Was the Constitution a Mistake?
I am not going to make it a habit to post articles here that I didn't write myself, but I found this one so startling and thought-provoking that I felt compelled to post it here for consideration and comment. The article is titled "On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution" and was written by Hans Hermann-Hoppe. The article makes some startling arguments, including:
- That limited government is unable to protect individual liberty
- That the US Constitution was a fatal error in the attempt to preserve liberty
- That our life, liberty, and property would be better protected by INSURANCE COMPANIES than any form of government, limited or otherwise that we could devise!
I am not sure I agree or disagree with this article - I just read it today. However, it is worthwhile as a read if for no other reason that to challenge your assumptions.
I have one request - please READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE before commenting. Enjoy!
Link: http://mises.org/story/2874
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1702 reads
I find it interesting that this discussion has centered largely on the power to tax. The question was whether the Constitution is a failure. Taxes indirect (avoidable) have to be equal amongst the states, and direct (unavoidable) have to be apportioned according to Census. And if I remember a little history, The Articles "failed" because of their inability to tax.
I don't know how any form of taxation is morally defensible. If an indirect tax is one that is avoidable, then the politically knowledgeable and privileged will use the power to prey on the ignorant. Much like religion.
Or a direct tax. How is taking (stealing) from everybody equally for any cause moral?
I conclude that all taxation is theft. Or else it wouldn't be a tax. It would be a pleasure.
Human freedom, not liberty, but freedom, is a reality. No man can sign away his actions. He will ultimately act according to his own desires. So what scares criminals, ever-present people who choose to use force and fraud? I know it's not government. Government, to me, as we see it in the form of nations, states, churches, and all other bodies of power and influence, is the greatest tool, not the object, of corruption.
As to how it all might be accomplished, I agree with Rothbard that it has to start with a legal code. A rules of evidence and definition of crimes. I do not believe that we should do away with jurisprudence. Just territorial land monopolies on the use of violence (and fraud, de facto). That is probably too much power for anyone.
I understand this is fairly disjointed. I apologize. I close with this. There is all this talk about what will happen when insurance companies take over government, like the molesters are gonna be given free reign. Currently, government imprisons drug offenders, some 300K, not molesters, not fractional reserve bankers, not mass murderers. One nation, under God, under men.
""God the Creator doesn't need the 'help' of civil governments any more today than He did in Jesus' day. Do you see Jesus and the apostles setting up civil magistracies in the New Testament?
The problem isn't that the Constitution doesn't contain God; it's that the average household in America doesn't.""
Still out there trying to pump up the failing masses, I see...
Irrationality is a far greater problem. Lying to your kids. Making up stuff and making claims that are simply not true. Denying the obvious before you. Granting yourself an afterlife that you do not have and a soul that is nonexistent.
Not to mention the Catholic church...
"""The road to hell is paved with good intentions... And good intentions are frequently simply state worshipping utopianism, or atheists attempting to create their version of heaven on earth as they denounce the "superstitious Bible thumpers"."""
Ummmm, first of all, there is no hell. No road going to no hell, either. Good intentions quite often have good consequences. I am all for good intentions that have good consequences. Even good intentions that fail a little are better than bad intentions. The bible is full of bad intentions and horrible consequences. There is very little in it one can consider "good", unless one never really read the thing.
"""As far as restoring the constitution, that's true, because government is not following many of the basic principles found in the constitution and they should. But it is more important to restore the Law of God as found in the Bible. Probably the greatest error of the Constitution is the lack of the mention of God's Law or even the God of our people. This could have been easily done under the Judicial branch of our system. We need to do that after the second American revolution, so these gods in black robes cannot legislate from the bench and tell us what to do."""
Ummmm, there is no "god's law" There is only men making claims to know "god's law". Some of these claims are ridiculous. Take the bible for instance. One of the claims is that people who work on the sabbath should be killed. Another is that one should give up all their possessions. Another is to stone unruly teenagers. We "utopian" Athiests would simply like the bible thumpers to grow a brain. Nothing more profound than that. Just "develope" for christsakes. Join the 21st century. Stop expecting your delusion to be anything but delusion.
For the sake of the rest of us.
if there were no constitution, and instead we had insurance companies or other non state actors in charge of prosecuting criminals. Suppose, for example an uninsured person killed another uninsured person. Suppose it were in no individual or company's interest to prosecute this murderer (the victim was uninsured, and the murderer doesn't seem to pose a treat to anyone else), would he just be allowed to go free?
