Hoppe: The Consitution is itself unconstitutional
Just came across a very interesting insight by libertarian scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
"As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution."
this is dumb.
Yeah, the constitution is not in congruence with the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't make it unconstitutional. That would make it "undeclarational". Or something.
Anyways the whole point of the constitution is something like this: We understand that we need to make some compromises and that government cannot be 100% libertario-anarchist. At the very least, we should clearly specify what we think the role of government should do (because it has the power to take away our liberty, and possibly our life, which is a dangerous power), and allow for that to be change. That way there is agency, and clarity in the individual's life choices relative to the government.
When we stray from the constitution it is dangerous because you do not know what the government can or cannot do in the future. And history has shown that governments will gradually encroach upon individual liberties when availed the opportunity.
It is impossible for the constitution to be unconstitutional. When there is a contradiction in the text of the constitution, we follow those changes found in the most recent modification.
But is a Constitutional government even stable?
I don't think so. For example, doesn't the structure put in place by a nation-state create incentives for politicians to expand their power?
And how is the gov't go to stay limited if you combine that with the fact that the State is always itself the final judge of Constitutional interpretation?
"Bills of Credit"
served the American colonists before they were outlawed by the British Currency Act of 1764 - the principle cause of the Revolution. Bills of Credit were again legal under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1787), but then outlawed under the U.S. Constitution. The First Bank of the United States was modeled after the Bank of England - a privately owned central bank.
How does...
that relate to this thread?
Am I missing something?
That's true.
I was thinking that maybe if we had a small enough government, taxes could be taken from those who are not protected by the constitution such as criminals. That might at least pay for the police force and maybe the courts.
----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul
----------
"We will never give up. We will never give in." - Dr. Ron Paul
Taxes
are suppose to be levied only on the foreigners and we gotta a lot of them.
Do you mean tariffs on imports?
Cause I'm not aware of any immigrant tax.
I know
I don't think we have it all. I think that is in the Bible. I can't remember where I saw that now, but I am guessing it is taxes on various activities and goods in the US that is only paid by non-countrymen. If I remember where I read that, I will come back and post.
Why not take Hoppe's solution?
Hoppe is a radical anarchist -- why not take his solution: no state at all?
Check out more of his radicalism in this article: Anti-intellectual Intellectualism
Like
Stefan Molyneux, I guess. But Stef is a definite atheist and says no government will work if religion is in the mix. How about Hoppe, what does he say about religion?
My hunch...
is that Hermann is an atheist. I don't know if he has ever written on the subject of religion.
Also, I think you've got Stefan's position wrong. I'm pretty sure that he thinks that government won't work irregardless of whether it is "mixed" with religion.
Right
what I should have said is that he thinks even anarchy will not work with religion involved.
OK,
comprendé.
fantastic
Fortune Favors the Bold
i agree with him
Fortune Favors the Bold