6 votes

After America Collapses - Part II - The Constitution in Perspective

"It is is of utmost importance that you come to terms with this now, because if you don't you'll have to learn it through war, and you might not win that war."

http://youtu.be/63zZ6I0QiO8



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This is why we need a constitutional convention

I know most people are not in favor of one but it is what must be done. Especially after the collapse.

And I believe we should have one every 20 years so that each generation can control it.

Don't worry, we WILL WIN!

Screw the commies

The Nonagression Principle Should Not Become Just Another

absolute that your faction imposes on the majority of other communities. Let's leave absolutist one-size-fits-all solutions to the fascists.

But before you junk me, the presenter, who did a good job of presenting his position, challenged we the listeners to come up with calm, unemotional, logical objections to his reasoning. Here is just such an example http://www.dailypaul.com/273348/answers-on-defense-spending-...

It occurs to me that the non-aggression principle should be just that, a principle, not a law. Principles have exceptions, laws are invariably true where they apply.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

i don't think that was his point.

i don't think he's in favor of any one group dictating over others. non-aggression principle or not. at least, i didn't hear that. the way i heard it, he would have a problem with constitutionalists attempting to regain the assumed authority of the constitution and forcing it on others--after the collapse. he was saying that whoever wants to abide by a constitution can, but only those that agree and sign on to it.

I am sympathetic to that but

is he under the assumption that 100% of the county or city signs onto his idea of what type of association they should have with the rest of the region? I mean suppose only 30% of the population wants to stay with the Constitution, how would the nonaggression principle resolve that?

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Nothing to resolve

I go along with the 30% of people I want to align myself with, and the other 70% just leave me the heck alone.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

i'm not sure if there would be

anything to resolve. the 30% have every right to associate in the best way for them. as long as the 30% don't use aggression on the other 70% to follow along, where would the problem lie?

Either I am missing something or there is a symmetry issue

In the same town one group says we can use majority vote to determine rules for behavior, except for this list of things which we agree are God-given rights that are not subject to majority vote. The other group says, no, our rights go further than this, each individual can decide for themselves how the want to act so long as they are not initiating force. How are disputes between the two groups resolved since they recognize different fundamental standards for law?

One group says if a guy knocks a gal up he can be compelled to pay child support, some members from the other group assert their individual idea of what their "sovereignty" is and refuse to pay since there was no written contract agreed to in advance to provide for any offspring from the intercourse.

One group thinks there should be decency laws to prevent people from running naked through the park where children play, the other thinks they have every right to wear as little as they wish since they are not initiating force.

One group thinks there ought to be parks and roads and collects taxes to pay for them. The other group refuses to pay the taxes yet enjoys the benefits of having parks and roads, even if they don't use them their property values are enhanced, the roads they do use are less crowded, etcetera.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how you can have two groups of people living together when one group believes in a common law that applies to all and the other group thinks individuals can choose which laws apply to themselves. It seems like they would have to be geographically separate. I mean you could have 99% of the community agree on what the laws should be, and the other 1% just likes urinating in public and playing music really loud and driving while high.

Plus, the issue of public goods that was discussed in the article I linked too above is not addressed.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

these are fantastic points

it does make me think that a separation would be the best answer, but how do i know if others would agree? i could see the possibility of someone not wanting to move even if there was a disagreement with the majority.

i have to believe that the people would discover new ways towards resolution if/when disputes occur. i can't speak in specifics, because i don't know the potential problem that would be faced. but, in an effort to maintain peace, there would probably be some sort of compromise that both parties could agree to. and i'm assuming both sides want to work towards peace. this process could be a possible bridge to a more co-habitable existence. on the other hand, i could also see a person not validating another's dispute, in which case, i wish i had a reasonable solution. i wouldn't know what to do. who has the final say in the matter is a valid concern. i have a hard time thinking anybody in the realm of libertarianism would have a difficult time resolving private property violations, if that were the case. but, what about those that aren't libertarians? again, separation might be best.

i realize that the pregnancy scenario is factual. plenty of men aren't paying now with a huge bureaucracy in place to compel them to do so. this is where personal responsibility comes in. there's not much i can say in terms of resolution, except a person should know who they're sleeping with. i understand people lie, and that's unfortunate. there are no guarantees.

i would argue that the naked man is not initiating violence. he is however forcing others to see him naked. seems a small problem. although, i have a mind to think you're sugar-coating a bigger concern.

what's wrong with toll roads? if a group wants to volunteer taxes towards public areas, why couldn't they receive a stamp or sticker or something to show they pay that way for them? everybody else could pay as they go; through tolls for the roads, and a daily or hourly fee for the parks, etc., etc. either way, it won't be free, nor the increasing property values unearned, for the most part. i can see a person saying no to both. to which i say, there will always be freeloaders. i'm not sure how to fix it.

i agree there would be dissent between two, or more!, groups that don't see eye to eye on the rules. i think there are two outcomes to this: the groups can either separate, or they can compromise.

i feel like i need to read Localism to gain a better understanding of the general idea. i feel rothbard had the best solution to national defense. pretty much it's in the hands of private citizens, with guns, bombs, rockets, what have you. i know you disagree. and that's ok.

there's a part of me that thinks all the scenarios you've presented are sugar-coated. because i know you know not only liberty minded people will be here after a collapse. but, maybe it's the best way to state your case. which is wonderfully strong!

Thank you for your kind words

And if you are able to read Localism I would be interested to know your thoughts. Basically it does argue for geographical separation, but makes that really easy. The higher rungs of government can't do much to object to, or if they do there are rememides, the mere existence of which incentivizes the next higher rung of government to tread lightly where ever possible. This makes the "transaction costs" of leaving a government you don't like so low that free market principles come into play and swiftly punish governments which overplay their hand in any direction.

The beauty of it is, that people don't have to agree on where the line should be drawn to live in the same nation together. I don't think that this side of heaven we can ever get the law down to the non-aggression principle (we won't even need that there, the law is for the lawless) but if it happens organically and the people of that county or whatever are happy then all the better.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

How would the Constitution look if Patrick Henry

had his way?
Well, he would have stayed with the Articles of Confederation, but how would he have fixed the problems inherent in that document is anyone's guess.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

have you read

franklin's speech in opposition to executive salaries? i know it's got nothing to do with the OP, but it's really good.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8E8Zk3ZZNoYC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA...

it's too bad he buckled.

there was also an idea in the "new jersy plan" for more than one president. three i think. interesting...

Excellent speech! Thanks

for bringing it to my attention. I have the Federalist Papers but have been reading other books first. I have read some of them, and when I'm done with the 3 I'm reading now, will give this book serious attention.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

i found this speech

in the anti-federalist papers. it takes the reader through the notes of the conventions. there are some surprises...