How about the right of a person with no money and no insurance to a fair trial? If you were unfairly accused and wanted to defend yourself, what authority could you appeal to, if not the law of the land, the constitution? What would guarantee that the same law be applied to uninsured people as to insured people, or that there might not be more lenient "laws" for people with better insurance?
Hoppe alludes to some kind of universal agreement between insurance companies that would presumably guarantee the same right to a fair trial that we have now, and the same amount of justice for criminals, but he doesn't elaborate on it. I just can't get my head around how this might work. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
if there were no constitution, then we would have the same government as the one that has one but doesn't follow it, right? so in that case, (maybe this should have been a reply to a certain reply i got to mine in which i said insurance companies take away my liberty, and was told that the government makes them do it) would insurance companies act any differently under a government with no constitution than under a government that has one and ignores it?
anyone ever said government, limited or otherwise, really protects liberty. its that government is the cheif infringer of liberty, and therefore must be limited. the constitution when read correctly is a set of limitations on government. government period is the oppositte of liberty. total liberty is impossible because government in some form is inevitable. in fact if everyone did have total liberty (anarchy) then there would be those people who exercised their liberty at the expense of someone else's liberty. such people would in effect become a form of government! the mistake was not the constitution. the real failure in america has been on the part of the people! by failing to understand the principles of limited government and holding our leaders to it, we have allowed the government to run amock; an inevitability if the people allow it. in reality the constitution does not limit government, but DOES prescribe a set of limits on government which it is up to the people to enforce. the people have failed to do so. if we actually followed the constitution we would have a limited government and a semblance of liberty. in fact our government is still not as totalitarian as it could be, it just keeps moving in that direction. at one time the people demanded total liberty and as a result got a semblance thereof. the more infringement we tolerate the more infringement we get. "give them an inch and they take a mile". the constitution was not a mistake. the people's complacency is the mistake.
was never meant to apply to anyone but rich businesspeople. now admittedly, its not worded that way, but you have to look at the time it was written. back then, you were rich if you had money AT ALL. most people were just living off the land. the founders never imagined that it would ever be any other way. when they gave the government power to tax, they were themselves the only people TO tax. contemplate that. the supreme court has repeatedly ruled that the government was not given power to tax workers' wages. even in the years between the writing of the constitution and the institution of the federal reserve, once the common people were haveing money, they were not taxed on wages. constitutionally they are only supposed to tax goods and corporate profits.
Phil Hart explains in his book Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any? (an historical survey of the birth of Congress' IRS scam) you're right, "thoughtcrime7": the federal income tax was originally designed to appear to the average Joe that it was only to soak the rich.
But when you get hundreds of lawyers on cushy political thrones, dividing up a few trillion dollars each year...you expect angels?
Congress is manifestly, totally corrupt; their abysmal approval rating today shows that most folks know it. The harship comes for 'Taxpayers' because they remain ignorant; too ignorant to know what train hit them, and too ignorant to crawl off the tracks before they're hit again...and again...and again with every paycheck.
Most Americans haven't the foggiest notion of civics, history, or even of how to dig up simple facts (Doh! Google!) Of the 130 million Taxpayers in America, I would estimate that far fewer than one in a thousand owns a copy of the Internal Revenue Code.
Anyone who does just a little searching online (I've made it easy by compending a decade of IRS scam research on one American Glasnost site) will discover that -- surprise! -- the federal income tax only applies to those relatively few specific activities and categories specifically pointed out in the Internal Revenue Code as it is written.
Congress can cheat and lie all they want, but they can't write an unconstitutional tax law. As I list below, the US Supreme Court and lower federal courts have ruled on the matter many times. But that's no impediment to a corrupt scoundrel; career politicians are very shrewd. Plus, most Taxpayers have been stuck on stupid for a long time (four generations at least).
It may be miserable, but it's your own damned fault. Sorry to be so blunt, but you need it!
Imagine: most "Taxpayers" self-select that legal category when you self-assess and then sign those promissory notes under penalty of perjury. Ignorant of any law actually requiring it, you pay the DC al Qaeda's demands, even though you've never read even one word of the Tax Code. Most Taxpayers have never even seen a copy.
