -- consent and governing -- are opposites, the concept of "consent of the governed" is a contradiction.  If there is mutual consent, it is not "government"; if there is governing, there is no consent.  Some will claim that a majority, or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not.  But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head.  No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else.  That is simply not what "consent" means.  It defies logic to say, "I give my consent for you to be robbed."  Yet that is the basis of the cult of "democracy": the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority.  That is not  "consent of the governed"; it is forcible control of the governed, with the "consent" of a third party.

Even if someone were silly enough to actually tell someone else, "I agree to let you forcibly control me," the moment the controller must force the "controllee" to do something, there is obviously no longer "consent."  Prior to that moment, there is no "governing" -- only voluntary cooperation.  Expressing the concept more precisely exposes its inherent schizophrenia: "I agree to let you force things upon me, whether I agree to them or not."

But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in "government" do whatever they want.  So, in order to fabricate "consent" where there is none, believers in "authority" add another, even more bizarre step to the mythology: the notion of "implied consent."  The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is "agreeing" to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state or country.  The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense.  It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him,"By driving a car in this neighborhood on a Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car."  One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else "agreeing" to something.  An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement.  Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one's own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules.   It is one thing for someone to say, "if you want to ride in my car, you may not smoke," or "You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off."  It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property.  Whoever has the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place.  That is the basis of the idea of private property:  that there can be an "owner" who has the exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property.  The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied consent.  To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the "country" or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue, logically implies that everything in the "country" is the property of the politicians.  If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians.  And for one person's time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery.  That is exactly what the "implied consent" theory means:  that every "country" is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians.  And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave."

The entire passage above, including the title, is from Larken Rose's new book, The Most Dangerous Superstition, pp.15-17.  (And if this is how he writes a mere 15 pages into a 200 page book, I hope the mind-boggling potential of the book is clear to all.  So buy a copy!   I immediately bought ten myself & plan to buy and pass out more.) 

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I wanted to touch upon some

I wanted to touch upon some issues:

"The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is 'agreeing' to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state or country'Yet that is the basis of the cult of 'democracy': the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not 'consent of the governed"; it is forcible control of the governed, with the 'consent' of a third party.'"

That is why we have a constitution. It limits the ability of the majority to rule over the minority.

Also, it isn't just living in. It is voting in, becoming a citizen of, etc. Unless your house was built before 1770, you realize that when you purchase your house, you are agreeing to all those stipulations before hand? Same with civil rights...when you start a business, you agree to abide by laws. You actually sign something stating that. You may say that is not fair, but you could also argue that your customers desire that as a prerequisite to doing business with you. Hence, why they have enacted such a law.

"To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the 'country' or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue, logically implies that everything in the 'country' is the property of the politicians"

A ridiculous statement. The author forgets that politicnas are voted by the people. They aren't dictators, they aren't kings.

" It is quite another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property"

What if every hour of every day, I fire a gun into the air. I am doing it on my property! But it disturbs the others in the neighboorhood and lowers their property values. What if I own a factory that pumps smog into the air? What if I use orphans with no family members as child labor? What if a water source goes in my backyard, and I poison the section that travels through my backyard. Its my property!

What if I kill someone on my property? Hey, its my property, why can't I kill someone on my property? They came on to my property!

In response to the general view of all government being non-consensual agreement:

If you take "your" point to its fullest, then why should government provide a military? Defense? Police? Border security? Anti-fraud legislation? Anti-murder legislation?

After all, you may have a right to your life, and a right to your monies...but you don't have the right of having those rights protected. By that logic, by forcing me to pay for a military or a police force, you are robbing me of my liberty. Forcing me to pay to protect your life is an infringement on my freedom!

So are you an anarchist, then?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Nah.

1. The Constitution does not limit the rulers who, after all, get to interpret and enforce it themselves.  It empowers them.  People are no less ruled by elected representatives than they would be by direct democratic votes.  The tiny ruling minority is given total power over the vast majority.  Does that system suck less than direct democracy -- or monarchy, for that matter?  My concern is how to prevent all tyranny -- not to quibble over who gets to be the tyrant.

2. None of what you say about voting or buying property refutes Rose's points about consent.  You are operating from the fundamental assumption that "government" is a legitimate ruler and that its role in private land purchases and other commerce is also legitimate (rather than extortion).   I don't accept that assumption. "Government" is a gang of thugs who have indoctrinated their conquered victims with the superstition that some men have a right to rule others, and that those others have a duty to obey them.  Their self-imposed, mandated role in private contracts cannot be waived by the contracting parties, so cannot constitute voluntary consent. 

