Nielsio2 Posted May 3, 2013 Posted May 3, 2013 Donald Boudreaux [view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZggpqH9ISM:640:385] Sheldon Richman [view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L8mVlkJFn4:640:385]
insertnickname Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 I've always wondered what constitutionalists would do if the government altered the constitution to allow the government to do whatever it wants (explicitly). Would they give up on liberty and advocate (complete) tyranny because "that's what the constitution supports"?
Pepin Posted May 6, 2013 Posted May 6, 2013 If governments are a group of people with the monopoly of force over a specific geographical area, and if this group of indivuals created a constitution, then to make any argument that uses the constitution as a basis is an affirmation of the government and its ability to use force. I mean, imagine it is the 1800's and a drug gang takes over a small isolated town. Now these are rather sophicated thugs, so the gang comes up with a document that describes how it ought to operate.They show the document to the town to inform them of how things will work. A week later, the gang starts acting in a way that does not adhere to the document they made up a week ago. What would be the sense of anyone who isn't in the gang pointing this out?
Robert Stempien Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Ultimately the constitution and the government are illigitimate, but it might be possible to slow down the state a bit by pointing out that their massive size and athoritatrianism even violates their own rules.
Pepin Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Ultimately the constitution and the government are illigitimate, but it might be possible to slow down the state a bit by pointing out that their massive size and athoritatrianism even violates their own rules. Can you expand upon what you mean in context to "slowing down the state". Also, are you describing a political process, in that the state will slow itself down due to political pressure or other similar factors?
Robert Stempien Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Ultimately the constitution and the government are illigitimate, but it might be possible to slow down the state a bit by pointing out that their massive size and athoritatrianism even violates their own rules. Can you expand upon what you mean in context to "slowing down the state". Also, are you describing a political process, in that the state will slow itself down due to political pressure or other similar factors? Im describing a political process, Its the second amendment that has kept the gun control laws we have to deal with, not all the pro-property rights arguments that are the real reason to be opposed to gun laws. It will be an appeal to constitutionism that will strike down Obamacare(If it is struck down) not all the correct arguments that point out that it is theft and a coersive racket. The argument from morality must not be forgotten and infact should be the forefront of our arguments against the state, but it also helps to point out to people that even their own "Social Contract" that they go on and on about doesn't allow 80% of the stuff that the state does.
Guest darkskyabove Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Consistency to the point of futility is not an adequate approach to reality. Would I like to see the complete eradication of the State? Yes. Do I think it's possible anytime soon? No. (Unless a revolutionary miracle occurs.) I do not view taking a practical approach to reality as "selling out" my principles. If we could get some rollback towards the Constitution, how could that be worse than where we're at and where we seem to be headed? It is much, much more likely in the short term to get people on board with the limits of the almighty Constitution than to expect wide-spread support for anarchism/voluntarism. Advocating a return to limited government in no way has to mean giving up on a longer view towards no state. Side note to theStemp: Briefly checked your web site and noticed the post about voting. Did you ever hear of the idea proposed by Robert Heinlein that in order to vote one would put up a deposit (in gold), then take a simple test on the issues. Just enough to show they weren't completely ignorant of what they'd be voting on. Pass the test, vote, and the deposit is returned. Not pass, no vote, no gold!
Robert Stempien Posted June 11, 2013 Posted June 11, 2013 Side note to theStemp: Briefly checked your web site and noticed the post about voting. Did you ever hear of the idea proposed by Robert Heinlein that in order to vote one would put up a deposit (in gold), then take a simple test on the issues. Just enough to show they weren't completely ignorant of what they'd be voting on. Pass the test, vote, and the deposit is returned. Not pass, no vote, no gold! No, but that sounds like something he would say, I think in "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" one of the characters suggested having a legislature set up specifically to strike down laws and thats it, and another was to have politicians pay out of their own pockets for what ever government programs they want. He was quite Libertarian in some of his books, and some of them, like Starship Troopers he was quite unlibertarian though. Btw, what did u think about my site? im trying to get some regular viewers.
Recommended Posts