Constitutionalism is Socialism!
A constitutionally limited government provides the services of security and justice. To accomplish this, it establishes a system of national defense, police and courts—these are the means of production of security and justice. By definition then, limited government is socialist (i.e., state ownership of the means of production.) It’s also socialist in the sense that the provision of security and justice is socialized: the costs and benefits are collectively shared. Furthermore, these services are funded through involuntary taxation and private citizens are coercively prohibited from competing in their provision. Government is inherently a coercive socialist monopoly. Therefore, constitutionalists are socialists, as they support limited government.
It's very late and this will
It's very late and this will be short but consider this:
Many legal scholars have come to the conclusion that the constitution is nothing more than a corporate charter which foreshadowed the corporatist situation run amuck which we currently find ourselves in. Ed Rivera comes to mind. ixquick him (I refuse to ever use the word Google as verb again).
OK, fine. So let's take away the immortal unbound charters that corporations now enjoy and return to the 20 year charter (and only for expressly stated purposes) as many of the founders envisioned. They were smart enough to realize that in order to avoid the mess that is a democracy, they would need to set up a corporate form of government. HOWEVER, notice how the original intent of 20 year charters dovetails nicely with Jefferson's assertion that a revolution ought to happen every 20 years or so if things aren't going well, and you are now on the right track to understanding what these brilliant men had in mind.
And if you want to add a truly free market twist, allow people to publicly pledge their allegiance to whichever government they choose. Although this may seem pretty radical, who knows if the thought didn't at least cross the minds of some of the founders back in the day.
Just a little late night food for thought.
************
http://www.pyrabang.com - the People's "information stock exchange" that will take a huge bite out of Google's ad profits and put them in your pocket!
What he said!
http://www.tragedyandhope.com
http://www.im2moro.com
Um you forgot that it says
Um you forgot that it says we cannot have any standing armies. The local militias were supposed to unite in common defense against a common threat.
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
GEEEEEEEEEEE
This is TOTALY WRONG.....Constitution is the peoples to protect..Security is collective, not socialistic...The more a constitutional gov't taxes it's citizens the more towards total socialism it become ...TOTAL OWNERSHIP & RULE OF EVERYTHING=SOCIALISM
.you-no
Security is not collective.
You're wrong. Security belongs to individuals.
The security of any group or collective that you choose to define is dependent upon the security of each and every single individual.
It's OK to be scared of all the responsibility that entails. You've been well trained to believe that it's someone else's responsibility, the government's responsibility, to keep you safe. You just need to learn a bit more.
As for the constitution being 'yours', tell me, when did you agree to the terms it specifies, and where did you sign the document, and who(m) was(were) the other parties you signed that particular contract with?
Give anarchy a listen before you diss
If you've never given it serious thought, I urge you to do that now. It will just cost a few hours, and just might expose you to a few good ideas. Here are my favorite two:
Everyday Anarchy
http://www.lulu.com/content/2488026
- short, inspiring
Practical Anarchy
http://www.lulu.com/content/2935951
- longer, with detailed arguments and answers
Both are free to download.
I couldn't agree more
Research anarchy!
Security and Justice are not tangible products!
Therefore it has little to do with the means of production, and the Constitution is supposed to prevent hoodlums from infiltrating government by using the election/voting process.
The current elected officials, except for Ron Paul, have been bought and paid for by the Fed issued un-constitutional monetary system!
End the Fed, and return to sound Constitutional money and this might change!
beesting
Defense is a service, not
Defense is a service, not really any different from any other.
The election/voting process is what puts hoodlums into the government. Obama's a popular guy, no matter whatever election fraud you might have thought happened. If the "majority" doesn't respect rights, the government is going to reflect that, no matter what the Constitution is "supposed" to do.
From the defense company's point of view:
When the government is involved, violence is more profitable than peace.
If there's no government, peace is more profitable than violence.
From the court/arbiter company's point of view:
When the government's involved, injustice is more profitable than justice.
When there's no government, justice is more profitable than injustice.
From any business owners point of view:
When the government's involved, you can get higher profits at the expense of the people.
When the government's not involved, you can get higher profits by providing for the people.
When you put the government between the service provider (or just employee) and the people, you're going to have problems.
If you remove the socialized middle man, the government, suddenly the company respects what you want, rather than what some politician wants.
There's little to no room for corruption in business without a government helping you out. You can bribe a politician into spending millions with a few thousand dollars, because the millions he's spending isn't his own money. You generally can't bribe a person or business to spend their own money. Unless you're paying them more than they're going to spend, it would make no sense to them. If you pay them more, then it would make no sense on your part.
People will buy services from the courts/arbiters that are the most just. People will buy services from the defense companies that offer the best protection at the lowest cost...any the initiate violence will lose business quickly.
Questioning The Constitution Series
http://paulslist.us - http://news.paulslist.us
How did Obama get elected?
Disagree with your assessment, please see my post below.