Yes, I know; that's massive fraud by the U.S. Congress, every member of which should be serving time in his/her State Penitentiary for the rest of his/her days for these multi-trillion-dollar crimes! But still, how stupid have you been, Taxpayer? You pay whatever the Congress wants to extort, using IRS as their terror cell. You do this though you haven't actually seen any law, and regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled about this matter, over and over again since 1905? And regardless of what the Tax Code actually says in black and white?
Ignorance is costing you a great deal of liberty and money, 'Taxpayer'; for millions of families, Daddy's ignorance has Mommy at work to pay the tax bill. But there's nothing wrong with the US Constitution; the federal government just needs to be FORCED to obey it, and only We the People can do such 'forcing'.
Nothing wrong with the Constitution...and there's nothing wrong with the Tax Code, either. After ten years' studying it, I know it's constitutional as written. Long and Byzantine? Sure; but NOT unconstitutional. Since the Supreme Court knocked them back 100 years ago when they tried to pass a universal income tax ("everybody who earns money must pay"), Congress became increasingly shrewder with each re-drafting of the Tax Code. So all the citizen chickens just need to outfox the foxes...and 67 million of us already have. There are literally hundreds more Nontaxpayers every single day in America.
The Tax Code meets the constitution's uniformity and apportionment rules for federal taxation. Most Americans just need to obey the Tax Code but ignore DC al Qaeda's paper-tiger threats -- only after you educate yourself, of course. Otherwise, you're hanging fresh meat for the DC al Qaeda, and the IRS employee is trained to go for assets with total blood-lust. They're exactly like the other al Qaeda!
But liberty is alive and well in America. It's not a feat of magic that rendered 67 million Americans as non-filers; we gained our liberty from the empty guns of DC al Qaeda the old-fashioned way: we earned it by educating ourselves in civics and very basic tax law, Mr/Ms "thoughtcrime7".
You can, too. You can see that our Constitution is alive and well in the American households where it is honored through enforcement! Most government workers and politicians don't work in the productive sector for a very good reason: because they'd rather violate laws and citizen rights (whenever they can get away with it) and get easy income. Just like any other crooks.
You have the choice to stop letting them do so, at least to your family.
www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
no insurance company has ever done anything with my liberty but take it away. the problem with the US government is it does not FOLLOW the constitution. it was never perfect but up until 1913 it was steadily improveing. once the Federal Reserve was allowed to usurp our government it was all over. there was never a tax on personal income prior to this.
i could rebutt this whole essay, but i'm too tired to spend the next 24 hours typeing. i'm going to bed now. goodnight.
Because there STILL is no tax on personal income, except for very specific sources of income laid out in the Tax Code (alcohol, tobacco, firearms, merchant shipping, foreign-earned income, et al).
You're whining about a boogeyman and a thief that doesn't actually exist. Either that, or the 67 million of us who are now Nontaxpayers and non-filers...should all be in prison.
I know you're too tired to give any substance to your rants, but here's some hard evidence supporting the truth:
“The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.” Boathe v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405 (1983)
“The revenue laws apply to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers. Congress does not assume to deal with nontaxpayers, neither are they the subject of nor object of revenue laws.” Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 456 F.2d. 713
TEXAS PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 32. FRAUD
§ 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to: (1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or (2) cause another to: (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
...
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a). (e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. (f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
(Pretty cool for us Texans, huh!?)
Internal Revenue Manual
4.10.7.1 Overview. Examiners are responsible for determining the correct tax liability as prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. It is imperative that examiners can identify the applicable law, correctly interpret its meaning in light of congressional intent, and, in a fair and impartial manner, correctly apply the law based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4.10.7.2 Researching Tax Law. Conclusions reached by examiners must reflect correct application of the law, regulations, court cases, revenue rulings, etc. Examiners must correctly determine the meaning of statutory provisions and not adopt strained interpretation.
4.10.7.2.1.1 Authority of the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Code is generally binding on all courts of law. The courts give great importance to the literal language of the Code.
[So it kinda looks like it's a good idea for people to own a copy of the Code before letting al Qaeda skim off 1/3 of their paychecks, huh!?]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
[The legal principle of] inclusio unius est exclusio alterius “where law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.”
