Political Theory

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

ozzy43 — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:23:42 GMT

Niccolò:
The AoC was utilitarianly more acceptable to we libertarians than the Constitution, yes, but it was also not without it's flaws.

I absolutely agree. Additionally, you can go back to the DoI, which was probably the purest expression of libertarian principles to allegedly serve as the basis for a governing philosophy - only when it came time to actually establish a government, those principles - notably the twin doctrines of popular sovereignty and natural rights - did not serve the purposes that those creating the government wished. So even the AoC implemented a State (positive interventions) rather than a government (negative interventions) as desired by the DoI.

In short, I do not think that there exists anywhere in modern history an example of anything closer to libertarian principles than the AoC, which was flawed, but not nearly so much as the Constitution. At the least, one would have the option of moving from state to state, and competition for citizens would work in our favor, instead of all citizens being locked into one nation, from which expatriation is substantially more difficult.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

Niccolò — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:53:06 GMT

ozzy43:
aludanyi:
And where is the Constitution which enumerate the powers for the government (police and judiciary activities and no other), and left all the rights in the hand of the people. I never saw a Constitution like that, so it was never done.

You forget that the Constitution represented an overthrow of the existing (legitimate) government established by the AoC. The AoC was much closer to what you seek than the Constitution. And the powers that be could not tolerate that for more than a decade. Why do you think things would be different today with the Constitution you are proposing, which seems to me to have quite a lot more federal power than the AoC did, which did not, as I recall assign police powers to the Feds.

The AoC was utilitarianly more acceptable to we libertarians than the Constitution, yes, but it was also not without it's flaws.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

Niccolò — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:51:50 GMT

Considering I'm not an American... Why should I care what your constitution says?

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

ozzy43 — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:32:06 GMT

aludanyi:
And where is the Constitution which enumerate the powers for the government (police and judiciary activities and no other), and left all the rights in the hand of the people. I never saw a Constitution like that, so it was never done.

You forget that the Constitution represented an overthrow of the existing (legitimate) government established by the AoC. The AoC was much closer to what you seek than the Constitution. And the powers that be could not tolerate that for more than a decade. Why do you think things would be different today with the Constitution you are proposing, which seems to me to have quite a lot more federal power than the AoC did, which did not, as I recall assign police powers to the Feds.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

WARREN G. HOMEBOY — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:36:13 GMT

The only problem that I truly fear in the Constitution is the "Necessary and Proper" clause. It can be used in any way imaginable for a few people to take advantage of over the many. Thomas Jefferson, when he got into office, was not the champion of states over federal rights as he was pre 1800, because, when someone gets into power, and when in a way people "bought" their power with votes, they believe they have a mandate from the people to do what they feel like. I like the Constitution, I believe that the Federal branch has grown too powerful and that it should be the equal of the states in a Union. I sense many people here are anarchists or "minarchists", but the only thing that rises from anarchy throught history has been tyrants, war and oppression. The Constitution, love it or hate it, is both our best friend and if there are no people who believe and stand up for the natural rights, then, it will be our worst enemy.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

aludanyi — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:55:06 GMT

And where is the Constitution which enumerate the powers for the government (police and judiciary activities and no other), and left all the rights in the hand of the people. I never saw a Constitution like that, so it was never done. Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry would do that I am sure, but not all the founding fathers was like Jefferson. There was Hamilton also there. That was the problem; the Constitution was the best what it could be reached at the moment, and not what it should be. Now the question is how to write and adopt a “perfect” Constitution in an imperfect world. Unfortunately I don’t know the answer.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

ozzy43 — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:10:58 GMT

DBratton:
aludanyi:
So no income tax, no fiat money (back to real gold standard), and I am pretty much sure that a minimalist limited government with enumerated powers is possible.

But didn't we start from that point and grow into what we are now? I would add to your list the right to secede. I don't think the central government can ever be controllable otherwise.

Exactly my point - been there, done that, look how it worked out. I see no reason why the same would not repeat, especially given that 90+% of the citizenry does not even grasp this fact. Wasn't it Einstein who said doing something over and over and expecting a different result was one definition of insanity?

