Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why The US Constitution Sucks

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 4:06:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Everyone including me has read this repeatedly for school. So I knew this would be bad, but I didn't know how bad until I went through it underlining everything negative and circling everything positive. Why the Cato institute publishes this, and why it is handed out at libertarian events completely escapes me.

I will omit things too minor to note. Asterisks rank importance.

Lets skip the declaration since its meh. Its way better than the constitution though. I'll just note that the consent of the governed stuff is good, but that a bunch of their complaints are retarded (like, the "you wont let us cross the appalachians and steal native american land" complaint and the "f*ck quebec" complaint).

Preamble: States the purpose of the constitution as establishing a "more perfect union", promoting the "general welfare" (vague and grants unlimited interpretation), and also "ordains" this constitution on the residents of the 13 states and their "posterity", which is not only bold but also very rude to the unborn masses.

Article 1:
***Sec 1: establishes Congress as the firm which has a monopoly on law.

***Sec 2: decrees that direct federal taxation (theft) is aight.

**Sec 3: decrees that the head of state can only be tried via mechanisms internal to the firm: Ie Senate has a monopoly on legal practice of impeachment, and severely legally constrains the limits of what the Senate may do to an impeached President.

Sec 6: Senator and Representative salaries are set by law. They are also exempt from arrest during attendance in session, with the exceptions of Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace.

****Sec 8: Grants Congress the power to tax, lay tariffs and excises for the purposes of "national defense" and "general welfare" (Grants Congress the power to steal money to do whateverthefuck they want). Grants Congress the power to borrow money, regulate commerce within the nation and with other nations, print money and establish it's value (ironically, it also monopolizes the punishment of counterfeiting), create post offices and roads, "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" via maintaining intellectual property laws (or "the exclusive right to discoveries" as the document says), declare war, grant letters of marque, raise and support armies and navies, call forth the militia to SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and repel invasions, to arm and organize said militia, to maintain a total legal monopoly over the Capital district, to build forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and "other needful buildings" (any building). Monopolizes the legal definitions of naturalization, bankruptcy, piracy, and felony on the high seas. Permits congress to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out all of the above and all of the below.

***Sec 9: Allows Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus during REBELLION or invasion, allows them to tax (different tax this time),

Sec 10: prohibits any given state from doing any of the above (as if this monopoly wasn't already abundantly clear) and forbids any state from entering into an alliance or confederation.

Article 2:
***Sec 1: invests the executive power in the President, prohibits foreigners from becoming president.
***Sec 2: Establishes the president as commander in chief of the military and militia. Allows him to grant pardons, make treaties, and appoint ambassadors.

Article 3:
*****Sec 1: Establishes a monopoly on legal interpretation in the judiciary/"Supreme" Court.
***Sec 2: Confirms that this monopoly extends to all areas of law.
***Sec 3: defines treason as (among other things) "adhering" to America's enemies, or giving them aid/comfort.

*****Article 6: Declares "This Constitution... and all laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof" to be the supreme law of the land, and binds all judges in the country to uphold it (prohibits independent judges from existing).

Then the Bill of Rights is generally a lot better. No need to get into it.

Given all of the above it is apparent than an unemotional reading of the constitution reveals the following: It establishes that the government has a monopoly on legal interpretation, the creation of laws, the provision of security, the production of currency, and all the basic functions of civil society. Its vague wording furthermore allows the government to invade any area of life which the above document does not already take hostile possession of. This is an explicitly authoritarian document and should be spit on by any self respecting libertarian, or dignified human being.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found this interesting gem on Goodreads [http://www.goodreads.com...]. Let me know your thoughts; I foresee mostly emotional diatribes following this post, but I'll hope for the best.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 4:48:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems most of your complaints are simply that a document that establishes a government allows the government to do what a government does (laws, force, tax, interpret, etc.). You like the Bill the Rights because it then limits the actions of said government.

Are you sure you were dispassionate when you posted this analysis?
My work here is, finally, done.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 6:20:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, yeah, it's sort of obvious that an anarchist would be against a document which establishes a state based on the fact that it establishes a state. But that's sort of a silly criticism to level against such a document.

My big criticisms would be:

- The general welfare clause does no specify that it does not grant additional powers, and only applies to those already granted.