3. Some people vote for the politicians.  Most don't, and few politicians ever receive a majority vote from all eligible voters  And where is the option to vote for "none of the above," for those of us who don't want a ruler at all?  Yet somehow, they rule us anyway.    And if they're not kings or dictators, try disobeying one of their "laws" and you'll discover that their power to cage you or shoot you dead works exactly the same.  Being able to vote for your own slavemaster doesn't make you a free man.

4.  Absent government, you would be perfectly free to act like an asshole, on your own property of off it.  Just as you are today.  You would not, however, be free to escape the consequences of your own actions.  Piss off your neighbors at your own risk.  They will be armed.  Such people are usually very polite with one another. 

5. Yep, anarchist, me.  There seem to be different varieties of us.  I became an anarchist because I figured using force against peaceful folk was immoral -- and that's 99% of what government does.  Larken Rose, on the other hand, became an anarchist because he reasoned that "rightful authority" cannot logically exist (some of his reasoning is in the post above; the rest is in his book.)

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

reedr3v's picture

Since the founders and the Constitution

itself were much influenced by the classical liberals, it was an early stage of libertarianism, long before the 20th century experimentation with totalitarian socialist variants and resulting democide made it abundantly clear that the founders did not foresee the full dangers of government and did not adequately leash the American centralized government.

Even though they were aware that people must be vigilant to retain freedom - and peace - there were too many loopholes in the Constitution that power freaks were able to drive their tanks through.

Libertarians have the advantage of learning from history since the Constitution was written. We now are faced with defeat of that document as written, and abdication of the people to authoritarian culture in every area.

Today only libertarians are addressing the failures with new thinking. Other political ideologies sold out for power; both liberals and conservatives choose P.C. preferences over universal principles.

The only way forward to to educate people that it is fatal for a society to pick and choose bits and pieces of peace and freedom. It's a package deal, they only work together, they stop working as soon as some people (government and its cronies) are allowed to violate them in any degree for any purpose. It's either support the NonAggression Principle or slide down into tyranny with no effective brakes.

Leashing government

cannot be done by humbly putting ourselves on a leash, and handing it to government.  The slave does not command the master.

I like your conclusion very much:

"The only way forward to to educate people that it is fatal for a society to pick and choose bits  and pieces of peace and freedom. It's a package deal, they only work together, they stop working as soon as some people (government and its cronies) are allowed to violate them in any degree for any purpose. It's either support the NonAggression Principle or slide down into tyranny with no effective brakes."

Well said!

Reed, have your got yourself a copy of Larken Rose's new book yet?   Incredible, inspiring stuff.  If you're interested, I'll send you a copy for free, if you'll read it and "pay it forward."  Send me an email with your shipping address.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I consider myself a libertarian

But I am in much favor of the constitution. I would love to see a libertarian society where the free market and supply/demand control prices and wages rather then some central group of people that can't truely predict the market.

However I do believe the constitution hold a lot of power that helped to establish a very free country but has been mutilated beyond recognition by a liberal interpretation and so called conservative who are really in favor of large government that increases their pay and power.

I think the constitution is a great tool to preseve our human rights and is the most effective tool in the world history so far, but as no human is perfect, neither is a document written by humans.

As Jefferson said "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Expansive government invades our liberty and crushed the minority.

Lastly, another educational Jefferson quote.."I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

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

There are the obvious

There are the obvious issues.

Libertarians in general strongly favor open borders. The Constitution recognizes that countries and borders exist.

Libertarians are against big government on any level. The Constitution is generally for a limited federal government but doesn't say much on limiting state power.

Libertarians are very free-market loving, to the point where many desire that the police force, fireforce, and military were in the control of the private sector.

Libertarians don't share the fear of big businesses that the founders had.

Libertarians are socially very liberal, to a very high degree. I don't think the founders were like that, nor do I think the Constitution necessarily promotes that view.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The Founders were a randy lot

They didn't have 'social' issues like we have today. They engaged in extra-marital sex with servants, used alcohol to extreme, were free to use opiates, and openly questioned the validity of religion and the Bible.

They would have found our current social conservatism odd.

Sshhh, blasphemy! On the

Sshhh, blasphemy!

On the other hand, they never really publically encouraged those things. Many of them were slaveowners, many of them had a narrow and objective view of morality, a negative view of feminism, etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I understand where you’re

I understand where you’re coming from. The way I see it the Constitution is a tool, like many, that can be used to hammer against government growth. A typical response I hear in regards to the Constitution is as follows: “A piece of paper will not limit itself.” I believe this to be the stupidest thing espoused. Of course a “piece of paper” can’t limit itself, it’s inanimate. The Constitution ostensibly is a set of rules; breaking the rules is not the “fault” of an inanimate object, it’s the fault of the trespassers.