[Since there exist many sections of the Tax Code describing domestic income that is taxable (I cite many of them on my American Glasnost blog) and since all those sections indicate taxable activities and conditions but IRS can't show any section of law indicating that the average person's income is taxable, thus “an irrefutable inference must be drawn” that our income is not taxable. Unless they engage in taxable activities as called out in the Code, or are in a taxable category as specifically called out in the Code, the average American is a Nontaxpayer according to the law. At least until (s)he ignorantly self-assesses and signs that promissory document under penalty of perjury, 100% out of terror of the consequences that the DC al Qaeda will wreak on him/her if he doesn't meet the terrorists' demands. This is not just spineless; it's stupid, it's un-American, and it's financially supporting state-sponsored terrorism and federal corruption!]
IRS is in the habit of repeating a mantra, “the courts have ruled against your position” but exactly the reverse is true:
“Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.” Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 297 (1904)
“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.” Gould v. Gould , 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
[See? IRS can't simply skim your checks and freeze your assets because they just want to; not even if their superiors command them to do so! “I was only following orders” was the failed defense of the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg; ignorance of the law is no excuse! If the law has not authorized their tactics and they know it, then every IRS employee owes it to the American people – their employers – to report any of their superiors who are directing them to so violate laws. Fraud and extortion are illegal, even if their managers at IRS tell them to perpetrate it.]
Every IRS employee should know a little history of their agency; alas, the first and last official Historian of the IRS was fired and that program disbanded after Shelley L. Davis blew the whistle in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee oversight hearing on the IRS in September 1997:
"Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to be able to share a few of my thoughts and experiences with you today as you explore specific issues of IRS abuse of those the tax agency likes to call its "customers" -- American taxpayers. For 16 years I worked as an historian for the federal government...the final seven were spent as the first and unfortunately, the last official historian for the Internal Revenue Service. In my early years with the IRS, a good question to ask was, "Where are the records?" What I learned was shocking. The records had been destroyed. Gone. Shredded. Tossed. ...It is as though the IRS assumed that laws which apply to the FBI, to the CIA, to every other part of the federal establishment can be ignored.... No other agency of our government could get away with this. ... Our fear of being audited has allowed the IRS to theoretically eliminate any potential smoking guns by trashing its own records ... How can you prove any wrongdoing when the evidence is ...destroyed? The IRS has learned that the privacy protections are its best weapon in its war against its "customers"...
The U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock ruled unconstitutional the universal taxing language of the Revenue Act of 1894 and directed the thieving Congress to return all revenues they collected thereunder. Note the unconstitutional 1894 Revenue Act wording:
"There shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States . . . from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatsoever, a tax..”
This language was ruled unconstitutional and struck down because its test of taxability did not meet the apportionment and uniformity rules of the U.S. Constitution. (Its only test was, “Does the person breathe? Then he owes a tax!”)
Such universal taxing language is what the income tax industry teaches citizens that the law still demands. Such “enlargement of operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out” is fraud; it's also known as extortion. If you're in the tax industry, you really should reform yourself, even if you've just been operating out of ignorance all these years.
The Tax Code is perfectly constitutional now; it only taxes those activities and sources of income specifically pointed out. What the law does not specifically tax, may be assumed as not taxable – especially since citizen demands for legal citation have elicited nothing but evasion from IRS for decades now.
I’ve shown you that such evasion by IRS is in direct violation of their agency rules (IRM 4.10.7.1 and 4.10.7.2) and I've demonstrated that courts have often ruled against the DC al Qaeda’s position.
But here are a few more rulings just to drive the point home against all those years of terror conditioning:
“The sixteenth [16th Amendment] does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune...it does not extend taxing power to new or excepted citizens... it is intended only to remove all occasions from any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary.” Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920)
“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. . . . The individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)
“In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer...” Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, 82 L Ed 858. (1938)
“Where administrative action may result in loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living, any doubt as to extent of power delegated to administrative officials is to be resolved in citizen's favor, and court must be especially sensitive to citizen's rights where proceeding is non-judicial.” United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179; 76 S.Ct. 281 (1956)
See? You've been duped, 'Taxpayer'. Don't all these rulings and laws and IRS Manual rules just make you want to get your corrupt members of Congress fitted for State Penitentiary jumpsuits and leg shackles?
It's not hard to fight back, but you have to first resolve to fight the REAL War on Terror in America. It's raging between your ears, after generations of scamming by a very corrupt federal government, and by the tax industry and even the (religious and secular) tax-exempt industries. All these parasites have one thing in common: they don't produce anything in the economy; they live off what YOU produce.
Don't fear your employees. When a citizen provides an IRS terrorist with facts and citations exposing a pattern of their violations of their Code of Ethics for Government Service and of laws, regulations, and the IRM, it becomes that IRS employee’s duty to disprove those facts and law. If the IRS employee finds the charges valid, they must expose the corruption or leave the agency.
