Should the Constitution be forced on those who don't want to live under it?
Submitted by atrickpay on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 12:29
Just read Michael Rozeff's new article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff271.html) on panarchy. Anyone else read it?
I think it contains an enormous implication for the liberty movement: should one's preferred form of government be forced onto others?
Discuss.
»
Wrong assumption!
This question is wrong because it has a wrong underlying assumption. The Constitution is not established by some politicians or the government OVER the people. It is the rules agreed by all the people (or majority) that should be set OVER the government. The Constitution applies to the fed government, setting limit to the fed government. The Constitution is not forced on the people by anyone. It should be viewed as a contractual agreement between the people and the government. If part of the people disagree with the Constitution, we can amended it. But the government has no right to change the Constitution without the consent of the People. So the Constitution is only as good as the will of the majority of the people. That's why when now the majority of the people don't know the Constitution or don't care or don't believe what's in the Constitution, the fed government can get away with breaking the Constitution. And there's no penalty for breaking the Constitution. No enforcers, except the Militia of the States, now non-existent. So if we understand this important point, then we will not ask questions like this with wrong underlying assumptions.
Brings Lysander Spooner to mind...
Lysander Spooner was a libertarian who founded The American Letter Company which competed with the Feds in the delivery of First Class mail, undersold them and was shut down by the govt. He believed in the free market you see.
He also wrote an essay entitled, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.
He was a lawyer and his writing is as clear as, well, as clear as Ron Paul's. In fact, customers who purchased Lysander Spooner's book also bought The Revolution: A Manifesto.
I urge all CFL members to familiarize themselves with Lysander Spooner's works. I think his meaning regarding the Constitution is such that in order for it to be a viable contract would require that each citizen should at coming of age engage in a signing ceremony by adding his or her name to the Constitution. That would make it a proper contract. Most would as an act of citizenship. IT would be like a Bar or Bas Mitzvah requiring study of the Constitution to be sure it was understood before the signing.
Such a ceremony would also ensure the meaning of it was understood and our representatives and elected officials would be more likely to take their oath to uphold it serious.
www.lysanderspooner.org
Better yet google Lysander Spooner and visit several sites.
Thank you for being an active member of the Campaign For Liberty and I trust you inform those you know or meet of our glorious movement, just so they know as it may give them hope and change worth reading for. Be sure to encourage new members to read Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard to be found at www.mises.com and Ayn Rand's works at www.aynrand.org and www.atlassociety.org including Atlas Shrugged which Ron Paul recommended to us.
104241
Wm
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged p731
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged p731
Lysander Spooner would never
Try to sell us on the idea of the constitution. He was strongly against it.
You have the wrong
You have the wrong assumption in saying that "The Constitution is not established by some politicians or the government OVER the people. It is the rules agreed by all the people (or majority) that should be set OVER the government."
In actuality, the Constitution was indeed established by a group of politicians behind closed doors. The people themselves had no say over it, were not consulted, and did not agree to be bound by any document. Additionally and perhaps more importantly, the Constitution grants powers to the government that the people are not allowed. For instance, it gives Congress the power to tax, i.e. steal from, the citizens. If one body of people (the government) is granted the ability to do something that the rest of the people cannot, then it is incorrect to say that the people are above the government.
Once it is established that the Constitution is in fact a vehicle for coercion, we can evaluate whether that authority has successfully protected the people. Clearly, it has not. The government still participates in murder, oppression, and theft on a large scale. Therefore, the Constitution has not performed the intended duty of protecting citizens from these crimes.
No document or system of law, no matter how noble its intentions, can give powers to one group of people while denying them to another without creating a form of tyranny.
I disagree
The abuses against the people is not due to shortfallings of the constitution, but due to the rape of it and ignoring of its laws by those in government.
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
Same
Do you actually think they are going to play by the rules? I mean come on. It's up to us to do something about it, it's always been that way! Thus the documents FLAWED. It gave them the power to tax from the very begining! That gave them an advantage over us wouldn't you say? Notorious is RIGHT.
Oh I agree
and never said otherwise. Nothing is perfect.
I personaly think it could be improved if laws were put into it to punish those who seak to pervert its core principles.
The largest problem as I see it is not enough checks and balances. Hard punishments for anyone who seak to steal the rights of others through manipulation of those laws or attempting to circumvent them.
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
Same
It's kinda a monoply/private club at this point, and they write the laws. They vote for they're own lucrative pensions. I don't think they are ever going to vote against themselves.
your preaching
to the choir my friend. Id string most of them up for treason given the authority.
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
I agree with NotoriousM
I feel it more everyday.
