Comment: It may be hard...

(See in situ)


It may be hard...

I had no intention of insulting you. Perhaps you're a little sensitive. I can understand that. What I'm saying can be a little disturbing.

I just wrote for you three things Ron Paul has said that are negative about the Constitution. The fact that you haven't heard them, simply means you haven't been listening. One of them is specifically referenced. The transcript is available. You simply have to look it up and read it.

It may be that the U.S. Constitution was the greatest one ever written. That doesn't mean it was good enough. That doesn't mean it has not been a failure.

It is clear, that Ron Paul uses the Constitution to try to get people to start thinking. Now is your chance.

All you have to do to take what I'm saying seriously is read the Constitution. Don't "google search the idea." Read the document. Set the amendments aside, as they were added later. The other part explains quite clearly the purpose of the document. And it's simple. They wanted to be able to impose involuntary taxes and maintain an army to make sure their collection framework was enforceable. The rest is simply describing the procedures according to which they were going to do that. It's true that many of those procedures have been set aside, and some of them might have been an attempt to "limit" government. In that sense, it is reasonable to say that it would be good to get back to following the Constitution.

But in basic principle, the Articles of Confederation which proceeded the Constitution were fundamentally different. The difference was that taxes were voluntary. The central government could request funding, but they did not claim the right to take it by force. That is the basic point. The document itself is the proof. You need no google commentary.

As pointed out in the post below, the objective I have just described (and which is described in the document) is exactly what they did in regard to the so called whiskey rebellion.

The fact that the government would display all the tyrannical aspects that its principle suggested, was a matter of debate. There was enough feeling that things would turn out as they have that the first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") was added. At that time, it was not clear what the outcome would be, and many had hopes of "limited government." Now, the outcome should be clear.

No conspiracy theory. It was just a costly mistake. Jefferson was against it. Patrick Henry was against it.

Here is an idea which might be helpful for you: The "founders" were not some monolithic unified group. Different people had different ideas. If you read up on Washington, you'll find that he was not what you might think. I might not go as far as the poster below in my condemnation, but it's clear that he thought in terms of classes and that people in lower classes shouldn't have very much liberty. Liberty was for the ruling class, which he was in. And he also didn't really like to deal with lower class people. I don't know about you, but I don't view those as very sustainable or endearing characteristics. The book "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fischer might be a good place to start.

In any case, after the war there were not enough people who thought that liberty was the best general course for society to stop the Constitution. We are all inheritors of the consequences of that lack and the resulting error. We have been born and raised in the resulting system. The best in the world? Maybe. But also (still) based on the principle of the few dominating the many and directing society via slave labor taken through violence or the threat of violence. (Don't pay your taxes, and we'll lock you in a cage. Resist being locked in a cage, and we'll kill you.)

The challenge is to recognize the situation into which we have been born and recognize its shortcomings...and to find a workable alternative. Ron Paul has also said many times, that the Constitutional government of the United States is nearing its end, and we must consider what is going to replace it.

This is an important point. As long as it persists, and in that context, Ron Paul advocates returning to the Constitution. But he has recognized that it is not going to last forever---though even very bad ideas can take a long time to completely collapse, just look at the Soviet Union---and Ron Paul has encouraged us to prepare to replace it with something better. He nor I will intentionally try to bring about the collapse, though both of us may engage in subsidiary causes that may hasten it (e.g., creating alternative economies, ending the Federal Reserve monopoly, taking control of our labor---not paying taxes if we can avoid the violence threatened for not doing so), but the collapse, it appears, will come. And we need to be ready for it. (Those are ideas, if not the words, of Ron Paul. We have all heard them, if we will listen.)