The Constitution Illegitimate?

[firefox]

URL: http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/1251


Find yourself a copy of the United States Constitution. Perhaps you have a copy handy on your bookshelf, otherwise you can just look it up online. A lot of Libertarians will hold up the Constitution as a great and sacred document, a kind of a political Garden of Eden that we have fallen from. Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Presidential nominee, styles himself a constitutional scholar for the masses; 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee Ron Paul votes no on anything that isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Even without directly mentioning the Constitution, the right-libertarian Cato Institute talks about "the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law." Over and over again, the modern day libertarian movement turns to our founding document as a patriotic reassurance that they are in the right. Yet they are unable to overcome a simple problem: the Constitution is not a libertarian document.

To equate libertarianism with the classical liberalism that influenced our Founding Fathers is a philosophical error. While no doubt many classical liberals call themselves libertarians today, the modern movement has been heavily influenced by Austrian economics and Murray Rothard and takes a far more negative view of the state than the old men with wigs who wrote the Constitution. Even the minarchists who stop short of outright anarchism and the abolition of the state would have been seen as the most radical of radicals in the early Republic; they would have made the Locofocos look mainstream. John Locke, Adam Smith and the rest of the classical liberal gang did express a mistrust of state power and its granting of monopolistic privilege, but they also supported a state for the maintenance of law and order in the face of natural anarchy. A quick glance at the Constitution reveals that the Founding Fathers, far from consistently favoring a system that viewed the state as a necessary evil, saw a role for government to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

The minarchist may still argue that these broad general principles are fully compatible with a limited government favored by modern day libertarians. But the Constitution is also the source for Congress's power to lay excises (the ancestor to our modern day sin taxes), to lay tariffs and regulate commerce (protectionism), to borrow money and therefore establish a national debt (say goodbye to balanced budgets), to establish post offices and post roads (see my previous complaints about this monopolistic agency), and to grant patents and copyrights. Even a strict interpretation of the Constitution would grant the government powers that libertarians today complain about. ...

As I've been saying for a while now, the Constitution is entirely BS as far as contract law goes. To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, the problems we see today are the result of either the Constitution not doing the job of fending off such abuses, or the abuses were explicitly *enabled* by the document.

That said, I see the Constitution as a constructive fiction that we would all be wise to go back to. 8-) Think of it as a secular/political god- It doesn't exist in reality, but belief in it can lead to peace, charity, love, etc.

[micfranklin]

U.S. Constitution = Supreme Law of the Land

I win.

[NortheastCynic]

What MicFranklin said.

-NC

[firefox]

Can you prove it? It was signed by a minority of the population THEN, and no one today. Does this mean that you guys are proponents of the so-called "social contract"? If so, how can such a contract exist?

[Alonzo]

You are aware that each of the states had constitutional conventions to ratify it, and each of the states voted on whether or not to ratify it.

[micfranklin]

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and later ratified by the people in conventions in each state in the name of "We the People."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution

Don't believe me, go there and see for yourself.

[firefox]

I know, I know it better than you most likely. If you're going to use JC Marshall, realize the conflict of interest here. Do you *really* think he would have adjudicated away his own position of power and authority? Of course not 8-) Again, if you make this a state issue, we have the same problem:

1. A minority of individuals voting on the issue
2. Not all of these men voted in favor of it, reducing the number even more
3. Each and every one of these people is dead, and has been for a long time. Jefferson did not expect, or even desire, the original document to last more than 20-30 years, largely for the above two reasons.

Also, there can't be any kind of "social contract" either, for the same reason. In contract law, one cannot be "born into" a contract, or otherwise have it applied to you if both parties do not know and understand all the terms, and it is not signed in good faith by both. No one asks you if you want the state to do X, Y, or Z for/against you. It just does it. Before you type it, I know you will now bring up the "democracy" issue. Again, there are some problems here:

1. Only an ultra-MINORITY of the affected population votes, say 50% of the 50% eligable, IE, 1/4 of total ELIGABLE, not even counting those who are disenfranchised for whatever reason. This would bring the number of participants down to say 1/8-1/10 of the total population of a state. And this is in federal elections only! State and especially local elections are much worse. So much for majority rule, guys.

2. Even when our "representatives" are elected, they often don't vote the way you or I would want them to. They have their own agendas, concerns, and special interest ties. Long story short- statistically, there's a very small chance that Senator Bob or Representative Jan give much of a rat's rectum about YOU personally.

3. They don't read their own bills 90% of the time, so even their own votes are heavily influenced by third party pork that may have absolutely nothing to do with what you or the representative assumes is being supported/rejected.

All that said, it's no wonder that none of us ever seem to get what we want out of government! We need to transition away from this obsolete social order, and toward a free and voluntary society in which you vote in the most democratic way possible- with your pocketbook and personal powers of non violent persuasion, rather than force.

[NortheastCynic]

As far as I know no one said anything about democracy. I for one don't buy into the idea that "democracy=good". We're a Republic, the majority of people needn't get what they want from government, nor should they. Yes, I believe in a social contract, a much more libertarian one than say a Hobbesean contract, but a contract nonetheless.

As for the legitimacy of the Constitution, I leave that issue to Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar and author of the book, Restoring the Lost Constitution. He dedicates a good chunk of his book on that topic and essentially says [and I'm summarizing which will result in a watering down of the argument, you really should read the book for yourself] that the Constitution is legit for several reasons: one, if you're living in the United States and have the option and means to move, you're consenting to it's rules and two [which goes on for almost half of the book] the Constitution protects all natural rights and liberties and is naturally a just contract. As I said, I just took about half of a book and summarized it in two sentences...You should really read the book for yourself, but to me, Barnett leaves no doubt of the Constitution's legitimacy.

-NC

[firefox]

Hmm I'll have to check it out. On the "love it or leave it" issue: If we are both really equal, why should I move and not you? The rest of the world is even less pro freedom than the US. BTW, I put in the democracy issue because I figured someone would try it, though I didn't expect you would (and I was right!). What kind of "social contract" do you espouse, NEC? Also, what is your definition of "state" and "citizen"? These are important core issues to this argument.

[NortheastCynic]

On the "love it or leave it" issue: If we are both really equal, why should I move and not you? Because I don't have a problem with the law of the land, you do. That would be Barnett's answer, as far as I can tell.

BTW, I put in the democracy issue because I figured someone would try it, though I didn't expect you would (and I was right!).Sorry, I'm misunderstanding you, what do you mean by "try it"?

What kind of "social contract" do you espouse, NEC?People in a society give up some freedom in order for the government to: protect their natural rights, defend their territory and provide for an infrastructure.

Also, what is your definition of "state" and "citizen"? These are important core issues to this argument.The State encompasses elected officials, the bureaucracy and the judiciary along with all of those who are paid by either of those three. A citizen is a person born in the United States or naturalized through the legal process therein.

-NC

[firefox]

Here's what others are saying about this thread on another forum: http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=12292.msg215786;boardseen#new

[Labrocca]

Here's what others are saying about this thread on another forum: http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=12292.msg215786;boardseen#new


hehe...did you post that there? Sorry to be off subject.

We are a Republic...not a true Democracy by definition standards. You will NEVER get a majority vote on a constitution. You will only get a broad concensus.

[Pres. of Vincentia]

Because I don't have a problem with the law of the land, you do. That would be Barnett's answer, as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that if you come on to my property, it is you who does not like the laws I have for my land...so you should either love it or leave it.

People in a society give up some freedom in order for the government to: protect their natural rights, defend their territory and provide for an infrastructure.

The people who do that (and I am not one of them) need to learn that there is nothing so dangerous that giving one organization a monopoly on force is a good solution. Historically, this "solution" has led to the biggest problems in our history.

You will only get a broad concensus.

Do we even have that? I don't think so.

[NortheastCynic]

The people who do that (and I am not one of them) need to learn that there is nothing so dangerous that giving one organization a monopoly on force is a good solution. Historically, this "solution" has led to the biggest problems in our history. I can only think of one thing more dangerous than that: An anarchy in which people are left to administer justice, police and defend themselves. In the history of modern mankind, there is not one example of a widespread anarchical country, not one. A civilization simply cannot withstand widespread anarchy, the system assumes far too many positive things about mankind, not the least of which is that people are rational. In addition, as Labrocca said, anarchy does not guarantee minority rights/natural rights the way that a Constitutional Republic does.

