Yep. I came across this idea and you may call me insane or a left-wing idiot.
If a person really believe in libertarianism, why would Consitutions matter?
There are parts of Consitutions do not seem quite libertarian to me. It's written by people, and people make mistakes.
Don't get me wrong. U.S. Consitutions is no way dumb. I just find it uneasy to take everything it says.
Am I betraying libertarianism just bcause I don't think Consitutions matter?
Do I have to be a Consitutionalist to be a libertarian? Why so many libertarian politicians are holding it as the bible?
To my knowledge, constitutionalism and libertarianism are not necessarily synonamous (and in some cases they may be diametrically opposed). If one has a concept of "natural law" or natural justice, then indeed the constitution starts to look not so good when held up to an independant standard (see Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: Constitution of No Authority"). Since no such "social contract" has ever been an actual voluntary contract among "the people", it cannot be said to have any genuine authority under any common sense standards of justice. None of us ever signed the document (and even when it was drafted, it was only signed by a tiny aristocracy of people). Rather, we are assumed to have implicitly "consented" to it merely for being born within the territory. This strikes me as incredibly unjust. Furthermore, the contemporary notion of "the rule of law" strikes me as nonsensical in that we really have the rule of men. No such documents are self-created or self-enforcing.
But your concerns seem to be more with the content of the constitution then the question of its validity. While it has been argued ad nauseum that it's "original intent" (or, to take a somewhat more strong stance, the "original meaning" of the words in themselves) was to limit the government's powers, the document itself contains plenty of "loopholes" and vague language that can easily be construed (and have been so construed) to grant expansive powers not intended or apparent within the plain language. The "general welfare" thing comes to mind most of all. It has been used to justify practically anything the government does, for "general welfare" is a loaded, subjective and arbitrary term. Who's welfare, and what exactly is welfare? Who will define this for us? "The supreme court", you answer? What kind of limit on government is this, that it may define its own powers arbitrarily and at whim?
No, you do not have to be a constitutionalist to be a libertarian. I would go further and argue that many constitutionalists are not libertarians (or at least particularly consistant ones), since they tend to allow their dedication to the document to trump ethics.
Roderick Long has a few answers to your questions.
Like the law, constitutions can be written or unwritten. And like the law, written constitutions do not exist in reality unless society exercises the rights specified by the constitution.
Whatever kind of society you may live in, it has a constitution. Whatever changes we propose, even if it is anarchy, is a constitutional change.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Roderick Long has a few answers to your questions. Like the law, constitutions can be written or unwritten. And like the law, written constitutions do not exist in reality unless society exercises the rights specified by the constitution. Whatever kind of society you may live in, it has a constitution. Whatever changes we propose, even if it is anarchy, is a constitutional change.
You're talking about the alternate (and original) meaning of "constitution", right? That is, a "constitution" is simply whatever the way in which the social order is organized/constituted. In that sense of the word, it could merely be whatever form(s) of organization and social norms are commonly accepted by the people (a genuine "social contract" or "customary law", even if it's not written down).
But this is a far cry from the contemporary meaning of "constitution", which refers to a "social contract" that (1) is written (2) is not tacitly consented to and therefore (3) is not legitimate or binding on anyone. So wouldn't it be wise to make a sharp distinction between a "legitimate constitution" and mere positive law or the unlibertarian kind of conception of the social contract?
I really like how Long refers to market competition and incentives as a form (if not the only true form) of checks and balances.
Brainpolice: You're talking about the alternate (and original) meaning of "constitution", right? That is, a "constitution" is simply whatever the way in which the social order is organized/constituted. In that sense of the word, it could merely be whatever form(s) of organization and social norms are commonly accepted by the people (a genuine "social contract" or "customary law", even if it's not written down). But this is a far cry from the contemporary meaning of "constitution", which refers to a "social contract" that (1) is written (2) is not tacitly consented to and therefore (3) is not legitimate or binding on anyone. So wouldn't it be wise to make a sharp distinction between a "legitimate constitution" and mere positive law or the unlibertarian kind of conception of the social contract?
Hello Brainpolice, good to see you. :-)
Is tacitly the right word you want to use here above? Should you say perhaps:
is not tacitly explicitly consented to
Do not contracts have to be explicitly agreed to? Otherwise you will get the arguemnt that I alwasy encounter, that living here implies your consent, your agreement... in as little words... your submission (though they will not extend thier own speech this far). They will merely shift thier arguement to include what defines this implied consent. And in the absence of the explicit quality they will demand that your living here is implied consent and therefre binding.
(Though I disagree that living anywhere and owning property in a place implies my consent for others to do with my property as they wish merely because I own those things within X distance of thier gang/parchments... And suppose that constituions thusly do not even apply towards an implied sense of consent)
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
You're right. Explicitly or expressly would be better words. We want to avoid any notion of "implied consent" at all costs.
Valjean:the way I understand it, the US Constitution is a document created to govern the government, and not the people.
Close. More accurately, "The US Constitution is a document created to govern the way the government governs the people."
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti