"Anarchy rejects the rulers not law."
Okay. But then, how do YOU guarantee that all will :
1. REMEMBER there is even a law?
2. BOTHER to read or understand it?
3. BOTHER to respect it?
4. ALLOW those who are, precisely: a) LAW-ABIDING, b) honest, c) peaceful, d) productive people, e) minding ONLY their own business, to continue be protected by it - The Law?
Do you think all men are what is commonly referred to by "angels"? Or CAN even be? Or even that most can EVER be so?
I don't. I would love the contrary to be true.
But it's NOT the facts. That is : it's not what History shows.
The FACTS are SOME men, in ALL times, in ALL places, will ALWAYS try abuse, steal, deceive, suppress others -even, PHYSICALLY- who are in their way for whatever goal they pursue.
This is human nature. Most people are willing to live peacefully with others... until they get TO WANT MORE, more "whatever" (power, property, fame, allegiance, or a mix thereof) and DENY others' natural rights and forget where they came from, themselves.
I DO NOT say that ALL people are DOOMED to be become evil or abusers.
What I say is : ANYONE CAN possibly become so. ANY time.
And that's where you need the law and something, some people to SERVE it (the Righteous Law) - and not use it, as today (the Law Perverted).
So, you need SOME law enforcement.
You need SOME courts.
You need SOME people-controlled government.
The SMALLEST POSSIBLE ONE, granted.
But you need SOME.
And YOU WANT ALL OF THE ABOVE IN PERMANENT CHECK by the People, in case SOME try to abuse their prerogatives.
That is EXACTLY WHY the founders have put A SECOND Amendment after the FIRST.
The first is to allow EVERYONE to be able to speak their mind FREELY, including AGAINST WHATEVER government they had formerly put in place.
The second is to allow EVERYONE to be able to REFUSE to be subjected by the latter as well.
Every single of the first 13th Amendments has only but one or a few ORTHOGONAL purposes to PROTECT the inalienable rights to life, move, association, speech, property, and justice rendered by the peers.
Every other of the amendments starting with the 14th and on are SUSPECTS.
But when Ron Paul said "the Constitution has failed", IMO, he DID NOT mean the texts have failed the people. Instead, in my view, he meant :
THE PEOPLE HAS BEEN FAILED BY A CONSTITUTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.
WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR.
AND WE DON'T GET WHAT WE HAVE NEGLECTED TO DEFEND AND PROTECT.
THIS IS LIFE.
If ***I*** NEGLECT my kids' education, then ***I*** CANNOT expect them TO NOT WASTE THEIR OWN LIVES, later on.
EVEN IF ***I*** educate them well, ***I*** am not even sure it will enable them to reach out to their own happiness later on.
But THAT is the best ***I*** CAN DO. And the minimum ***I*** MUST DO.
If I care, that is.
"EX NIHILO, NIHIL."
And, WHETHER we like it OR NOT, IT IS EVEN MORE OF A SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY, with the texts we ONCE claimed we care about:
Foundation texts are NOT living things ABLE to defend themselves.
They are ONLY pieces of records which shouldn't change in their interpretation (unlike what THE TRAITORS do with them today), and thus, it is men WHO decide to not follow them, because THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDAS against the People that the texts, if they were followed, would continue protect.
THE PEOPLE HAS FAILED THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS HOW THE CONSTITUTION "FAILED".
Now we have to deal with it. It happened MANY OTHER TIMES in past History, in other countries, civilizations, cultures - FOR MILLENNIUMS.
This is NOTHING NEW.
MERE NEGLECT OF THINGS THAT MATTER IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, AND ITS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
Our current and future scientific, technological knowledge, WILL NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING about it.
Beyond that, it may become a religious/faith question for some, but that should remain optional. AND PERSONAL, PRIVATE, INTIMATE, out of one's FREE WILL, that the same Bill of Rights' 1st Amendment ALREADY acknowledges, anyway.
Which is A GOOD SIGN that the text WAS POSITIVE. RIGHT FROM THE START.
And STILL IS, IMO.
Let us just FIGHT BACK to restore the Constitution, at least up to the 13th Amendment, inclusive, and preferably NOT BEYOND it.
There is no doubts in my mind that if we would just go back to a Constitution with the first 13th Amendments ONLY, then prosperity, justice, and peace would be restored for all.
That wouldn't get rid of the criminal behaviors. But at least The People, anew, would have a word to say against those.
Unlike today :
Just my views, anyway.
My name is pronounced like "see real". I code stuff for a living and for pleasure. I care quite a bit about language.
I think America should consider doing the same, and... ASAP!
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with R