Sorry, I don't need to "learn" anything in order to become an anarchist...I just draw different conclusions than anarchists do.

-NC

[Pres. of Vincentia]

I can only think of one thing more dangerous than that: An anarchy in which people are left to administer justice, police and defend themselves.

That's exactly what we have now. The government IS people. Except now one class of those people get to administer "justice" and "defense" over everyone else....which leads to all the abuse one would expect from a monopoly. Leads to wars where thousands and millions die. Leads to genocides where entire races are wiped out. Leads to gangs that extort 50%...60%....70% of income from citizens to waste on fraud and corruption.

When I see poor quality or service, I simply don't purchase the product. That goes for restaurants, cars, and government. I wish that I could create a competing agency, but if I do I know that men with guns will come after me and try to imprison me, and if I resist, kill me. So I content myself with protecting myself and keeping all of my money rather than the amount that your masters allow you to keep.

A civilization simply cannot withstand widespread anarchy

Ireland did for 1000 years. Iceland did for 300.

the system assumes far too many positive things about mankind, not the least of which is that people are rational.

Anarchy assumes no such thing. If you believe that people are irrational, then how does it then follow that we should let irrational people (who according to you cannot even run their own lives) run the lives of millions of people. If people are irrational...how does it make sense that we should let one irrational person make mistakes with millions of other people lives....when without the government the only person he would hurt is himself.

Statists believe that electing people somehow makes them infallible and able to govern people....where before they are elected they are unfit to run even their own lives.

I know people are irrational. That is why I don't let them run my life as statists would like them to. Without a state, there is no tool for the irrational to cause the widespread damage they cause WITH it. Who would Hitler, Stalin, Lincoln, or Bush be without the government? They certainly could not have done a fraction of the damage that they were able to do with the state at their disposal.

[NortheastCynic]

That's exactly what we have now. The government IS people. Except now one class of those people get to administer "justice" and "defense" over everyone else....which leads to all the abuse one would expect from a monopoly. Leads to wars where thousands and millions die.You're putting your conclusion before the evidence, Pres. You're saying "governments have started wars and ended lives" without taking into account ANY of the circumstances around them. I'm not defending government in general, I'm defending Constitutional Republicanism. What you're doing is lumping all government in together, when I'm not defending every form of government. As for classes, yes, obviously the elite govern, the beauty is that social mobility allows you, or I to become a member of the elite. Democracy [not having a "ruling class", as you put it] is simply not the most desirable form of government. Unlimited democratic freedom results in the loss of civil/personal liberties.
When I see poor quality or service, I simply don't purchase the product. That goes for restaurants, cars, and government. I wish that I could create a competing agency, but if I do I know that men with guns will come after me and try to imprison me, and if I resist, kill me.I'm all for privatization of MOST things as well, just not everything, such as collective goods [defense, particularly].
So I content myself with protecting myself and keeping all of my money rather than the amount that your masters allow you to keep.My masters? C'mon Pres., a slavary reference? Typically, when someone has masters he cannot vote them out of power.

-NC

[Pres. of Vincentia]

You're putting your conclusion before the evidence, Pres. You're saying "governments have started wars and ended lives" without taking into account ANY of the circumstances around them.

I can't think of any wars started by a state that were justified....and that includes American wars.

I am open to your opinion of what you think were just wars.

I'm not defending government in general, I'm defending Constitutional Republicanism. What you're doing is lumping all government in together, when I'm not defending every form of government.

Does a constitutional Republic refrain from using force against the people who live withint the so called boundaries? If not, then it is a difference of degree, not of kind.

As for classes, yes, obviously the elite govern, the beauty is that social mobility allows you, or I to become a member of the elite.

Yea! So anyone can be master! It warms my heart that our masters might have come from a lowly background! Or that someday, I too may be able to take wealth from my fellow citizens and spend it as I wish.

Democracy [not having a "ruling class", as you put it] is simply not the most desirable form of government. Unlimited democratic freedom results in the loss of civil/personal liberties.

Democracy does have a ruling class. It is the majority.

I'm all for privatization of MOST things as well, just not everything, such as collective goods [defense, particularly].

Why not? After all, the exact same arguments for privatizing everything else apply to defense as well.