- One chief executive. I think that two are better. Two of the longest lasting republics, Rome and Sparta, had two chief executives (consuls and kings).

- No means of making necessary changes quickly and drastically (The Roman 'extraordinary magistrate'/dictator is a good example of this). This pretty much ensured that the government would fall into a steady process of decay. Sure, the office comes with risk, but the rewards are well worth it, as it scares the bejeesus out of lawmakers and acts as a strong check against corruption.

Any state will become corrupt, though. It's just a matter of time.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:21:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lame.

Translation: "Taxation is theft. Government can't regulate government."

Taxation without representation is theft. Government isn't a single entity. Look at Obama crying when the Senate shot down all gun control legislation. I thought they were all one?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
lannan13
Posts: 23,021
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:30:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're one of those idiots who thinks that we need a new constitution! Our founding fathers were the smartest and the wisest and we don't need a new constitution, because our current one is okay where it stands.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:42:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 4:06:18 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

Article 1:
***Sec 1: establishes Congress as the firm which has a monopoly on law.

At a federal level, yes, but I'm not sure how it can be any other way. At some point you have to establish the applicability of laws (you shouldn't have laws which contradict each other apply to the same domain). So within the domain of applicability, whatever is the legislative authority for that domain has a "monopoly."

***Sec 2: decrees that direct federal taxation (theft) is aight.

Yes, our body of laws (Constitution included) determine what is legal and what is illegal. Why is this a bad thing? How can it be otherwise?

**Sec 3: decrees that the head of state can only be tried via mechanisms internal to the firm: Ie Senate has a monopoly on legal practice of impeachment, and severely legally constrains the limits of what the Senate may do to an impeached President.

This is actually incorrect. The procedure for impeachment doesn't mean that the President can't be tried via normal mechanisms. See Section II:

http://lawandthemultiverse.com...

Of note:
"[The people] do not forfeit through elections the right to have the law construed against and applied to every citizen. Nor does the Impeachment Clause imply immunity from routine court process."


"[T]he President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens."

Nixon and Clinton were never indicted, but this wasn't a result of any sort of Constitutional immunity from such proceedings.

****Sec 8: Grants Congress the power to tax, lay tariffs and excises for the purposes of "national defense" and "general welfare" (Grants Congress the power to steal money to do whateverthefuck they want). Grants Congress the power to borrow money, regulate commerce within the nation and with other nations, print money and establish it's value (ironically, it also monopolizes the punishment of counterfeiting), create post offices and roads, "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" via maintaining intellectual property laws (or "the exclusive right to discoveries" as the document says), declare war, grant letters of marque, raise and support armies and navies, call forth the militia to SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and repel invasions, to arm and organize said militia, to maintain a total legal monopoly over the Capital district, to build forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and "other needful buildings" (any building). Monopolizes the legal definitions of naturalization, bankruptcy, piracy, and felony on the high seas. Permits congress to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out all of the above and all of the below.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 11:03:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 4:06:18 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
...

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner


lol, that's an interesting take. The flaw, of course, is taking an all or nothing approach. Common sense, history, and current events tell us that things could be a lot worse in America, and if the Constitution helped make us better, then it's a good thing.
This space for rent.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 12:14:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 4:06:18 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everyone including me has read this repeatedly for school. So I knew this would be bad, but I didn't know how bad until I went through it underlining everything negative and circling everything positive. Why the Cato institute publishes this, and why it is handed out at libertarian events completely escapes me.

I will omit things too minor to note. Asterisks rank importance.

Lets skip the declaration since its meh. Its way better than the constitution though. I'll just note that the consent of the governed stuff is good, but that a bunch of their complaints are retarded (like, the "you wont let us cross the appalachians and steal native american land" complaint and the "f*ck quebec" complaint).

Preamble: States the purpose of the constitution as establishing a "more perfect union",
Yes, as in establishing a Federation to solve the issues we had under the confederation. Nothing wrong with that.
promoting the "general welfare" (vague and grants unlimited interpretation),
No, the "General Welfare" refers to the "Welfare", or wellbeing of the "General" or whole Community, as opposed to the welfare of a specific group or region.

There were originally two main schools of interpretation regarding the term "General Welfare";

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them." ~ James Madison

"It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication." ~ Alexander Hamilton

and also "ordains" this constitution on the residents of the 13 states and their "posterity", which is not only bold but also very rude to the unborn masses.