The Constitution as a vehicle for tyranny
The limits to the Fed are listed in the Bill of Rights. The powers granted to the Fed are listed in the Articles. The Constitution actually gives power to the Fed to rule over you. Article 1, Section 8: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers” These laws are rules that you must follow or else you will be met with force (example – taxation).
Yes, the Constitution is a vehicle for tyranny of the majority to flourish, and that is exactly why the Republic degenerated into a democracy.
Democracy is Not Freedom by Ron Paul
The state is a forced monopoly
Society Without A State by Murray Rothbard
Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.
On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Link
Obviously if you're forcing
Obviously if you're forcing someone to live under your government, by definition you are taking away their freedom!
The answer is simple. No! Having a government means someone else controlling your life/property (taking away your freedom). I don't want anyone else controlling my life/property, and therefore don't want you forcing your Constitution on me.
For a short while in this movement I was pro-Constitution, but later I sorted some things out and decided that if what I really wanted was freedom, and the Constitution is incompatible with that, then I don't want the Constitution anymore.
Government is pointless without using force, but I don't want to force others to live by my rules and I don't want others to force me to live by their rules, so I don't want government. I've decided to work towards eliminating direct contact with government as much as possible...the most recent decision to come from this is that I will no longer participate in voting (picking someone to run other people's lives as well as my own).
I've come to the conclusion, after months of struggling with the idea, that it is possible for people to live just as peaceful without government as they do now. The free market is capable of providing any wanted service the government provides, and more efficiently. This includes protection, prison and courts (people seem to be most concerned about these). I see absolutely no reason to keep government around at all. Government doesn't exactly have the best track record...even the "best" government in the world (ours) has gone to crap!
Institutionalizing the theft and management of other people's property does not and cannot work in favor of everyone. It will only benefit some at the expense of others. Even if there were no corruption or greed, government would still remain less efficient than what private people and businesses could provide, and therefore the government would still be slowing the rate of increase of the standard of living...at the cost of your freedom! So it's a net loss! Lose the standard of living you could have had and lose your Freedom?! What is the point? And why push that on other people?
I just want to secede from the our government and be independent and free from any government (other people controlling my life and property). I want nothing more to do with the nonsense that is called government.
I agree with you. But it
I agree with you. But it did take me a while to become an anarchist. It is a hard pill to swallow.
I think it is funny though all the people on here that quote the saying about more security is less freedom, but on the other hand are OK with pushing their government on everyone because they think it means more security.
I agree with both of the above.
Although, it's more than that for me. I want to kill the plan that been centuries in the making by these elitists/illuminati scum. Screw them. Everyone deserves to be free, not just cannon fodder or human commerce or slave labor for them. No more gubernments. It's time people, we can work together and live our lives without guberment/force whatever you want to call it. Anarchy/without guberment rule is the only way.
Opps...wrong
Opps...wrong post.
http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com
"Don't worry, we've thrown out the Weimar Republicans and elected the Zimbabwe Democrats." Billy Joe Allen
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Divide by zero error....
Even though that shouldn't be an error, but that is math theory of my own opinion I won't go into here.
"THE PEOPLE" read the SOVEREIGN human entities are NOT the target of the constitution. It targets the recipient of the revocable and NULLable delegation of power allowed the central federal government outlined by this temporary contract between it and the state organizations. It is a contract nothing more, and it was never made with the sovereign human entities. Further, it was made among the states not WITH FOR or what the hell ever, AMONG. It is a simple contract among the states agreeing to all participate in this central organization, nothing more. WE THE PEOPLE have allowed this central organization to take on another whole life of its own.
From wikipedia:
"As an example, consider having 10 apples, and these apples are to be distributed equally to five people at a table. Each person would receive 10/5 = 2 apples. Similarly, if there are 10 apples, and only one person at the table, that person would receive 10/1 = 10 apples.
So for dividing by zero — what if there are 10 apples to be distributed, but no one comes to the table? How many apples does each "person" at the table receive? The question itself is meaningless — each "person" can't receive zero, or 10, or an infinite number of apples for that matter, because there are simply no people to receive anything in the first place. So 10/0, at least in elementary arithmetic, is said to be meaningless, or undefined."
Which "sovereigns" does the constitution apply to: Answer UNDEFINED No sovereign is at the table to receive the exercise of limitation outlined by the constitution. All governance is self governance; last time I checked we ended slavery.
No NO NO, that isn't correct. That is over simplifying the matter... Yea right... Go on telling yourself that, I for one am NOT sorry that the universe really is a rather simple place in which to exist.