Have you ever tried to convince a socialist that health care should be completely privatized. Have you heard them whine and moan that people will be dying in the streets, doctors will turn people out of hospitals, and only the super rich and elite will be able to get health care, all the while knowing full well that the free market will provide for 99.9% of the care that everyone needs (far better than the reality of state health care)? Have you tried to point out that grocery stores provide an even more basic need, and that the free market does an amazing job....but to have them reply that "Well, the free market doesn't work for everything....collective goods like health care must be providing by government"?

Well, thats how I feel talking to people about defense.

My masters? C'mon Pres., a slavary reference? Typically, when someone has masters he cannot vote them out of power.

It matters not a whit how people come to be masters, or whether they are there for 2, 4, 6 years, or until death. It doesn't matter if they change. What matters is that they rule you.

But fine, Bush is not your master. Then disobey him openly. For example, stop paying income taxes and send the IRS a letter telling them so. Then we will both see if the federal government is a master or a servant.

[NortheastCynic]

I can't think of any wars started by a state that were justified....and that includes American wars. I suppose one could say that the revolution had a government of sorts....but then again that was a revolt against a state.

I am open to your opinion of what you think were just wars foThe revolution and World War II.

Does a constitutional Republic refrain from using force against the people who live withint the so called boundaries? If not, then it is a difference of degree, not of kind.Only to the extent that anarchy is the least severe kind of dictatorship.
Yea! So anyone can be master! It warms my heart that our masters might have come from a lowly background! Or that someday, I too may be able to take wealth from my fellow citizens and spend it as I wish.As you wish? With no limits? Without fear of repercussions?

Democracy does have a ruling class. It is the majority.Agreed. Do you really believe that anarchy would not lead to a new elite, a new ruling class? The way I see it, you can't keep the cream from rising to the top, in an anarchy it would occur easier than it would in our current form of government. Think about it, with a private justice an elite class [namely anyone with a lot of money] could simply buy themselves out of legal trouble without being tried. The possibilities of an elite class rising would be endless. With a Constitutional Republic, the elite class is at least semi-responsible to everyone else.
Why not? After all, the exact same arguments for privatizing everything else apply to defense as well.I'm afraid not. If I don't have health insurance or can't get health care, that only affects me...If my property is not secure, my neighbor's becomes less secure, he/she is directly affected by my choice not to secure my property adequately.
It matters not a whit how people come to be masters, or whether they are there for 2, 4, 6 years, or until death. It doesn't matter if they change. What matters is that they rule you.
That's one way of looking at it...Another way is to say that we pay their salary and control their job security, meaning that they work for us [to an extent]. Neither one of us is going to change our minds about this, we might as well agree to disagree.
But fine, Bush is not your master. Then disobey him openly. For example, stop paying income taxes and send the IRS a letter telling them so. Then we will both see if the federal government is a master or a servant. This is a fallacious argument. Income tax will be around long after President Bush is gone, I obey the law, not him. Now, if you wanted to call the law "my master", then fine, I have respect for the law. However, the lawmakers are subject [again to an extent] to the will of the people.

-NC

[Pres. of Vincentia]

The revolution and World War II.

The American revolution was not a war started by a state (unless you believe the British started and were justified in persecuting it?!)

Even if the USA did not instigate the war by disallowing people from trading oil and steel to Japan, what did blowing up some military ships at an island thousands of miles away have to do with the vast majority of Americans? The US could have gone on living as if nothing had happened and been more prosperous for it. Instead it sunk the fortunes and the lives of a generation into the bottoms of seas, or in battlefields all across the world, and instituted such a wide range of unconstitutional restrictions as would make Alexander Hamilton blush.. What a horrendous waste.

Sorry, I don't see how it is justified to take my money to fight someone ten thousand miles away for what they did 5 thousand miles away. You want to fight the war? You do it on your dime.

Only to the extent that anarchy is the least severe kind of dictatorship.

How does a system with no state create a dictatorship. What are you dictator of? Your house?

As you wish? With no limits? Without fear of repercussions?

Let me know when someone in WDC is held accountable for spending the taxpayers into oblivion.

Agreed. Do you really believe that anarchy would not lead to a new elite, a new ruling class?

I don't see why it would. It didn't in Ireland.

