Lew Rockwell on the Constitution vs. Articles of Confederation
...and why the Declaration of Independence is more important then them both:
Johnsson: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that's it?
Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!
-- Lew Rockwell
Oops
wrong location for reply.
The Constitution is anti-liberty
Consider: the Constitution authorizes the government to tax, to enter wars, and to otherwise destroy Liberty. There is more than Constitutionalism.
Why would pro-freedom people support it?
We're open
to seeing your proposals for something better.
Precisely what Lew Rockwell recommends...
A stateless society. Hans Hoppe calls it a private law society. Simply put, competition in all areas, including courts and police.
Les Antman has this great quote: "limited government is the theory that free market capitalism is best protected by a socialist monopoly."
Still sounds like Somalia to me.
There is no "state" in Somalia. But there is still plenty of coercion, violence and "private law".
"That Socialism would be immediately practicable if an omnipotent and omniscient Deity were personally to descend to take in hand the government of human affairs is incontestable." - Ludwig Von Mises.
reply
a)
There are states occupying it--the U.S. military people and the U.N. people are there.
b)
See above. Because of the statist invaders, there is violence. Furthermore, the average Somali believes that government is necessary. Violence is also caused by this belief as the people jockey themselves into position to be in charge of a new government.