0 votes

Anyone see this hate for constituionalists on LewRockwell.com?


"When I started practicing law in 1992 I had framed some nice prints of the Trumbull painting of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence; a facsimile of the Declaration itself; and the famous Rembrandt Peale portrait of Thomas Jefferson. In the years since I’ve become more and more disgusted and cynical about constitutional sentimentalism and have become much more critical of America’s baleful effect on world history and my rosy view of its founding. Contrary to Randian mythology, America was not some minarchist paradise at its founding (and even if it was, minarchism is just another form of statism; see my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist): it was a flawed utopian experiment resulting from an illegal coup d’etat (see my The Institute for Justice on our Munificent Constitution). It was a society that condoned slavery, one of the worst evils ever, while establishing a constructivist new order based on a “rational, scientific” paper document and rejecting traditional, superior, unwritten, monarchist limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century–WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II–not to mention the illegal, immoral, murderous, centralizing War to Prevent Southern Independence (which some “libertarian” centralists for some reason support!) (see my When Did the Trouble Start?; Hoppe’s Murray N. Rothbard and the Ethics of Liberty; also my post Supreme Court: Innocence is No Defense; also Manuel Lora, Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom).

And while I still admire many things about Jefferson, let’s face it, he was a slaveowner, probably a slave-raper; he violated the Constitution while in office; and he helped foist on the world this utopian experiment that has led to the present state of the world.

So, I can no longer bear to look at these icons in my office, and am giving them away (maybe to Gil Guillory)."

Constitutionalism is utopian as opposed to......anarchism?!??!?!?

Monarchy superior to republic?

Revolutionary War termed "illegal coup d'etat" while Civil War is "war for Southern Independance"?

Bill of Rights and Constitutionalism led to Monarchic systems like Fascism/Stalinism?

Seriously, sometimes I think Federal Agents touched these LRC clowns innapropriately when they were kids.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Lew Rockwell and company are

Lew Rockwell and company are champions of individual freedom. Conservatism is a form of coercive collectivism, so of course the conservative's dander gets up when they are forced to face the reality that their ideology is just another variant of socialism.

I didn't find much I

I didn't find much I disagree with in the article. WHile I think the focus on the cultural aspect of people like Jefferson are the wrong focus to get the message out I don't disagree with his conclusions about where the constitution has led us.

yes I know it's mans flaws largely however all the more reason not to give men power over you in the form of so called government. History has proven including the most recent evolution of government (the constitution) that men cannot govern their fellow men honestly and benevolently period.

How can one be free if you have to get enough of the mob to agree with you to allow you to plant certain plants on your property etc.?

End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

What it means

I found this article by Mr. Kinsella that I believe explains why he is an arnacho-capitalist. It sound pretty reasonable to me.


quote from Kinsella's article

[R]eplies like "but we need a state" do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims – i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality.

The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong.

The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that.

Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else – making sure certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost – but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason.


Fortune Favors the Bold

I don't agree with everything the author says, but he makes some good points, especially about the rosy view of the early days of the nation and the founders that just doesn't live up to reality.

Fortune Favors the Bold

the article he links to

Fortune Favors the Bold

by manuel nora is somewhat more concisely to the point


Fortune Favors the Bold


Great quote from that article:

The philosophy of non-aggression is not favored because it would promote any particular outcome. Aggression is simply not justified. Anyone who does not agree with that is either confused or a criminal, or both.

Coercive monopoly

What are the characteristics of a coercive monopoly?

(1) It forces you to pay for its services and (2) it forbids any competition.

Therefore, a coercive monopoly is violent because, in order for it to exist, it must aggress against person and property via: (1) stealing to fund itself, and (2) using force and threatening force in order to exclude others from providing the same services.

In addition, the elimination of competition results in poor services at higher prices. So what you have is a violent and incompetent service provider.

Government is a coercive monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. That is why all governments, including limited constitutional governments, are violent and provide inferior services.

Spooner said that the Constitution has either authorized such a government, or has been powerless to prevent it. I believe that the Constitution has both authorized this despotic government and been powerless to prevent it.

Article 1, Section 8, enumerates powers granted to the federal government. These are the only powers granted. The Bill of Rights further restrict its power.

In 1803, the Supreme Court decided, in Marbury v. Madision that it had the authority to interpret the Constitition.

So you have an authorization of power via Article 1, Section 8, followed by a monopoly in the interpretation of this power sixteen years later.

Its initial coercive monopoly on law allowed it to rule in favor of itself, which then allowed itstelf to broadly interpret its delegated powers and narrowly interpret laws which were supposed to protect our rights.

And that is how the Constitution has empowered this government and has been unable to prevent its tyranny.