I don't have a problem with leaders so long as they are voluntary.

I'm afraid not. If I don't have health insurance or can't get health care, that only affects me

Same with defense. You choosing not to defend your property has nothing to do with me either.

That's one way of looking at it...Another way is to say that we pay their salary and control their job security, meaning that they work for us [to an extent].

Try disobeying them and see who works for whom.

Neither one of us is going to change our minds about this, we might as well agree to disagree.

What do you tell socialists that say that to you?

There is no "agreeing to disagree" because you think you have a right to my property and my life. Agree to disagree means we go our separate ways. You can't do that though. You have to follow me around and hound me for my money so that you can go on "protecting" me.

This is a fallacious argument.

What is the fallacy?

Income tax will be around long after President Bush is gone,

Ok, well Bush is in charge now. He could choose not to enforce the dictates of the IRS. You can be sure that He will not choose to do this.

I obey the law, not him.

Does he not sign laws into effect. If so, then yes, you are obeying him. Not to mention you obey the agencies he controls (the IRS being one of them).

Now, if you wanted to call the law "my master", then fine, I have respect for the law.

Why? Would you respect a law that protected slavery? Or would you use your own judgement and determine that that law is bad and ignore it (or even flaunt it). I understand the need for law. But there is a difference between common law (the law that 99.9% of everyone agrees with and voluntarily abides by) and what we have now.

There is no reason to respect "the law". There certainly is reason to respect principles like property ownership and the like because they are necessary for a civilized society. But the law is used for both good and evil...so no, I don't necessarily respect it. I should hope that if a law passes Congress that outlaws guns or makes private property illegal that you would oppose it, rather than respecting it just because it is "the law".

However, the lawmakers are subject [again to an extent] to the will of the people.

And again I ask you to disobey them and see who's will is subject to who's.

[NortheastCynic]

How does a system with no state create a dictatorship. What are you dictator of? Your house?Dorm room, actually ;). In context, I was replying to your claim that a republic is just a different degree of dictatorship...My point was that that could be said for anything, anarchy included. There is no reason to believe that a ruling class would not exist in a such a system.
I don't see why it would. It didn't in Ireland.

I don't have a problem with leaders so long as they are voluntary.
When was Ireland an anarchy? Our leaders are elected and elections are voluntary.
You choosing not to defend your property has nothing to do with me either.My not being secure inherently means that the area surrounding me is less secure.
Try disobeying them and see who works for whom.Disobeying laws has consequences...Is that a loss of freedom...yes, but absolute freedom would not produce an inhabiatable civilization.
There is no "agreeing to disagree" because you think you have a right to my property and my life. Agree to disagree means we go our separate ways. You can't do that though. You have to follow me around and hound me for my money so that you can go on "protecting" me.Well, I'm not taking your money nor am I taking your property, so I think it's fair to say we can agree to disagree.
What is the fallacy Before, when you were talking about governments and wars. You were lumping all governments into one category while I was only defending one kind of gov't. I accidently typed it "this is a fallacious argument" in the wrong place, sorry for the confusion.
Does he not sign laws into effect. If so, then yes, you are obeying him. Not to mention you obey the agencies he controls (the IRS being one of them).My point was that I obey the law...The President at the time will not change that.
Why? Would you respect a law that protected slavery?No. Slavary at any level was unConstitutional, the fact that it wasn't ruled as such is an attrocity committed by people, not a fault of the Constitution in general.

-NC

[Pres. of Vincentia]

There is no reason to believe that a ruling class would not exist in a such a system.

There is no reason to believe there would be either.

When was Ireland an anarchy? Our leaders are elected and elections are voluntary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Rhode_Island_.281636-1648.29

So does that mean you will not be punished if you don't obey your leaders?

My not being secure inherently means that the area surrounding me is less secure.

My not being healthy inherently means the area surrounding me is less healthy.

My not being educated inherently means the area surrounding me is less educated.

Etc etc.

Disobeying laws has consequences...Is that a loss of freedom...yes, but absolute freedom would not produce an inhabiatable civilization.

I don't know if I am sure that I understand what you mean by absolute freedom. Could you elaborate please?

Well, I'm not taking your money nor am I taking your property, so I think it's fair to say we can agree to disagree.