Incidentally: continued harassment (including any IRS ‘Summons’ notices to employers or customers) at least in my state is categorized (see Texas Penal Code 32.48) as criminal fraud, a jailable offense in Texas. Failure to comply with procedural due process requirements prescribed by law and published government policy including the IRM, according to RRA98 §1203, may result in administrative discipline up to and including discharge. Per 26 USC §7214(a), acts of omission and commission are classified as criminal, with penalties of up to five years in prison and significant fines for each offense.
So you're not the victim you thought you were. The IRS employee does not have the option of wilfully ignoring their IRM obligation to make decisions proving a citizen’s obligation under law by specific citation of law.
This has been a simple lesson in American civics and citizenship. I do not offer tax or legal advice. I just want liberty-loving Americans to see how the DC al Qaeda operates, and how YOU are funding them because you're terrorised and ignorant.
But now that you see how totally busted the corrupt Congress really is with its IRS check-skimming racket, your duty now is to stop whining about pork, fraud, and over-regulation and just protect your checkbook and wallet against terrorists posing as public servants. Cut off their money.
Make sure that your employees stop violating laws, at least with regard to you and your family. Liberty takes a little work, for goodness' sake.
www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
www.taxcodeforall.blogspot.com
www.america-again.blogspot.com
not as in disagreement as you think. the tax on personal income is not legal at all, now is it? its collected though isn't it? no, not from people who know its illegal of course. but there "is" one right? my point was that there wasn't a personal income tax, legal or otherwise until the criminal federal reserve came into being. i'm saying don't blame it on the constitution. i agree with your comment completely.
but you have your ideas and categories mixed up, and I'm trying to help you get to the real culprit: YOU.
First: you're stating the obvious, on which we "agree completely": the Congress has recruited its own al Qaeda operation at the IRS, which is operating lawlessly. (Most IRS employees are not evil, just gullible and more interested in serving their upline manager, than serving the citizens they claim to serve).
So you and I agree that Congress is funding its $3-trillion-per-year pillage by breaking the laws they wrote, and by having their terrorist operatives at IRS make you think that it's the law that you must pay an income tax, when most people really don't owe it according to the Tax Code itself.
But you and I disagree on who is really at fault for your "oppression". If you still slave for 1/3 of your year just to feed the estates of a bunch of crooks in Congress, and if you still self-assess and sign forms and pay up every year because you're too chicken to even read the law that supposedly requires all this April 15th hamster-wheel life...then YOU are at fault.
YOU are your own enemy. Not the Constitution...and not those (other) citizens that refuse to take action or see the truth...and no, it's not even so much the fault of the crooks in Congress and their ignorant hired guns at the IRS, because you don't just leave your home unlocked. You don't just leave your wallet and checkbook on the curb. You actually take that Form 1040 every year and self-assess how much you "owe" to those criminals in Congress!
Don't tell me about the Federal Reserve racketeers, either. Without the IRS scam skimming your checks, the other side of the money scam would collapse overnight!
So if you "agree with (my) comment completely", you must already own a copy of the (2006 or) 2008 Internal Revenue Code, and you must already be a law-abiding, patriotic Nontaxpayer that has joined in the financial embargo of the DC al Qaeda.
If so, I salute you. If not, you still have a bit of civic duty to perform before blaming your troubles on the Federal Reserve and sundry other boogeymen.
Liberty has never been rocket science; it only requires 'brains' (intellectual diligence) and a spinal cord (the courage to resist and even pursue criminals). One out of three working Americans today is a non-filer. When one out of three becomes a vocal, well-informed Nontaxpayer, this Corrupt Congress and the whole DC Leviathan is going down by the grace of God.
Lord, hasten the day.
www.americanglasnost.blogspot.com
www.taxcodeforall.blogspot.com
www.america-again.blogspot.com
One might stop to contemplate the possibility that the reason the insurance companies have taken away their liberties almost exclusively is because of government intervention and regulations within the industry that prevents it from operating within the scope of a free-market... I'm just sayin' is all... I mean, you even alluded to the fact that the many problems in America didn't really start to show their arses until around 1913 -- interestingly enough, when the Federal Reserve came into existence.
"A conceit to power, good intentions, and a belief in proactivity generally forms an excellent recipe for disaster."