I like to play checkers. Checkers has a set of rules for the game (I won’t go through them all, but will focus on one issue). The pawns used can only be used in a forward motion to jump over opposing pawns (leaving aside Kings). If I were to move one of my pawns backwards, would people blame the rules of the game or would they blame the person directing the pawn? I think this answer itself. Of course I’m not arguing that the government is like a board game, but simply recognizing the two operate under rules. Further, I’m not arguing for or against limited government, but addressing a pretext against the Constitution.

I agree, however, that the Constitution was a mistake, preferring the Articles of Confederation, or something akin to it. Many people of the founding generation were skeptical of a new powerful central government, namely the anti-federalist (who were really the true federalists). I also believe strongly in a decentralized power structure, in the Jeffersonian heritage. Not just Jefferson, but his disciples who were, in some respect, more radical than he. If you read John Taylor, John Randolph, Nathaniel Macon, and other radicals of that time, you will see a strong decentralized power structure espoused. You will also see some radical libertarian ideas espoused by such radicals as William Leggett and other Democratic newspapers in the years after Jefferson. From an excerpt from The United States magazine and Democratic Review

The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly on the industry and property of the community. Such power must be perpetually liable to the most pernicious abuse, from the natural imperfection, both in wisdom of judgment and purity of purpose, of all human legislation, exposed constantly to the pressure of partial interests; interests which, at the same time that they are essentially selfish and tyrannical, are ever vigilant, persevering, and subtle in all the arts of deception and corruption. In fact, the whole history of human society and government may be safely appealed to, in evidence that the abuse of such power a thousand fold more than overbalances its beneficial use. Legislation has been the fruitful parent of nine-tenths of all the evil, moral and physical, by which mankind has been afflicted since the creation of the world, and by which human nature has been self-degraded, fettered, and oppressed. Government should have as little as possible to do with the general business and interests of the people. If it once undertake these functions as its rightful province of action it is impossible to say to it ' thus far shalt thou go, and no farther.' It will be impossible to confine it to the public interests of the commonwealth. It will be perpetually tampering with private interests, and sending forth seeds of corruption which will result in the demoralization of the society. Its domestic action should be confined to the administration of justice, for the protection of the natural equal rights of the citizen, and the preservation of social order.

Further:

In all other respects, the Voluntary Principle, the principle of Freedom, suggested to us by the analogy of the divine government of the Creator, and already recognized by us with perfect success in the great social interest of Religion, affords the true 'golden rule' which is alone abundantly competent to work out the best possible general result of order and happiness from that chaos of characters, ideas, motives, and interests—human society. Afford but the single nucleus of a system of administration of justice between man and man, and, under the sure operation-of this principle, the floating atoms will distribute and combine themselves, as we see in the beautiful natural process of crystallization, into a far more perfect and harmonious result than if government, with its ' fostering hand,' undertake to disturb, under the plea of directing, the process. The natural laws which will establish themselves and find their own level are the best laws. The same hand was the Author of the moral, as of the physical world; and we feel clear and strong in the assurance that we cannot err in trusting, in the former, to the same fundamental principles of spontaneous action and self-regulation which produce the beautiful order of the latter.

This is then, we consider, the true theory of government, the one simple result towards which the political science of the world is gradually tending, after all the long and varied experience by which it will have dearly earned the great secret—the elixir of political life. This is the fundamental principle of the philosophy of democracy, to furnish a system of administration of justice, and then leave all the business and interests of society to themselves, to free competition and association—in a word, to the Voluntary Principle—

Let man be fettered by no duty, save !

His brother's right—like his, inviolable.

Of course this was, and is, a limited government stance on these things; but still, while reading these papers and the authors, you will see a very radical take on government and liberty. Keep in mind; if the Constitution was followed the Federal government would be a minor annoyance, barely visible. Further, like the anti-federalists and Jeffersonians, a strict construction of the document is key.

I'm simply saying: you can use the Constitution has a tool against the leviathan.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

You might be surprised!

The Judge has also made a similar argument to yours, I think in a devil's advocate fashion. It was in a video of the Judge speaking on the Constitution at the Mises Institute. See bellow @ 51:45

What Ever Happened to the Constitution? | Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80

The argument can be made that the delegates at the convention were only authorized to amend the existing Articles of Confederation and that they overstepped their bounds scrapping it completely in favor of writing a new document, and that by doing so, technically, they committed treason. However, I believe that the Constitution is a document that recognizes the non-transferable right of individuals to protect their own life, liberty, and property, against crime, invasion, rebellion, terrorism, and/or tyranny. Although it has been hacked apart, I choose to try to save and restore it so the good parts may live on, because any new document replacing the Constitution would necessarily be worse than what we have now, especially in terms of individual liberty. There's just too many globalists out there and they would infect any new convention.