The states ratified it.
Article 1:
***Sec 1: establishes Congress as the firm which has a monopoly on law.

No it establishes Congress as the Federal Legislative body.
***Sec 2: decrees that direct federal taxation (theft) is aight.

No it doesn't, it requires that direct taxes be apportioned;

"direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers"

**Sec 3: decrees that the head of state can only be tried via mechanisms internal to the firm: Ie Senate has a monopoly on legal practice of impeachment, and severely legally constrains the limits of what the Senate may do to an impeached President.

Impeachment is not a trial; impeachment is a process where an elected official is formally charged with misconduct and removed from office. After being impeached they may be sent to trial where they will be sentence if found guilty.
According to the constitution, a misdemeanor is enough for impeachment.
Sec 6: Senator and Representative salaries are set by law. They are also exempt from arrest during attendance in session, with the exceptions of Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace.

In order to prevent a state from arresting them for something trivial, so they cannot vote.
****Sec 8: Grants Congress the power to tax, lay tariffs and excises for the purposes of "national defense" and "general welfare" (Grants Congress the power to steal money to do whateverthefuck they want).

Not true, this clause deals with appropriation.

Even Hamilton recognized that "A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication." ~ Alexander Hamilton

Grants Congress the power to borrow money, regulate commerce within the nation and with other nations,
No it doesn't.... It grants congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". In other words, congress has the power to regulate imports and exports. Congress has no jurisdiction within the states; their jurisdiction is limited to interstate and international affairs.

print money and establish it's value (ironically, it also monopolizes the punishment of counterfeiting),
how is that ironic?
create post offices and roads,
Not roads, posted roads. Posted roads were the 18th century version of an interstate. They were roads that allowed travel over long distance. Along the post roads were post houses or post offices, where riders could switch out their tired horses for fresh ones.
"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" via maintaining intellectual property laws (or "the exclusive right to discoveries" as the document says),
For a limited time (a detail that seems to be ignored these days).

declare war, grant letters of marque, raise and support armies and navies,
What's wrong with National defense? The purpose of the state is to protect the people.
call forth the militia to SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS
The militia was comprised of the body of the people, so if the militia were called forth to suppress the insurrection, than the larger the insurrection the smaller the militia.
and repel invasions, to arm and organize said militia, to maintain a total legal monopoly over the Capital district, to build forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and "other needful buildings" (any building). Monopolizes the legal definitions of naturalization, bankruptcy, piracy, and felony on the high seas.
Federal authority was limited to interstate and international affairs; such as the high sees. They have no constitutional jurisdiction within the states; other than federal districts (such as DC) or US territories (such as Guam). Unless you are advocating anarchy, I really see no issue.

Permits congress to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out all of the above and all of the below.

(adj) necessary (absolutely essential)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) proper (limited to the thing specified)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

I'll cover the rest later
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 1:40:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It worked well until politicians started realizing it was just a paper they swore an oath to, as soon as they decide not to keep their oath all bets are off.
Id say the biggest turning point was FDR threatening to stack the courts if they didn't pass the new deal. After that there weren't three equal branches and the supreme court stopped doing its duty of striking down unconstitutional legislation.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:01:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 10:30:22 AM, lannan13 wrote:
You're one of those idiots who thinks that we need a new constitution! Our founding fathers were the smartest and the wisest and we don't need a new constitution, because our current one is okay where it stands.

This almost seems like trolling and I'm not sure if it is all not.

Do you really think that the people from over 200 years ago, just so happened to have the best understanding of political science and political philosophy and just happened to have created a system that maximized the effectiveness of government. This of course, assuming that people were looking out for the best interests of society, and there were no politics came into play for writing up the constitution.

And no person(s) in modern time, given all the changes in recent technology, political science, economics, philosophy and social psychology can think up of a better system of government than what we have now?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:02:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are negatives to everything. You want to lose weight? Give up your fatty diet. You want to get promoted at your job? Get off your a$$ and do some work. You want find a partner to share your life with? Be prepared to deal with her PMS.

If you want to claim that something "sucks" you can't just whine about the bad, you have to weigh the bad against the good that came out of it. Most countries around the world seem to think our constitution worked out pretty well. So sad that people who live here can't see that.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:05:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 10:21:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Lame.