Aren't you appointing officials to do it in your name? I don't see a significant difference.

Before, when you were talking about governments and wars. You were lumping all governments into one category while I was only defending one kind of gov't. I accidently typed it "this is a fallacious argument" in the wrong place, sorry for the confusion.

Except that the difference is only one of degree (and the degree is unimportant to my argument) so there is no fallacy.

My point was that I obey the law...The President at the time will not change that.

Would you obey a law you considered immoral? I will tell you right now: I don't. If something is wrong, that some jerks in Washington DC wrote some words down on a piece of paper doesn't make it right.

No. Slavary at any level was unConstitutional, the fact that it wasn't ruled as such is an attrocity committed by people, not a fault of the Constitution in general.

That is quite a claim (one I might agree with....but it illustrates how futile and pointless a constitution is).

But what if it was constitutional? What if the Constitution explicitly said that slavery is legal? Would you then obey it? Or would you use your own judgment?

[NortheastCynic]

There is no reason to believe there would be either.Yes there is. An elite class has ALWAYS risen in every society throughout the course of human history. The only thing that stems that tide is government, it provides stability and protects rights that cannot be protected in an anarchical community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ana...36-1648.29
This illustrates my point: All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. All "freeman". Free-men were the elite.
So does that mean you will not be punished if you don't obey your leaders?I never said there is no punishment for disobeying LAWS. Yes, naturally, if you commit a crime, you are punished.

My not being healthy inherently means the area surrounding me is less healthy.

My not being educated inherently means the area surrounding me is less educated.Neither one is true. If I'm an idiot, my neighbor does not become an idiot. If I have cancer, my neighbor doesn't get cancer. If my yard is not secure, it threatens the security of my neighbor.

I don't know if I am sure that I understand what you mean by absolute freedom. Could you elaborate please?Disobeying laws results in punishment. Absolute freedom would be a voluntaryist society in which no social contract exists.

Except that the difference is only one of degree (and the degree is unimportant to my argument) so there is no fallacy.Fair enough.
Would you obey a law you considered immoral? I will tell you right now: I don't. If something is wrong, that some jerks in Washington DC wrote some words down on a piece of paper doesn't make it right.There are laws I think are immoral [drug laws, etc] that I obey simply because I don't want to do drugs, etc. I don't think the law that sets the drinking age at 21 is right...I drink. But if I think something is "wrong", I won't do it.
But what if it was constitutional? What if the Constitution explicitly said that slavery is legal? Would you then obey it? Or would you use your own judgment? A tought, what-if...It's easy to say I think slavary is wrong so I wouldn't take part of it. But if it were the 1800's I don't know what my sense of morality would be.

-NC

[firefox]

Dude NYC I didn't know you were in college too! That's cool. Your 1-2 with Pres. of Vincentia is interesting, but I'd like to throw in a couple of brief points of info here:

1. "Slavery". To know what you're talking about, it helps to know how to spell it ;). It's mean, I know, but I just had to (a low blow I know).

2. Somalia is another region that can go on the "anarchy" list. The biggest problems in the area in terms of violence are coming from state actors, and substate actors supported by various foreign powers. I read an interesting article in the BBC and I think the Toronto Star(?) about how the market is working well enough there to provide important services like water, power, road repair, and communications when no government body will even try. Also education, which is much cheaper and of better quality, as documented in a recent edition of Atlantic Monthly. The Atlantic study analyzed 20 or 30 developing countries where private ed was very common, and they found that... it works! Duh. I agree Pres about the military thing, but we agree on returning almost everything else to the people, so let's do that first!

3. Are you familiar with Michael Badnarik's lessons on the Constitution? The bottom line for him (and me) is that private property is paramount. That said, you are wrong in saying I should "leave" and get out of "your" country. In reality, the only thing that's "yours" is that little plot of land you may or may not have. Being in college, I assume that you, like me, own no land and real estate, thus the entire argument here is moot. I would say that "you got owned", but I'm not a slave-driver (JK).

[Pres. of Vincentia]

A tought, what-if...It's easy to say I think slavary is wrong so I wouldn't take part of it. But if it were the 1800's I don't know what my sense of morality would be.

Amazing to see you contort to avoid the question. I didn't ask if you would choose to hold slaves.

Let me be more direct.