Couldn't this be a valid competing theory to the one that asserts a worldwide, all encompassing conspiracy?
I wish I had these eloquent words in the conspiracy piece I wrote.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Even though the Constitution is a document, it is governed by "We the People". We elect the politicians we deserve. The Constitution reflects the nation's conscience (in other words - religion). That is the problem we are having today. Back then the overwhelming conscience and mindset was Judeo-Christian (see Alexis de Tocqueville). Over time we have become more secular accepting socialistic principles, more and more becoming slaves to the State, looking at the State as a political savior and giving more responsibility to the State while neglecting self government. The answer is to revive and renew the conscience of the nation back to its Judeo-Christian roots and self government. With a renewed and revived conscience we will then elect representatives to begin restoring the Constitution and tearing down the socialistic State. For this to happen we need to begin locally.
The Insanity of the State by the great Butler Shaffer
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer36.html
>>>>Even though the Constitution is a document, it is governed by "We the People". We elect the politicians we deserve.<<<<
Nonsense. I didn't vote for these people and I don't deserve what is happening. Not only that, if I didn't vote for them, then I am not being governed by my consent and governments only "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". The irrational collectivist mindset brainwashed into people has got to go. We are not a borg who must agree on all things. That is the basis for the Hegelian dialectic that spirals us further into communism every day. Thesis vs antithesis=synthesis.
Example: Nearly every day the media publicizes some issue, say gay marriage, global warming or smoking. Then they will have an "expert", usually commie leaning, always statist, who will extoll on how "we" need to stop this harmful behavior or allow some previously not accepted behavior. The premise is that "we" must all agree and abide by some "consensus" for the good of all. This consensus is always pre-engineered and the entire debate merely an exercise in thought control. There will be debate on each side with some small piece of territory conceded to the new paradign (synthesis). Say smoking is now banned only in hospitals and schools. Then the debate is renewed. More anti-smoking activists are given more publicity to publicize the evils of smoking and the righteousness of taxing them to control this negative behavior. More territory is conceded as smoking becomes illegal in restaurants and all public places, another new synthesis. The debate is begun anew until the desired result is achieved, complete banning of all smoking, or preferred status of some demographic where simple protection of their rights was the initial debate. Watch the news, you will see this dialectic played out on all manner of aspects of our lives, from environmentalism to driving SUVs. Frequently they will broadcast polls to clue people in that if they are not thinking along with the herd there is something wrong with them, that they are straggling from what is now "normal", "enlightened", "modern", "caring". It is how society is changed. For it to work people have to think collectively, that "we" all must agree, all must abide by the same morality/amorality, that "experts" know best.
There is a book called Havelocks Guide for the Change Agent. It is a handbook describing how to change the morality and behaviors of school kids. In it there are behaviorists bragging about how quickly they can eradicate the morals instituted by his/her biological family and institute moral relativism/amorality. This stuff is real.
You are correct, there is an ideological battle being waged. People do not understand the weapons being used against them or even the battle lines. It is state worship (which encompasses eco-worship, war worship, etc.) vs the worship of God. Even now, people like Oprah and religious leaders are busily redefining God and Christ to fit within the state worshipping paradigm to subsume the nondiscerning Christians. The good thing about libertarianism is that "we" don't all have to agree. You can be religious or atheist and peacefully co-exist if the aggression of the state is not available for either to inflict on the other.
I would agree with you, but I would just say Christian roots, not Judeo-Christian, for it is the Judeo part that has caused us to be so diluted that we have accepted socialist principles. It is the Jewish/Masonic (for the most part) influence that has given us the New World Order that we are opposing.
As far as restoring the constitution, that's true, because government is not following many of the basic principles found in the constitution and they should. But it is more important to restore the Law of God as found in the Bible. Probably the greatest error of the Constitution is the lack of the mention of God's Law or even the God of our people. This could have been easily done under the Judicial branch of our system. We need to do that after the second American revolution, so these gods in black robes cannot legislate from the bench and tell us what to do.
James N. Jester
Brother James,
I have to disagree (again! sheeesh!) because the Constitution could never make a law on the hearts of men anyway. The Calvinist mindset is not the way forward, any more than the Pharisees had the right answers in Jesus' day. He taught that His kingdom is not of this world, and this is so all over the world, for all time. Civil governments are human institutions and thus fatally flawed; the levels of government that really matter (and that either uphold or destroy good civil governments) are self-government and family government. Of course, here the Calvinist will chirp, "and Church government!!!" but the NT Church sure doesn't look like the institutions of Luther and Calvin...and certainly doesn't look like that of the modern evangelical zoo.