Translation: "Taxation is theft. Government can't regulate government."

Taxation without representation is theft. Government isn't a single entity. Look at Obama crying when the Senate shot down all gun control legislation. I thought they were all one?

Geo, how the hell can you say something smart like this yet still spout the anti government conspiracy nonsense that you do?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:11:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is stupid. Why is an anarchist examining and criticizing the legal foundation of American government? In what scenario and under what conditions would you like anything in any Constitution?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:13:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:02:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
There are negatives to everything. You want to lose weight? Give up your fatty diet. You want to get promoted at your job? Get off your a$$ and do some work. You want find a partner to share your life with? Be prepared to deal with her PMS.

If you want to claim that something "sucks" you can't just whine about the bad, you have to weigh the bad against the good that came out of it. Most countries around the world seem to think our constitution worked out pretty well. So sad that people who live here can't see that.

Yes, except for the fact that most government entities don't adopt the same system as the US. For example, most nations don't adopt the presidential system and go for the parliamentary system of government instead. It seems to work out fine.

And nobody would really advocate for an electoral college system of voting.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:14:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:05:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:21:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Lame.

Translation: "Taxation is theft. Government can't regulate government."

Taxation without representation is theft. Government isn't a single entity. Look at Obama crying when the Senate shot down all gun control legislation. I thought they were all one?

Geo, how the hell can you say something smart like this yet still spout the anti government conspiracy nonsense that you do?

That was smart?

In what way does representation justify tax? How did the senate shoot down gun control when the majority of them voted for it (in the face of a filibuster)?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:32:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:14:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:05:00 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:21:57 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Lame.

Translation: "Taxation is theft. Government can't regulate government."

Taxation without representation is theft. Government isn't a single entity. Look at Obama crying when the Senate shot down all gun control legislation. I thought they were all one?

Geo, how the hell can you say something smart like this yet still spout the anti government conspiracy nonsense that you do?

That was smart?

In what way does representation justify tax?

Are you serious? If you are going to tax someone don't you think they should have a say in how much you can take and what you do with it?

How did the senate shoot down gun control when the majority of them voted for it (in the face of a filibuster)?

Did the bill pass? No. The end.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:13:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:02:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
There are negatives to everything. You want to lose weight? Give up your fatty diet. You want to get promoted at your job? Get off your a$$ and do some work. You want find a partner to share your life with? Be prepared to deal with her PMS.

If you want to claim that something "sucks" you can't just whine about the bad, you have to weigh the bad against the good that came out of it. Most countries around the world seem to think our constitution worked out pretty well. So sad that people who live here can't see that.

Yes, except for the fact that most government entities don't adopt the same system as the US. For example, most nations don't adopt the presidential system and go for the parliamentary system of government instead. It seems to work out fine.

And nobody would really advocate for an electoral college system of voting.

I never said the system was perfect. I merely suggested that it doesn't suck.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:45:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:32:07 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:14:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
In what way does representation justify tax?

Are you serious? If you are going to tax someone don't you think they should have a say in how much you can take and what you do with it?

Representation doesn't justify extortion per se. The old tactic used to justify it was divine right, which kind of made a little sense if you accept that God exists. Today they use an even more incompetent idea as a replacement called the the "social contract," which you and I never signed. It used to be "the invisible God (that I can't prove exists) says I can rule you, steal from you, and control you, and you have to obey!" Now it's "the invisible contract (that I can't prove exists) says I can rule you, steal from you, and control you, and you have to obey!"

The mere fact of having representation from the extortion does not make the extortion justified.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:52:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:45:17 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The mere fact of having representation from the extortion does not make the extortion justified.

The mere fact of you calling it extortion doesn't make it extortion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:54:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:11:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why is an anarchist examining and criticizing the legal foundation of American government?

Why not?

In what scenario and under what conditions would you like anything in any Constitution?

I personally like the ideas behind several of the amendments: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, protection from quartering of troops, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude (except for taxation, involuntary military servitude, and prison labor of course!).

I don't like the idea of initiating violence against people through extortion, control, assault, and kidnapping though.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:59:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:52:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/8/2013 2:45:17 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The mere fact of having representation from the extortion does not make the extortion justified.