For more on this concern I recommend:

"Beware of Article V" - The Dangers of a Constitutional Convention (complete film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op-6ZHh7hag&p=DED2271B31242DD1

In closing, I like the Judge too. I try not look at it like Constitutionalism "vs." Libertarianism, because this implies conflict. I think the 2 schools of thought share many of the same ideas and goals. You know who else shares similar ideas and goals with each other? Democrats and Republicans! Or better yet, Progressives and Neocons. After all, it was Woodrow Wilson who ushered in the progressive era and the idea we had the duty or moral imperative to "make the world safe for democracy". That's when neocon foreign policy really started. The Judge touched on this too in the same speech above.

Yes

That is a really good video by the Judge, but I would say the following about it: a libertarian should construe any contract, law, etc. along libertarian grounds; which includes the Constitution. But I don't believe that was the 'original intent', nor do I think the written document comports with libertarianism.

I would be happy if the government did limit itself to the constitution, but like Ron Paul said one time, "I think we should abolish all the government programs."

All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals - RP

I like your 1st statement on

I like your 1st statement on construing contracts, including the Constitution in libertarian terms. I see that view as the historically accurate view held by most of the framers because I believe their original intent was to err on the side of liberty over security. They understood that with freedom comes the risk of losing it, and therefore a duty to defend it. The Constitution may be a contract between the states and people, and the federal government it creates, but it is not a government program. Any government program which falls under the authority in Article 1 Section 8 is legitimate, just as any program that has nothing to do with any power delegated to the federal government by the states and people is illegitimate in my view.

Ron Paul believes the Constitution is in remnant status, but he also wants to restore it. I believe that since 2007 he has been very successful in bringing about a Constitutional Renaissance in America. The principals of liberty are starting to catch on with people, and as we slide further into the police state, more people will yearn for liberty. Many will find it in the Constitution, some won't, but those who seek it's destruction, whether foreign or domestic, are the enemy of all who once swore an oath to support and defend it. Therefore, those seeking its destruction would be the losing side. At least I hope so! God help us if we lose the Constitution.

Some points....

1) John Locke is considered by most as the father of libertarianism. Cato's Letters from 17th Britain are considered among founding documents also.

2) libertarian - 1789, "one who holds the doctrine of free will" (opposed to necessitarian), from liberty (q.v.) on model of unitarian, etc. Political sense of "person advocating liberty in thought and conduct" is from 1878. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971.

3) Only 10-15% of those who call themselves libertarians are anarcho. The Constitution is highly-esteemed by the majority of libertarians. Your apparent definition of libertarianism is very narrow compared to reality.

4) Both Rothbard and Rockwell consider the American Founding, including the Constitution, to be the greatest experiment in libertarian principals to date in the history of the world.

5) Ron Paul is an Old Right libertarian-leaning conservative and Constitutionalist, not some radical anarchist (or even a secret one).

6) This website, Daily Paul, is dedicated to Ron Paul's vision of restoring the Constitutional limited-government vision of the Founders. Perhaps the Daily Paul is not the proper place for sustained attacks on and diatribes against the Constitution. ;)

7) Given the previous points and info, your statement, "After all, the classical liberals were not libertarians." is silly, anti-factual and just outright wrong.

8) Your anti-social behavior and lightning quick ignoring of anyone who disagrees with you on freenode's #mises chat channel has at least temporary comedic value for the gang of regulars but is making you no friends or garnering you any respect. :)

9) On Freenode's #mises chat channel you said this:

I believe human beings, most of them anyway, are genetically anti-libertarian.

Could you elaborate more on that statement? Does this mean that some people are politically and socially inferior through inheritance and evolution? That some people are hopelessly genetically inferior and have no hopes of embracing Liberty?

--------------------

To summarize, while anarchists are certainly welcome at Daily Paul, a sustained campaign of Constitution-bashing is most likely not, as the vision of this website is to support a return to Constitutional government. It would be kind of like going to Bugs Bunny's birthday party and ranting on and on how cartoons are evil.

:)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Wrong on all points, but as I

Wrong on all points, but as I already know you are a troll, I won't bother.

All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals - RP

Awww.... c'mon...

Tackle at least a couple of my points head on.

:p

Here, I will knock out #1 for you - John Locke, natural law and classical liberal extraordinaire:

"The best known early statement of (something close to) libertarianism is Locke (1690)."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Ya gotta admit

that it's pretty funny for a 2-day member that comes on here exhorting a collectivist "we" approach to achieve what "he thinks" that "we" should do, to accuse a longer time member with no history of trolling, of being a troll.

I'm laughing.

And...

funny to try and preach to everyone on Daily Paul what "libertarian" means when it means a much wider spectrum than his narrow chosen spectrum.

:)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Very true

Good job weebles. Obviously you were far from wrong on your points that he claimed were all wrong.

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