God the Creator doesn't need the 'help' of civil governments any more today than He did in Jesus' day. Do you see Jesus and the apostles setting up civil magistracies in the New Testament?
The problem isn't that the Constitution doesn't contain God; it's that the average household in America doesn't. But the neat thing is that His Church is growing like never before in human history, all over the world. Whether atheists or humanist governments like it or not, the REAL body of Christ is growing at a rate surpassing that of militant Islam and Buddhism combined! The highest growth rate per capita is...guess where?
China!
I don't see God in their 'constitution', either, bro. But I see Christ in over 100 million Chinese homes today, and a new house-church established every 8 minutes of every day, on average.
That may be terribly unsettling for atheists, but it's good news, not bad news for us, bro.
Most of the objections to the article seem to be based on the idea that the government is somehow protecting us. This notion must be dealt with. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PROTECT US. It does not protect the private property of the average taxpayer, the police have no legal duty to protect, and defending yourself in court will frequently bankrupt the innocent while enriching the criminal justice industry. As far as fears of "privatizing", wake up. Privatizing is going on all around you, it is the COSTS that are socialized. Taxpayers pay to build roads and bridges, politicians sell them to corporations to charge tolls. Private companies and special interests write legislation that favors them, taxpayers pay, either with lost rights or money. We already have private arbitration contracted for and used. Insurance companies would have to compete and their reputations would be on the line if they became known as crooks, without government protecting them there would be less misbehavior. People would learn that if someone was uninsurable that maybe they should not deal with them. Private gangs and bullies will forever try to aggress against us. That doesn't mean we have to PAY them to do it and then worship them as heroes and gods. I'd rather try to defend myself against a local bully than the Feds. In order for Big Brother to control us we must love him; it's time to fall out of love, people.
Government is raw force, a monopoly on aggression enjoyed by the politically talented and ruthless over the many. It has become a true monster through the behavioral training and dumbing down of the people to serfs who believe the lies they are taught as children and reinforced by the media. We are chained by our minds. There is a reason the founders locked the press and public out and swore each other to secrecy in Philadelphia and Patrick Henry "smelled a rat".
It is useless to blame the victims, the dumbed down, trained, illiterate borg of wage slaves for "allowing" the constitution to be ignored. Have you ever tried to hold even the local government bureaucracy accountable? I have, and it can get very nasty. In many places the major employer is the local government. They have ways of dealing with resistors and dissenters (See the articles on the Delphi technique at Freedom Force International).
Windy, your to be commended for seeing things as they are. Our Constitution has indeed been compromised by those who wish to hold us powerless, just like the insurance companies who rule by fear. Some may call insurance protection, I call it legal thievory just like taxes. But hey as long as we are sold the bill of goods that we really need this darn stuff, then the sheep will follow.
In that at least for auto insurance in almost every state- it is compulsory. The penalties are getting more severe by the year. Minimum fine laws go into effect everywhere - 500 bones second offense. Mandatory.
And I would be a fool if I didn't think the insurance companies do not aggressively lobby the state legislatures to enact compulsory insurance laws or increase penalties for non-compliance. Its an area seething with opportunity for corruption and general conflicts of interest.
'And I think that you too would call it propaganda when people are enticed into a change of opinion by promises of pleasure, or terrified into it by threats?' 'Yes, propaganda and deceit always go together.' (Plato, Republic)
I am reminded of an article I read here on BTM recently about the difference between "market entrepreneurs" and "political entrepreneurs". The insurance industry has some of both, just like any other industry. The political entrepreneurs are the ones pushing for mandatory insurance, minimum fines, etc., so they don't have to compete against the market entrepreneurs. Under Hoppe's proposed system, centralized legislation is constitutionally prohibited, so compulsory laws as such could not be enacted. This is not to say I agree entirely with Hoppe, but I believe there is nothing inherently "evil" about the insurance industry, at least no more so than is true about capitalism in general.
I agree with your post about insurance companies, having worked for a few back in the day. I would only add that when there are "mandatory insurance, minimum fines, etc., so they don't have to compete against the market entrepreneurs," that is NOT capitalism. To the extent that we have engaged in such practices in the US in any/every industry, at that point we departed capitalism, which is based upon free exchange, and practiced socialism, which is using the coercion of government to manage results rather than letting the free market produce results.