The mere fact of you calling it extortion doesn't make it extortion.

1. I believe words have meaning.
2. Extortion: The practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats.
Taxation: The practice of obtaining money through threats, then force, kidnapping, caging, and seizure of funds.

Geo, if you don't think taxation is extortion, please cease to pay taxes. Observe the threats from the IRS, and the eventual assault, kidnapping, and caging that occurs. Then when they outright steal money from your bank account you can tell them, "But taxation isn't extortion!" as you are raped in prison. Enjoy!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 3:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 2:45:17 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

The mere fact of having representation from the extortion does not make the extortion justified.

What would?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:30:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 4:06:18 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Everyone including me has read this repeatedly for school. So I knew this would be bad, but I didn't know how bad until I went through it underlining everything negative and circling everything positive. Why the Cato institute publishes this, and why it is handed out at libertarian events completely escapes me.

I will omit things too minor to note. Asterisks rank importance.

Lets skip the declaration since its meh. Its way better than the constitution though. I'll just note that the consent of the governed stuff is good, but that a bunch of their complaints are retarded (like, the "you wont let us cross the appalachians and steal native american land" complaint and the "f*ck quebec" complaint).

Preamble: States the purpose of the constitution as establishing a "more perfect union", promoting the "general welfare" (vague and grants unlimited interpretation), and also "ordains" this constitution on the residents of the 13 states and their "posterity", which is not only bold but also very rude to the unborn masses.

Article 1:
***Sec 1: establishes Congress as the firm which has a monopoly on law.

***Sec 2: decrees that direct federal taxation (theft) is aight.

**Sec 3: decrees that the head of state can only be tried via mechanisms internal to the firm: Ie Senate has a monopoly on legal practice of impeachment, and severely legally constrains the limits of what the Senate may do to an impeached President.

Sec 6: Senator and Representative salaries are set by law. They are also exempt from arrest during attendance in session, with the exceptions of Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace.

****Sec 8: Grants Congress the power to tax, lay tariffs and excises for the purposes of "national defense" and "general welfare" (Grants Congress the power to steal money to do whateverthefuck they want). Grants Congress the power to borrow money, regulate commerce within the nation and with other nations, print money and establish it's value (ironically, it also monopolizes the punishment of counterfeiting), create post offices and roads, "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" via maintaining intellectual property laws (or "the exclusive right to discoveries" as the document says), declare war, grant letters of marque, raise and support armies and navies, call forth the militia to SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and repel invasions, to arm and organize said militia, to maintain a total legal monopoly over the Capital district, to build forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and "other needful buildings" (any building). Monopolizes the legal definitions of naturalization, bankruptcy, piracy, and felony on the high seas. Permits congress to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out all of the above and all of the below.

***Sec 9: Allows Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus during REBELLION or invasion, allows them to tax (different tax this time),

Sec 10: prohibits any given state from doing any of the above (as if this monopoly wasn't already abundantly clear) and forbids any state from entering into an alliance or confederation.

Article 2:
***Sec 1: invests the executive power in the President, prohibits foreigners from becoming president.
***Sec 2: Establishes the president as commander in chief of the military and militia. Allows him to grant pardons, make treaties, and appoint ambassadors.

Article 3:
*****Sec 1: Establishes a monopoly on legal interpretation in the judiciary/"Supreme" Court.
***Sec 2: Confirms that this monopoly extends to all areas of law.
***Sec 3: defines treason as (among other things) "adhering" to America's enemies, or giving them aid/comfort.

*****Article 6: Declares "This Constitution... and all laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof" to be the supreme law of the land, and binds all judges in the country to uphold it (prohibits independent judges from existing).

Then the Bill of Rights is generally a lot better. No need to get into it.

Given all of the above it is apparent than an unemotional reading of the constitution reveals the following: It establishes that the government has a monopoly on legal interpretation, the creation of laws, the provision of security, the production of currency, and all the basic functions of civil society. Its vague wording furthermore allows the government to invade any area of life which the above document does not already take hostile possession of. This is an explicitly authoritarian document and should be spit on by any self respecting libertarian, or dignified human being.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found this interesting gem on Goodreads [http://www.goodreads.com...]. Let me know your thoughts; I foresee mostly emotional diatribes following this post, but I'll hope for the best.