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

aludanyi — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:11:58 GMT

You see, that's the problem I am talking about, the upside down Constitution where you think that the government gives you the right and not the other way around. You don't have to write rights in the Constitution, you just have to write in what you can't do (can't steal, can't kill - can't jeopardize other individual's life and property), and what the government can and actually must do (help you to defend your life and property - police and judiciary activity). That’s it. The right to secede is pre-existing, the government can't give you that right nor can it take away from you, just as any other right under the Sun. In short you don’t need to deal with government ever, unless you broke the law and the law is very simple, don’t steal (fraud is also theft), don’t kill, and don’t jeopardize other people life and property. I believe in that kind of environment secession won’t be an issue at all, it would be one of the rights you never need to use, except if the government don’t do his job (don’t help you to protect your life and property). Secession is necessary only in an environment where someone take away your property or/and your life and of course if someone stay on your way of your pursuit of happiness. As Frederic Bastiat told us… “If goods can’t cross borders, armies will”. Borders in this case are not only country borders.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

DBratton — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:57:17 GMT

aludanyi:
So no income tax, no fiat money (back to real gold standard), and I am pretty much sure that a minimalist limited government with enumerated powers is possible.

But didn't we start from that point and grow into what we are now? I would add to your list the right to secede. I don't think the central government can ever be controllable otherwise.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

Imperator03 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:49:39 GMT

I'm not sure even a minarchist type of government would be safe. Politicos have been able to twist the Constitiution around, so what would keep them from twisting any new agreement around? Second the Constitution, as noted earlier, did not enable people to decline participation. That fact, I think, lies at the center of they problems we have with governments. Even if you're called a citizen, you're still a subject to a higher authority. Even in a mincharchist style of government, people will still sign their lives away for security. Much the same thing happened at the disolution of the Western Roman Empire. People were willing to bind themselves as slaves, in addition, they were willing to bind their children and children's children to involuntary servitude; a practice that went on for centuries. The only solution to that corundrum is the proposition that only voluntary contracts are enforceable.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

aludanyi — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:22:51 GMT

I could probably agree. I believe that Frank Chodorov said that the income tax is the road to socialism, unlimited government. Well not just the income tax, the fiat money is also. So no income tax, no fiat money (back to real gold standard), and I am pretty much sure that a minimalist limited government with enumerated powers is possible. And of course income tax and money control is not among police and judicial activity...

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

ozzy43 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:56:21 GMT

Minarchy is certainly superior to what we've got going in this country - and in most - currently, so no problem supporting your proposal at this time. :)

BTW, I assume you mean limit the *federal* (or national) govt to police and judicial action? If so, why not limit police action to localities and, to a lesser degree, states - that's where the crime is committed, after all. Same for judiciary. And allow for only a skeletal structure to exist at the national level for coordination purposes, and ensure ALL taxation authority can go no higher than township/county level. This means states and fed have to beg counties/townships for funds, which will obviously keep the national level quite lean. The Feds should be on a perpetual starvation diet. In other words, something similar to the Articles of Confederation, only even more locally devolved. If you do not - from the outset - create a structure that intentionally and forcibly devolves power and keeps it away from the higher levels of hierarchy, it's pretty easy to see how we could wind up right back where we are.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

aludanyi — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:34:33 GMT

Well, I am still a minarchist :) because I think it is achievable if we limit the government to police and judicial action. So what we need is a Constitution which clearly enumerates only police and judicial powers to the government and forbid any other activity for them. Of course there would be some question about why would such a Constitution be a bounding document to people who never signed it or to the heirs of the people who signed it (as Lysander Spooner ask in his 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority') but hey there is no such thing as a perfect world.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

ozzy43 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:31:43 GMT

aludanyi:
I have read 'Our Enemy the State' and I understand and completely agree with you about this

Cool - sorry for drawing the wrong conclusion. ;-)

You are right that there are at least *apparent* attempts in the Constitution to limit governmental powers, and that is it the people - both the general citizenry and the politicos - who have abandoned the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers in favor of democracy and positivism.

And in fact, this is precisely why I lean more anarchist than minarchist. Tried the minarchy thing - didn't work. Might be workable on a smaller scale, but not here. Doesn't mean I won't support folks like Ron Paul who want to move us in the right direction, of course. Anything toward less government is a step in the right direction, and that includes the Constitutionalist position.

Re: Right to keep and bear arms?

baxter — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:44:22 GMT

This part of the constitution implies that people are allowed to walk around carrying guns, swords, and even atom bombs in plain sight.

Alas, judges don't respect the the law.