The US Constitution; making theft and murder ‘legal’ since 1787

It won't be my neighbors who show up.

It does give you your property... That is why the property tax is unconstitutional. Man, it seems, is very power hungry and wants to rule over the people and their properties. Name one single "utopian" society where this was not the case. So, if you look through that lense, the constitution does give us our property and that is why the property tax is unconstitutional. However, it does not give you your life, no, you have a point there and I meant "it gives you everything" in context. Last question: Yes, the Bill of Rights is the first part of the constitution! However, the constitution is abused so we need to get rid of these far unperfect people running this country.

Ron Paul 2012

of an anarchist if I've ever seen one.

Jacobin wannabe.

Your going to dismiss Franklin because he is a freemason?! AHHHH!!! Some times, I cant take this garbage on this forum... Its so rediculous, how paranoid so many people are on this website! We should be making premisses and conclusions based on known facts and philosophy, not F*****g hearsay, or speculation!!! Thats like debating Intelligent design over evolution! Although God may have created the universe, there is nothing to verify or test it, so therefore it is not science... With that being said, someone being a freemason does not discredit his legitimacy!! I am seriously going to pull my hair out when I hear these arguments!!!!

Ron Paul 2012

"You really don't get the fact that people are individuals, and not just members of some group, do you?"

I went into a lot of detail about the fact that people are individuals and that individuals in today's society are free to choose whether or not they want to be part of the Constitution "group". I even explained to you that if you don't want any part of the Constitution then all you have to do is identify yourself as a statutory citizen. Yet you still act as if the Constitution is an instrument to restrain the people. So your saying that I "really don't get the fact that people are individuals, and not just members of some group" is an indication that either (a) you didn't really read the post, or (b) you did not comprehend it.

But, just for fun, let's say I waive my magic wand and *poof* the Constitution is gone right now. Now, having removed the only thing restraining the full intrusiveness of the federal government from you, rest assured the number of laws they impose will explode out of control, and the scope of the laws will swallow up everything. You won't be able to breath without violating a law. Will you then cry about how people are entirely sovereign, islands unto themselves, not part of any group, with a fed-issued muzzle to your forehead? Bad idea. Do you want me to waive the wand again and abolish the federal government, too? Okay *poof* done. Now what you have is a lawless situation where I can do whatever I want to anyone, any time I choose, and I have no one to cry to when others do whatever they want to me. Hopefully this isn't what you're advocating? Is it? The fact is that the Constitution was designed to permit other forms of government yet to restrain those other forms from the inhabitants of the land, but that restraint only works if people endorse and enforce it. Both forms of government exist and the balance of power is absolutely necessary. You're free to choose either side. Yes, I know, this still puts you in a "group", and you'll kick and scream about it, but why not choose the group that seeks to respect your sovereignty as opposed to the one that seeks to grow so large as to take away everything you have and crucify you for everything you do? What's that you say? "DAMN IT! I already said I don't want to be part of a &*%^#@ group!!!" Okay, well, like it or not, you are and will continue to be so long as those groups exist. When they cease to exist, so do you. Time to put on your big boy pants and deal with it. If you disagree then walk around and do whatever you want whenever you feel like it, regardless of whether or not you transgress against other sovereign individuals - see how far that gets you - then cry about being an island and see how far THAT gets you. We all share this planet and the only way you'll every be your own individual who can do and say whatever he wants whenever he wants is for you to move to another planet. Since there won't be anyone else there to consider, you can name it anything you like - Planet Anarchy, for example. :)

In any case, just to make sure we're on the same page, do you:

1) Advocate abolishing the Constitution and replacing it with nothing?

2) Advocate abolishing the Constitution and replacing it with something else? If so, what?

3) Advocate abolishing all current forms of government altogether and replacing them with nothing?

4) Advocate abolishing all current forms of government altogether and replacing them with something? If so, what?

"What could possibly grant any one person the 'right' to take property that does not belong to them from some other person?"

Such people are never 'granted' such a right. I can't imagine anyone in his or her right mind saying, "I willfully give you the power to take my property." People who have such power have taken it by deceptive means under false pretenses, daring anyone who questions it to challenge them. By not challenging such people when it really mattered, we have effectively said, "I willfully give you the power to take my property."

"What could possibly grant any one person the 'right' to create rules that effectively enslave some other person?"

Control of money? The power to create money and bank ledger entries? A mindless, self-absorbed society that has slept for too long, not noticing the monster its government has slowly grown and evolved into. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

And who is this "one person" you keep bringing up anyway? How did we get from "We The People" to "one person"?

"It's no wonder the founding fathers wrote it to say 'we the people'. They damned sure didn't want to take personal responsibility for their actions. If they had stated, as was the case, that THEY, BY NAME, were declaring all these rules, the ruse would not have worked, would it?"

Apparently you still do not understand that "all these rules" are rules that tell the government its limits in relation to the people from whom it draws it power. Is it a bunch of rules? Yes - rules imposed on the GOVERNMENT.

And do you know what the ratification process was? You seem to imply that a group of guys got together, drank a few beers, drew up a document and said to the masses, "This is the law we've come up with. Deal with it!" The states, the people thereof and their condoned representatives all looked at the document and essentially said, "Yes! We want this! We just finished shedding lots of blood to break away from a tyrannical government, so the basis of our new government must try to protect us from a reoccurrance!" You try to lead people here to believe that these guys acted under the George Bush principle of, "We're doing it and we don't care who likes us for it. You're either with us or against us." Anyone who has ever read and actually comprehended the document, and who understands how it was ratified, knows that the picture you try to paint is absolutely not the case.