The constitution was written simply because the authors openly realized that humans at that point in history were still nothing more than greedy, psychopathic, schizophrenic bastards whose mood changes with the wind during the day. The constitution is the first document written to outline delegated central governance with this in mind. Looks like, as the authors imagined, we still have not progressed much further spiritually and emotionally.
The point of panarchy is the ability to choose...
ones own government without having to move.
Unfortunately that 'system' (I use that word loosely) is flawed. It presumes two things:
Obviously these two things-- that I remind you, are essential for Panarchy to function properly-- are not universally true, and therefore, unfortunately, render 'Panarchy' an unusable (though enticing) theoretical system of governance.
If one wishes to see Panarchy work properly, these two essential elements of Panarchy must be forced upon all of the 'sub-governments' coexisting under the umbrella of panarchy-- this in turn implies the need for a central authority to force these basic laws upon the 'sub-governments' operating over the geographic area that decides to have a 'Panarchistic Society.' In short-- A central authority, endowed with ability to use force upon its sub-governments, and their citizens must exist in order to create a 'Panarchistic Society'; the only feasible way to create a 'Panarchy' friendly environment is to endow a Minarchy with the responsibility to oversee and enforce the basic principles essential to having a 'Panarchistic Society' and then organizing the various 'Sub-Governments' (read States) underneath it in a federation.
For a modern day (and horribly eroded) example of 'Panarchy,' see the United States of America-- for a decent example of what sort of charter should Govern the 'Minarchist' government that must preside over such a setup of 'equal states' please see the United States Constitution (Remember please read it literally and do not interpret the General Welfare and Commerce clauses to give carte blanc to the Federal Government).
Good fight, good night.
Oh, I almost forgot... My answer to the title of your original post is: Hell yes.
haha
great post man!
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
Move
At that point the person can simply move to the country and system he prefers, and stop whining.
Big Picture-www.pgorg.com/index.html
My Karma ran over your Dogma
Cows think they are free, this is no bull, the beast must be Fed, with pitchfork instead
Cows think they are free, this is no bull, the beast must be Fed, with pitchfork instead
The Constitution isn't forced upon anyone.
It only provides laws that keep us from being forced upon, or forcing upon, the individual god given rights.
Yes
Yes, I'm coming around to this view as well.
The constitution restrains the federal government- and let's face it, it restrains the state governments as well.
It does nothing to restrain the people- except in some very very limited ways, such as a nearly impossible to use in practice system of declaring an act of an individual treasonous.
Quite right. A libertarian
Quite right. A libertarian constitution exists to specifically restrict the application of force.
The Constitution gives
The gub the right to tax. Tax=force.
It’s supposed to be over the government; not the people.
Please don’t let educated idiots cram your mind with garbage (I’m not trying to be a wiseguy; believe me). I read that article a few days or weeks (?) ago. I couldn’t figure out how such a poorly thought out, vaguely-worded composition ended up published on that site.
None of us is supposed to be tied down by governance. A right can under no circumstances be regulated—that’s why federal and local governments constantly feed us this priveledge crapola. For example, if you have the right to travel (which everybody does), the government has no right to license your motor vehicle or demand that you maintain a certain speed (for no real reason—just to force you to play their game) or else.
One should always be independently well read as well as vigilant all the time.
—Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
February’s song: “Carly’s Song” by David Sanborn
The throw-away tools of imperial war<
Facebook Profile
Facebook Political Group
nope
this is a republic so we do have rules to follow and that is the constituition. If you dont want to live by the constitution then your in the same category as G, W, Bush and Cheney and a lot other scumbags. Go find another country to live in.
Truth...
The Constitution provides for the maximum amount of freedom with the least possible amount of restrictions (for all) in comparison to any other form of government. But I don't think we're arguing the need for government in general so... any other plans?
However, in my opinion, the answer is absolutely not! The Constitution provides for the ability to remove yourself from the jurisdiction of the Constitution. It is called succession. (Just don't tell Lincoln that.) If people no longer think their government is working for them or in their best interests it is their duty to alter or to abolish it. Since the Constitution is the backbone of the United States government, my answer would be no, none should be forced in a free society.
You also can not compare nor fail to understand the differences between the Constitution (and it's prescribed government) to the current monster of a government that we have today. Every person who signed the Declaration of Independence would sign it again today in an instant. Heck, even Hamilton would vomit at what we have today.
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.
Hell No
There's plenty of 3rd world countries they can move to.
____
"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon
The Constitution
is the foundation; it's meant to be stood upon not lived under.
Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio
succient expression.
" the important thing is to never stop questioning, curiousity, has it's own reason for existing..
Albert Einstien
Knowledge is power, action is love.