If it was a law and constitutional to require you to turn in escaped slaves, and you ran into an escaped slave....would you report the slave to the authorities or not?

[NortheastCynic]

Amazing to see you contort to avoid the question. I didn't ask if you would choose to hold slaves.The question was vague, I had no intention of ignoring it or dodging it. The question was "What if the Constitution said slavary was legal"? You agree that that is a vague question right?

If it was a law and constitutional to require you to turn in escaped slaves, and you ran into an escaped slave....would you report the slave to the authorities or not? I don't know, I'm not trying to avoid the question, I honestly don't know. Obviously, given modern values I would not turn a slave in. However, if I was born and bred in the 1800s, my values might be different...So as I said, it's a very difficult question to answer, akin to "would you turn Jews in to the authorities in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust"?
--------------------
1. "Slavery". To know what you're talking about, it helps to know how to spell it . It's mean, I know, but I just had to (a low blow I know).I ALWAYS do that. SLAVARY. S-L-A-V-A-R-Y. Slavary. I hate spelling errors, thank you for pointing that one out.
2. Somalia is another region that can go on the "anarchy" list. The biggest problems in the area in terms of violence are coming from state actors, and substate actors supported by various foreign powers. That may be the case, but that doesn't alter the fact that it cannot be considered a "successful" anarchy, that's really what I was looking for.
3. Are you familiar with Michael Badnarik's lessons on the Constitution? The bottom line for him (and me) is that private property is paramount. That said, you are wrong in saying I should "leave" and get out of "your" country. In reality, the only thing that's "yours" is that little plot of land you may or may not have. Being in college, I assume that you, like me, own no land and real estate, thus the entire argument here is moot.I'm not saying get out of "my" anything. I believe I was referring to a small part of Barnett's argument about consent.

Dude NYC I didn't know you were in college too! That's cool.Yep, Northeastern U. up in Boston, very cool place.

-NC

[Pres. of Vincentia]

Obviously, given modern values I would not turn a slave in.

Thus you admit that "law" is not a value; that the values are SOME of the outcomes that law attempts to reach, and that we should each decide for ourselves what outcomes are desirable rather than blindly obeying "the law".

That's all I am trying to say.

[NortheastCynic]

I believe that someone should weigh there own personal morals before obeying the law blindly. I also believe that if someone's morals guide them from obeying the law that they should understand and be prepared for puishment if caught.

-NC

[firefox]

I'm not saying get out of "my" anything. I believe I was referring to a small part of Barnett's argument about consent.

OK, that wasn't completely clear- but now it is, gracias. Good point also about the historical context. Though the Civ War was not really about slavery, the practice is total BS and should have been deal with at the beginning, though there is evidence to suggest that that would have been very difficult to have done at that time.

Dude NYC I didn't know you were in college too! That's cool.Yep, Northeastern U. up in Boston, very cool place.

-NC
[/quote]

Interesting. Are there a lot of so-called "massholes" around? I'll be moving to somewhere in NH in the second half of '08- Maybe we can chill ;).

[NortheastCynic]

Interesting. Are there a lot of so-called "massholes" around? I'll be moving to somewhere in NH in the second half of '08- Maybe we can chill . Actually, two thirds of the student body is from out of state, it's a pretty national school so luckily I've been spared from the Massholes.

-NC

[wonder cow]

I disagree with firefox on the legitimacy of the Constitution. I think a written constitution that has been adopted and accepted by the population gives the document authority. And as time goes by, and challenges to the document are met and defeated, the authority of the document becomes more and more ingrained.

To equate libertarianism with the classical liberalism that influenced our Founding Fathers is a philosophical error.

Thank God someone said this.

Many libertarians hold Jefferson up as an example to follow. And no doubt he has some consistent positions with libertarianism. But the man very much in favor of a powerful centralized government, contrary to some of his statements. After all, he spent his life in government positions.

[firefox]

Many libertarians hold Jefferson up as an example to follow. And no doubt he has some consistent positions with libertarianism. But the man very much in favor of a powerful centralized government, contrary to some of his statements. After all, he spent his life in government positions.


This is true. And he started UVA when he had the means and influence to have it founded privately. Most historical figures' writings and actions can be twisted to fit a modern agenda if one tries hard enough.