This is a VERY important distinction, because we are in the middle of socialism AGAIN seizing the opportunity to blame this latest economic meltdown on capitalism and prescribe more socialism as the solution, when in fact socialism caused this problem and more of it will make it worse, plus cause new problems.
In a war of ideas, we must be on guard against the blurring of definitions. As Orwell warned us, it is a basic tool of totalitariansim.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I'll amend my statement then: there is nothing evil about insurance corporations or other industries at all, except to the extent that they have been socialized by political entrepreneurs and/or well-wishing but mistaken individuals :)
I read this same article yesterday linked from Lew Rockwell's site. I commented in a thread to friends that I found some interesting philosophy there in Hoppe's view of a competition among "bads" (rather than competition among goods). That is to say that our government's egalitarian mechanics allow anyone to participate. To paraphrase, Hoppe contends that anyone who would want to be in power is someone craving power. Therefore, the federal government becomes a competition of the power-hungry, and competition tends to allow only the strongest to win.
He contrasts this with anarchocapitalism where the power-hungry are shamed and ultimately suppressed through physical violence. In the Constitutional system, they are encouraged.
I believe his viewpoint wanders off the path though. My observation - and it is strictly my opinion - is that the sort of people that competes for participation at the level of federal governance may indeed be power-hungry, but is more often ruled by good intentions. A conceit to power, good intentions, and a belief in proactivity generally forms an excellent recipe for disaster.
Consider that even presidents (the most vivid example) who enter the system with the right ideals still end up manifesting their authority in harmful ways. Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts; Jefferson embargoed trade; Jackson removed native citizens; Lincoln suspended virtually every civil liberty; etc. Certainly each of them believed in limited government, and each of them was certain he knew what was best for everyone and how things were best done. Unfortunately, limited government is not easily compatible with the scope of power contained in the Constitution. If we need to rely upon the presence of thousands of people with the individual temperament of George Washington, that does seem very unrealistic.
And good intentions are frequently simply state worshipping utopianism, or atheists attempting to create their version of heaven on earth as they denounce the "superstitious Bible thumpers".
That the Constitution (or any document) is far from sufficient to preserve liberty, it's just a "god damn piece of paper".
However, I also disagree strongly that corporatism will better protect us, because power corrupts, regardless of where it comes from (yes, even in majority rule).
I do agree, with John Stossel style capitalist defense, that greed motivates people to do good. But this is highly conditional on the factor that people are educated enough to make it work.
If this argument (that insurance companies do better than government) is serious, we should embrace corporatism and any type of socialist measure, because giving up choice to power will give us liberty.
In closing, I will say, that guns and violence are the real deal, nobody has argued with it. Very few revolutions have been peaceful and successful at the same time, but all violent ones have been. Nobody has denied violence a voice, but everything else had its chance to be ignored, reason, morality, science, compassion...etc.
Actually, peaceful revolutions have a strong record of success. Ghandi is of course the most famous, but also East Germany leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Solidarity in Poland, and the Phillipines in 2001. By contrast, most violent revolutions end in defeat for the revolutionaries, such as the Jews against Rome in the first century CE, the Scots against England, the insurrections in Mexico in the 1900's, etc. We only remember the successful ones, but they are outnumbered by the revolts that were put down. This might be because when they are unsuccessful, they are deemed insurrection, while when successful, revolution.
Peaceful revolutions are much harder for the establishment to deal with, because they do not give the side with most of the guns an excuse to end them violently. In a way, they are much more effective. Resorting to violence to fight a bad government plays directly into their hands - violence is what they are good at.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Nice points, Tom.
I believe that the study of Irish history presents an excellent case about revolutions. Rather than going too much in depth - I leave that to the reader - in Ireland, basically three forms of resistance were tried across the centuries:
(A) virtually none: at certain times, the people simply settled into acceptance of England's rule. During these times, they were run over by a brutal and avaricious overlord;
(B) violent: at certain times, there was open war against England. During these times, they were run over even more brutally by England (think Cromwell here);
(C) moderated resistance: "steering the middle course" through agitation, demonstration, and everything but organized violence, the Irish were able to make slow progress. Certainly there was some violence, but it was all subordinate to a greater political effort which ultimately achieved some measure of independence.
History informs us that we gain our best chance by being neither too passive nor too bellicose.