Comment: Apples and Fish

(See in situ)


Apples and Fish

The Constitution is a complete and total failure because it seeks to define power, absent principles, using the arbitrary construct of language. It is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian dogma. The order of power presumed by constitutions, while laid out in no constitution, is:

1. God created everything, including Man.

2. God has granted Man a right to use Nature for his subsistence.

3. Governments are established by men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If God has granted the right to use Nature to men then government can only derive any power to profit from Nature from the consent of men.

4. Man did not grant government any authority to interfere with men using Nature for their own subsistence or private purpose. Obviously in accordance with this line of thought no Man has any authority to exclude another Man's access to Nature.

Some people say, ok what is your point. My point is apples and fish.

Under these precepts, God owns the apple trees and the apples. Man only has a right to use apple trees and apples. If one offers for sale an apple they are seeking to profit from what is God's. Government intervenes and says hey there apple seller the power to sell what is God's for profit has been delegated to government so that it can be regulated for the benefit of all. One only owns their labor to pick the apple or expense to plant or preserve an apple tree. One does not own the tree or the apples because these things are owned by God, which the privilege to profit from has been delegated to government's authority. If one wants to pick an apple and ask for the value of labor to acquire it that is not regulated because every Man has a natural and fundamental right to work. If you are going to seek a gain or profit above and beyond the value of your labor and sell the apple, because you love money, well now your selling what is God's which is a privilege not a right.

So one might say ok, I have no problem only seeking the value of my labor because I do not desire to engage in the privilege of business or commerce selling what is God's. So one starts fishing and instead of selling the fish they ask only for the value of their labor to catch the fish. The first day it only takes two minutes to catch a fish and it is easy to find someone willing to pay for two minutes. The second day it takes two hours and no one wants to pay for two hours. Market participants are only concerned about what they will receive not the value of your labor to produce it. They only care about the fish they are getting.

The law knows all of this and the law knows that it can be discerned on a case by case basis whether one has derived a gain or profit above and beyond the value of labor. The law knows that it can be discerned on a case by case basis whether value derives from Man (ie. labor) or Nature. The law knows people demand products such as apples and fish, not necessarily the value of labor to acquire or produce them. The law knows it is pretty dam hard to circumvent the law by operating outside it. The law knows it is dam near impossible function in a society which demands apples and fish and not volunteering into its jurisdictions by ones own actions of seeking to sell what is God's or derive a gain or profit above and beyond the value of labor. The law knows the value of labor is not a constant, it is an arbitrary thing.

If this is the way an entire legal system works which derives from a constitution then what good is a constitution which does not plainly and clearly explain why things are the way they are to posterity?