How about you get together a room full of slave-owners, monarchists, big business interests, and fanatics who spent years literally killing off their last government rather than pay certain taxes and come up with a better document.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:33:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I know "Constitutional Convention" sound a lot like "SciFi Convention" or "Plant-likers Convention," but it in fact a more appropriate name would have been "War of the F*cking Worlds."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:38:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 6:20:08 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Well, yeah, it's sort of obvious that an anarchist would be against a document which establishes a state based on the fact that it establishes a state. But that's sort of a silly criticism to level against such a document.

My big criticisms would be:

- The general welfare clause does no specify that it does not grant additional powers, and only applies to those already granted.

- One chief executive. I think that two are better. Two of the longest lasting republics, Rome and Sparta, had two chief executives (consuls and kings).

- No means of making necessary changes quickly and drastically (The Roman 'extraordinary magistrate'/dictator is a good example of this). This pretty much ensured that the government would fall into a steady process of decay. Sure, the office comes with risk, but the rewards are well worth it, as it scares the bejeesus out of lawmakers and acts as a strong check against corruption.

Any state will become corrupt, though. It's just a matter of time.

What's a good example of a country with the means to quickly and drastically change? I'm interested in what that would look like.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:39:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 10:38:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2013 6:20:08 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Well, yeah, it's sort of obvious that an anarchist would be against a document which establishes a state based on the fact that it establishes a state. But that's sort of a silly criticism to level against such a document.

My big criticisms would be:

- The general welfare clause does no specify that it does not grant additional powers, and only applies to those already granted.

- One chief executive. I think that two are better. Two of the longest lasting republics, Rome and Sparta, had two chief executives (consuls and kings).

- No means of making necessary changes quickly and drastically (The Roman 'extraordinary magistrate'/dictator is a good example of this). This pretty much ensured that the government would fall into a steady process of decay. Sure, the office comes with risk, but the rewards are well worth it, as it scares the bejeesus out of lawmakers and acts as a strong check against corruption.

Any state will become corrupt, though. It's just a matter of time.

What's a good example of a country with the means to quickly and drastically change? I'm interested in what that would look like.

I mean modern day country.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:33:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
I know "Constitutional Convention" sound a lot like "SciFi Convention" or "Plant-likers Convention," but it in fact a more appropriate name would have been "War of the F*cking Worlds."

Don't understand this. What's your justification for calling it "War of the F*cking Worlds". USA doesn't exactly constitute the world, no matter how much americans think it does :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:57:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 10:38:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/8/2013 6:20:08 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Well, yeah, it's sort of obvious that an anarchist would be against a document which establishes a state based on the fact that it establishes a state. But that's sort of a silly criticism to level against such a document.

My big criticisms would be:

- The general welfare clause does no specify that it does not grant additional powers, and only applies to those already granted.

- One chief executive. I think that two are better. Two of the longest lasting republics, Rome and Sparta, had two chief executives (consuls and kings).

- No means of making necessary changes quickly and drastically (The Roman 'extraordinary magistrate'/dictator is a good example of this). This pretty much ensured that the government would fall into a steady process of decay. Sure, the office comes with risk, but the rewards are well worth it, as it scares the bejeesus out of lawmakers and acts as a strong check against corruption.

Any state will become corrupt, though. It's just a matter of time.

What's a good example of a country with the means to quickly and drastically change? I'm interested in what that would look like.

That's just the thing: the modern countries which can do something along those lines within a preexisting legal framework are autocratic and suffer the sharp downsides of that. The other ones cannot, but such drastic changes are an inevitable part of history. This means that when they do come they will take place outside of established law, with results that are, to put it lightly, less than ideal. The Roman Republic was brilliant because it managed to channel things like class tension and the drastic adjustments that societies eventually engage in through an existing legal system. Think of it as a tank with a safety valve instead of one which can only release pressure by exploding.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:59:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:30:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
How about you get together a room full of slave-owners, monarchists, big business interests, and fanatics who spent years literally killing off their last government rather than pay certain taxes and come up with a better document.

Good point. I don't really blame them for what they came up with at that time. They couldn't foresee how minarchy leads to tyranny, because it had never been attempted prior.

It wasn't until the 1870s that the collusion between government and big business came into full spring though.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.