Answer: He had the same banking firms contributing millions to his campaign, that just collected billions from these bailouts, so he could buy more advertising than any other candidate.
http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/11/campaign-con...
If we the people could have matched Mr. Obama's contributions and had positive exposer, Ron Paul would be President now!
Bottom line:
Unconstitutional money issued by the unconstitutional federal reserve bought the presidency.
End the Fed and re-instate Constitutional money if we the people, ever expect to regain liberty.
beesting
Security and justice are economic goods
They are services, not products (although you could buy security products). The state produces these services using certain means: army and court system. As state owned means of production of security and justice, they are socialist institutions.
Websters definition of production.
The state produces nothing but paper laws!
Production: From the word produce.
The making of "Goods" available for human wants; Total output from a commodity or industry.
Now if I hire a security guard what does he produce?
In a stretch, he produces or keeps the peace. Yes, the mafia does sell this product, but where does the money come from to pay this security guard?
Answer:
From those involved in production.
Well, you people are saying the government hired security forces are a part of production.
I strongly disagree!
The taxpayer is coerced into paying for this service, something like the mafia.
Where does the taxpayer's taxes come from?
Well, unless you work for a government agency, the taxes come from the production segment of society.
I think paying for a service voluntarily { Doctor, dentist, laborer, etc. } is much different than being forced to pay for security through taxation.
And as far as personal protection, that's covered very well in Amendment II, and where I live everyone abides by this Constitutional law.
beesting
"Hold on, my friends, to the
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again." - Daniel Webster
--------
The government under the Constitution should be only doing the things that the people can not do for themselves, which in my view is to defend our country.
I recently read The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane. She writes eloquently about this topic. Until the founding of our country and our Constitution, no where on this earth, in the entire history of our planet, was there peace and enough to eat....only wars and starvation.
-------
"So long as any large group of persons, anywhere on this earth, believe the ancient superstition that some Authority is responsible for their welfare, they will set up some image of that Authority and try to obey it. And the result will be poverty and warfare."
Rose Wilder Lane, "The Discovery Of Freedom"
Miracles? And to think, I
Miracles? And to think, I thought it was a curse. It wasn't a miracle, it was trickery and deception. The CONstitution GAVE them the power to tax and to make all the laws! How long before those 'representitives" get wise and start making all the laws for they're benefit? THIS IS THE CONSTITUTION. If it was such a free loving document, why didn't the people get to vote on it? Maybe, it was done without the consent of the people for a reason! Maybe, they KNEW that all the people wouldn't fall for it again! The colonists ESCAPED taxation. They felt so strongly about being free, that they faced hostiles, starvation, diseases, hard labor ect. What makes everyone here so sure that it was written for our benefit, when that IS clearly not the case. Because, we gave them ALL THE POWER from the get-go.. ALL HISTORY IS DECIDED. Who do you think decides? Them or us? The only way you will ever be free is to fight for it. You can fight while you have a chance at winning or you can wait until you have no chance. Either one is better than being a slave.
Like Ron Paul says, all of
Like Ron Paul says, all of our problems come from not following the Constitution. History shows that no other form of authority has worked thus far.
Henry David Thoreau questioned if there might be something better than our republic..... "Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."
I like Ron Paul's essay, "A Republic if You Can Keep It." Here is just an excerpt....
"The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man's action: the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not to be simply a cog in a wheel, or a single cell of an organism, or a branch of a tree, but an individual with a free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life's dreams and assume one's responsibilities. If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace, which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man's highest and noblest goals, so should man's mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The Founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.
Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct.
No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator, and if government could not grant rights to individuals, it surely should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general. Our constitutional Republic, according to our Founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.
It was clearly recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered.
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive non-violent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America's great achievements. It was a great plan; we should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed. The Founders often spoke of "divine providence" and that God willed us this great nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this nation are understood and maintained. We as Members of Congress have that responsibility."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm
Rose Wilder Lane in her book, "The Discovery of Freedom," wrote that a democracy is exactly what our founders did NOT want. Democracy, or a majority, is like mob rule, and the rights of the minority will be put aside. She even suggested that only people who have the time to study and learn about important issues should be able to vote. She wrote that most people are too busy making a living to vote intelligently. After last election, I see her point.
It seems to me the intent of our founders was not to put a curse upon the people, but to protect the people from their government..... if we had only followed the Constitution. But to me, anarchy just doesn't seem realistic. Even so, I have found this thread thought provoking.
I dissagree
It was working just fine before they showed up and took it apon THEMSELVES to create this blubberment ( It had nothing to do with us, because the people never voted on it ) Pennsylvania was growing and prospering long before the founders came along. They were doing fine without a constitutional blubberment. It was never possible for the constitution to restrain them from us. How could it restrain them? We lost all power over them when we allowed them the ability to force taxation on the people. It was written with that very thing in mind! It didn't help when we gave the elitists the power to make all the laws either. They went ahead and forged a document WITHOUT THE PEOPLES CONSENT. And still people fight for it! Proof that indoctrination works! The absolute power of taxation and the fact that it was never taken to vote by the people should stand proof enough, that it was no freedom loving document. Throw in a few slave owners, some of the Kings knighted friends and add a few dashes of masons and you have a great recipe for a big fat lie.