To summarize: (1) A limited constitutional government is a coercive monopoly which is, by definition, a violent instituiton. (2) Over time, its monopoly allows its oppression to expand. (3) Its compulsory monopoly achieves poor results in any service which it outlaws.

Think about the quality of results achieved by the government’s monopoly on money production, laws and courts.

Non-aggression principle
Rothbard’s Society Without A State

The Supreme Court does not

The Supreme Court does not have a Monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. Justices can be impeached and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be limited by a simple majority vote in Congress. Any branch of government has the right to interpret the constitution, with the weakest interpretation powers being with the Executive.

"To summarize: (1) A limited constitutional government is a coercive monopoly which is, by definition, a violent instituiton. (2) Over time, its monopoly allows its oppression to expand. (3) Its compulsory monopoly achieves poor results in any service which it outlaws.

Think about the quality of results achieved by the government’s monopoly on money production, laws and courts."

1.Most constitutionalists will accept this. We temper the monopoly power with bureaucratic restrictions, federalism, the Bill of rights, enumerated powers, and separation of powers.
2.Although this has happened in our situation, it was mostly done illegally and therefore cant be blamed on the law, which is no more or less powerful than what the people give it(true in an anarchic society as well). It also doesnt follow that with sufficient safeguards, such a turn towards despotism wont be thwarted in the future.
3.Not true in the case of national defense, where coercive power may be necessary for a proper defense against less enlightened enemies. As far as courts, I have not heard a good explanation of private contractual courts that do not violate property rights and therefore reject that the state does not provide a liberty-maximizing service in this area. I do support private arbitration when appropriate, however. As far as laws, anarchists propose a society bound by common law and contracts. Common law evolves virtually through chance and can allow for things like human sacrifice, as history shows. Contracts are only as good as the lawyers that draft them and the consumer that signs it, same with the government.

Ventura 2012


1.Most constitutionalists will accept this. We temper the monopoly power with bureaucratic restrictions, federalism, the Bill of rights, enumerated powers, and separation of powers.

How are the restrictions of the government working for you?

2.Although this has happened in our situation, it was mostly done illegally and therefore cant be blamed on the law.

What do you mean it was done illegally? According to the government, it was legal. The government interprets the law, not you. The government believes that it is acting within its scope of power. The ones with a monopoly on law get to decide what is legal. Then they act on that decision.

3. Not true in the case of national defense, where coercive power may be necessary for a proper defense against less enlightened enemies.

We have a warfare state which is funded by stolen money. Bad result.

The question is not...

whether the Constitution establishes a flawed government, but whether men can overcome the pitfalls of government at all. We can argue technicalities, but the spawn of the Constitution, the twisted, malignant and megalomaniacal congress, legislation and judiciary are our adversaries at the moment. They aren't just the "flavor of the day", but rather the immediate threat to our retreat away from overarching Federal control. What plans. laid by men have not been flawed? If the Constitution is so bad, then where do we go? I'm really tired of defacement with out proposals for reconciliation. I prefer the Articles of Confederation; one page government is always better - have you ever noticed that these tryanical pieces of legislation require coutless pages while many pieces of good legislation take a few sentences. I have always said that this conflict will be whittled down it's root - federalist vs. anti-federalist. I'm from NC so you can guess my stance, but I'll temporarily go for the Constitution over the monopoly capitalism (Fascism) going on at present. I think we should set goals that are attainable, if somewhat distasteful to our personal desires, to take back individual sovereignty from the federal (feral) government a piece at a time. If fighting for the Constitution is that first step then I'm willing to go. Once that is achieved then we can decide where we go from there. But if we do not first defend ourselves from the immediate threat, our dreams of the future are but ghosts of desire.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

so are you saying that all LRC contributors

are horrid anti-constitutionalists????

Mike Gaddy, Lew Rockewll, Karen DeCoster????

Watch what you say before you go lumping everyone at LRC with Kinsella's left-libertarian anarchist rants.....for I am positive you would find others there who also agree with your viewpoint on this matter.

Clowns??? Hardly.

So let me guess....everyone at LRC is guilty by association...and since they let Kinsella post there, than that means everyone who posts as LRC, completely, and wholeheartedly agrees with everything he writes.

Is that what you are implying?


Fortune Favors the Bold

left-libertarian and anarcho-capitalist are definetly very different

Fortune Favors the Bold

I read that site every day.

I read that site every day. The VAST majority of them are an-caps, and I would definitely label Lew Rockwell as in lock-step with Kinsella, even though he would not word things so irresponsibly. I love the humor on that site, but you have to understand where they are coming from and be careful. I'm tired of hearing Lew Rockwell tell people not to run for office. These people are the brains behind the economic ideology(namely, the Gold Standard) of our movement, but their politics should be cast aside.

Ventura 2012

I Smell A Rat at Philadelphia! -- Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry, one of the firebrands of the American Revolution (of Secession from England), is famous for having said "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death". He was asked to be a representative for Virginia at what became the Constitutional Convention. He turned down the offer saying "I Smell A Rat at Philadelphia".

What a great man!

If only more of the founders had big spines like he did...we might still have the more libertarian Articles of Confederation.

"Doesn't matter who you vote for, the Gov't always gets in."- Bill Hicks

Sorry, this is MY Country

You make way too many assumptions about Government in general..As seen today Governments do not OWN the World , PEOPLE do..Governments ONLY manage populations..You accuse the wrong ogranization of treachery & deceit.. The Constitution did not support anything you list ..It was just what you say , A DOCUMENT ..The people are what makes it function , just as we see today , WEAK people weak ,enforcement ...Strong people strong enforcement...IT is people ..PERIOD , on both sides of the issue..


They have to do it LEGALLY
Good people make the difference, you-no

I think the businesses that

I think the businesses that got multi-billion dollar bailouts from "the government" own you (if you are a taxpayer).


Kinsella convinced me that he is an idiot who knows nothing at all about which he attempts to write(poorly).

Don't waste your time reading that blog post.
There's nothing of value in it.
Simply the rantings of a blind zealot.

He has made some good points

Like it or not, you have to think about it. We got where we are today with this Constitution. Actually, I have never thought it was the fault of the Constitution, but the abuse of it that has gotten us here, but maybe the Constitution is too gentlemanly.

What he's done is like

What he's done is like blaming the guns for killing and not the shooter.

Ventura 2012

Hooray for Stephan

Hooray for Stephan Kinsella!! Like I always say, you can't square the Declaration of Independence' secessionist, anarchistic philosophical roots with the Constitution's strong central government provisions. The Constitution was a coup d’état against the American Revolution!

Nonsense, the Constitution

Nonsense, the Constitution was a coup d'etat against protectionist, unaccountable states. As a matter of fact, until the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Ammendment to apply to the states, you had almost no due process guaruntees within the states.

Ventura 2012

Double Nonsense!

Double Nonsense, the same logic could be used to say that the world is characterized by "protectionist, unaccountable states" and what is needed is a strong central World Government to apply something like an international 14th amendment to countries like the U.S.

Internationalists are even worse that unthinking dogmatic constitutionalists.

-BTW- The word amendment only has one "m" in the second syllable.

The 14th was ratified by

The 14th was ratified by accepted means by the states and the courts decision was textually sound. Americans are more free than they were. If there was already in existence a World government, and the bill of rights were applied to member nations, wouldnt you be happier than if that had NOT happened?

Ventura 2012

MY GOD you are in the dark.

MY GOD you are in the dark. The 14th Amendment was ratified by MILITARY FORCE, not by the "accepted means" of Article 5 of the Constitution.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Ohio was sketchy, but

Ohio was sketchy, but considering that a war had just been fought, I really dont put much stake in the conquered peoples of the south and their opposition to due process.

Ventura 2012

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read.

So using military force is a proper way to make a people ratify an amendment? (which it was not ratified according to how an amendment is supposed to be) Due process = military force????

"What was taken from the boomers, it ain't there, what was taken from the X'ers it ain't there, what is being taken from their great, great, great squared grandchildren it ain't there. Some generation just has to have the guts to quit passing it on." Me

*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*

I was hoping you'd say tripple non-sense

Bmore: While we have agreed on other posts; I'm going to have to take the contrarian position here -- hear me out.

Slavery was upheld by Regulation and Subsidization

Slavery went against the whole New Testament

You and I would not have been able to vote back then.
---Only Wealthy Land-Owning WASP Men need apply
---Irish Catholics even other WASP men who did not own land could not vote

Voting is "democratic" and always leads to voting for yourself or your group.

The Framers all gained wealth and advantage from England (prior to Constitution).

The Framers all stole millions and millions of acres from the American Indians -- during times of relative peace.

The Framers built the bases for Reservationism

The Bill of Rights was gov't Granted Rights and not In-Alienable rights. It's like a King's concession.

Therefore their Constitution was corrupt with no intention to give the "freedoms" the ink promised.

We are all "freer" now because of the expense of subsidizing slavery and holding back industrialization. Mostly because of those two big beautiful oceans; which made controlling America from foreign shores impossible without abdication-of-will. The latter still be true today.

Now I would trust Ron Paul to pen a proper Minarchist Constitution and I bet he could do it on one piece of paper.