Amen to that first
Amen to that first quote!
Ventura 2012
Ventura 2012
I love that quote. I got it
I love that quote. I got it from someone here on DP, but I don't remember who.
The government under the
This makes me wonder what you think "our country" is, and why it needs special protection at the cost of our rights...
Why can't I defend my own property, and you defend your own property? If we have a common enemy (a common person or government trying to violate our rights), then why can't we agree to pool our resources together to protect the property owned by both of us?
Questioning The Constitution Series
http://paulslist.us - http://news.paulslist.us
But if we follow the
But if we follow the Constitution and have a national defense, wouldn't that be more effective than the private armies we now hire such as Blackwater and KBR? How are they a better alternative? I don't want a penny of my taxes going to these thugs. What about that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/scahill
Those are effectively
Those are effectively government organizations. The government is their main, if not only customer. Of course they're going to perform horribly!
You didn't personally hire Blackwater, so they're not going to serve your interests. It's going to serve the interest of the politicians that used your money to hire them.
Businesses respect the values of their customers. Blackwater's customer is the politicians that work out the contracts to pay Blackwater for their services. And since that's Blackwater's primary source of business, it's going to behave just like most other government employees and milk it real good.
If the government provided no protection, there would be a big market for it, and many companies would be offering services, competing with each other by offering better services at lower prices over time. The companies that initiate violence aren't going to be very popular and will lose business and go bankrupt. Those that respect rights will get more business and therefore larger profits.
Questioning The Constitution Series
http://paulslist.us - http://news.paulslist.us
Thanks...all good points.
Thanks...all good points. I'll add Hoppe's, "The Myth of National Defense" to my reading list.
You can download it in PDF
You can download it in PDF version for free, here:
http://mises.org/books/defensemyth.pdf
Questioning The Constitution Series
http://paulslist.us - http://news.paulslist.us
I haven't read that yet, but
I haven't read that yet, but I think it would be a very good read.
Questioning The Constitution Series
http://paulslist.us - http://news.paulslist.us
There's truth to this.
BW has shit in their mess kit big time. As I told that pompous ass Tannim earlier, not everyone is like BW. I also outlined the massive amount of licensing and requirements to successfully work in this industry.
It is a LOT of study and a lot of hard work, not to mention long hours.
Look, I do stateside Executive protection work. Yes, I also do high-threat work, but under VERY strict circumstances, most of which has to do with personal work ethic. If I think a job smells funny, I will not take it. A single screw up in this profession gets you blackballed FAST. No client will hire you. BW kept getting back in due to political influence at the top.
Clients don't want Rambo, they don't want Bruce Lee, and they don't want arrogant troublemakers. This business is based on reputation, and if you get a black mark on it, you're done. Clients want professionals. They want quiet, unobtrusive agents who will blend with them and not stand out unless they need high profile security as a deterrent, and they definitely look for good communication skills. If you can be watchful and do a good advance, you can avoid trouble entirely before stepping into it. THAT is what clients want. Most times people don't even know we're around.
Why can't people protect the "country" themselves?
First off, the country is just the sum of individual pieces of property in a geographical area.
So, if the "country" cannot be protected, that implies that the individual pieces of property cannot be either.
I think that is absurd.
Secondly, on the issue of "national" defense, I agree with Hoppe that it can be better provided by the market.
Umm we have a billion
Dollar missle defense system that failed horribly on 9/11. We were defeated buy a bunch of guys with box cutters. With that said, it's kinda like calling the cops with a serial killer inside your house. By the time the cops get there, one of you is going to be dead. Same thing with the blubberment, look at Katrina and FEMA. Couldn't even deliver water correctly. Good Grief.
I'll check out your link,
I'll check out your link, Patrick.
One of the most amazing things about the human species
is our ability to act collectively. Sometimes we call that effort 'government". As you said the potential for government to limit personal freedom is almost a given. That is why so many people advocate for limited government. It seems a healthy compromise. Unfortuately, the Constitution leans towards the governmental side.
h-daddy
Nope.
The Constitution leans toward the People side.
It's the government's interpretation that leans towards the governmental side.
Nope.
We gave them the all the power, when we allowed them to tax us. We also gave them all the power when we allowed them to make the laws. So how did it ever lean to our side? I take that back. We didn't give them crap, because it was NEVER VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE. It's kinda like being forced and handing over all your rights after you have been decieved and "trusting" them to do you right. The only thing that is going to save us now is the WILL to educate the masses on this deception, on the UCC courts which is the law of COMMERCE, and the WILL to fight all vehicles of the beast. You must also stop believing in the agents of the beast. They get they're livelyhood from your enslavement. It doesn't matter which political affiliation you have, all agents work for the beast. Stop participating in the system they created. Spread the word.