If someone built a grocery store, and then wrote some words on paper, that no one signed, declaring that everyone within 50 square miles has to buy food from that grocery store upon threat of death, would you think that would be a legitimate way to start a business? What if you were allowed to vote for the management? Would you then feel that you were obligated to buy food from that grocery store? Do you think this would give the business a legitimate claim to your money? Just because some words were written on paper and you were allowed to vote for management of the business? If this business were able to become established, and it was copied around the world, so that no matter where you went in the world the same kind of grocery store model existed, do you think in the future people would not be able to comprehend the market providing grocery stores?
How was the business, called the United States government, established? It was established in the exact same way. Some men wrote some words on paper, called the U.S. constitution. No one signed it, (the signatures are as witnesses only, which means it was not even binding to those who signed it). It established the business called the United States government and let people vote for the management. If this is not a legitimate way to establish a business, that makes the business a criminal organization. That makes taxation and fees extortion. Just like the example above, do you really think the market cannot provide justice and education and roads without the government? If so, you can visit Mises.org for information on how markets work.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I take issue with this line:
"That means so called laws are actually enslavement of the population, telling them what they can or cannot do without their permission."
Even in an ancap society there would be laws, most or all of which would not be signed off on by all the population subject to them. I know what you mean there but it is almost certain that most people unfamiliar with these concepts would take that the wrong way and be quite turned off. I would rephrase or elaborate.
Actually, delegates from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, NC, SC, GA, New Hampshire, Mass, Connecticut, NY, New Jersey and Pennsylvania signed it originally. They signed it as representatives of the men of their state AND their posterity. Which means that we are all bound by the same rules they signed into law.
"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It's legally binding as long as the laws laid down in the Constitution can be enforced, which they can be. And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The government is given the power to tax under Article 1, Section 8 as well as post roads and create a post office so it's not illegal for the government to tax the citizens or post roads or operate the post office.
Now, you do get to participate in voting for the management, and the people you pick are given either legislative power in the House or Senate or Executive Power in the case of the President. You do not get to vote for Supreme Court judges.
It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the citizens have the right to simply dissolve the government, that would have to be done through a revolution, which would be considered treason.
EDIT: you do, however, have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I do think that you'll probably find some people who feel the way you do about all this with that flyer though, therefore you should probably post it and see if there are any takers.
"Actually, delegates from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, NC, SC, GA, New Hampshire, Mass, Connecticut, NY, New Jersey and Pennsylvania signed it originally." Check it again, it was never signed as an agreement. The signatories are witnesses to it, is all. But I will make that clarification, thank you.
"They signed it as representatives of the men of their state AND their posterity. Which means that we are all bound by the same rules they signed into law." And pray tell, how did they acquire this magical power?
"It's legally binding as long as the laws laid down in the Constitution can be enforced, which they can be." No, it is not. It is just a gang terrorizing people. Nothing legal about it. I think most people will have a fairly easy time seeing the reality, that the Constitution is just a bunch of words written on paper. Nothing more. But I also think most people will just not care, because that is how people are.
"And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The government is given the power to tax under Article 1, Section 8 as well as post roads and create a post office so it's not illegal for the government to tax the citizens or post roads or operate the post office." Those are just words on paper, that no one has ever given consent to.
"I take issue with this line:
Even in an ancap society there would be laws, most or all of which would not be signed off on by all the population subject to them. I know what you mean there but it is almost certain that most people unfamiliar with these concepts would take that the wrong way and be quite turned off. I would rephrase or elaborate."
Thanks for the input. I will remove it. I was referring to legislation, but I don't think it is worth trying to clarify.
Hmm it does say witness, but I'm not sure what the word witness meant in 1787.
I'd say they got that power by a combination of force and majority public consent.
All laws are just words written down on pieces of paper. Ancap rules would be rules written down on pieces of paper, would they not?
I give consent to those words, you might not.
They signed it as representatives of the men of their state AND their posterity. Which means that we are all bound by the same rules they signed into law.
Bull. You can't sign something and expect to bind your children (let alone other people's children -- chances are you're not related to the delegates from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, NC, SC, GA, New Hampshire, Mass, Connecticut, NY, New Jersey or Pennsylvania). Or even yourself -- you're allowed to change your mind!
"Hmm it does say witness, but I'm not sure what the word witness meant in 1787." Same thing it means today when you sign a document as a witness. It just means you witnessed it.
"I'd say they got that power by a combination of force and majority public consent." Which means it is not legal at all. Otherwise, I could setup shop just like the example I gave. It just makes it a mafia organization. Nothing more.
All laws are just words written down on pieces of paper. Ancap rules would be rules written down on pieces of paper, would they not?" I have no idea what you mean by "ancap" rules. There would be arbitration. That's it. And a general understanding that taxation is extortion, and therefore wrong, just like there is a general understanding that owning another person is wrong.
"I give consent to those words." There is no way to know if what you say is true, since we both know you can get in serious trouble for not paying.
Paul: Bull. You can't sign something and expect to bind your children (let alone other people's children -- chances are you're not related to the delegates from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, NC, SC, GA, New Hampshire, Mass, Connecticut, NY, New Jersey or Pennsylvania). Or even yourself -- you're allowed to change your mind!
There is no secession clause so yes I think it's safe to say they did expect to bind their children and their children's children and so forth to this contract. It doesn't say people are allowed to just change their mind. You may not agree with that, but find me the language that says otherwise. If it's there it's there, but I haven't been able to find it.
@Spidey, maybe it does maybe it doesn't, I can't say for sure.
You could try but you don't have the power to set yourself up as the law of the land. At least not of the whole nation. In other words, you would be an illegal institution in the eyes of the US government just like the US government is an illegal institution in your eyes.
So there would be no established rules of any kind? Nothing written down anywhere?
I'll sign a piece of paper that says I give consent to the government and swear my allegiance to the Constitution no problem.
There is no secession clause so yes I think it's safe to say they did expect to bind their children and their children's children and so forth to this contract.
It doesn't matter whether there's a clause that says so. It doesn't even matter if that was the intention. You just can't do that! You can't sign up to some agreement that binds your children -- let alone the children of a complete stranger: what makes you think a few people a couple of hundred years ago should have been able to do what you can't?
It doesn't say people are allowed to just change their mind.
Again, it doesn't have to say it on any piece of paper. People can change their mind; that's simply a fact.
"No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" is required reading for this discussion.
@Paul, because that's how the law works. If it had been the intention of the Framers to let people opt out or their children opt out they would've included that language in the original document. But they didn't.
Anyways, I give my consent to the Constitution and I think it's understood that pretty much everyone else living in the US does. We have the means of enforcing it, what do libertarians have?
>>@Spidey, maybe it does maybe it doesn't, I can't say for sure.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=witness
its meant that for about 700 years?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
There's also the 14th Amendment. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside"
So, if you were born here or obtained legal status here, you are a citizen of the US and are thus subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Anyways, if you guys think libertarians should be able to opt out, you should take your case to court. If you win, you won't need to argue with me.
Here you go, you can claim that you have the right to expatriate under the Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Nationality Act of 1940 or 1952.
You can renounce citizenship. However, you will still be subject to the laws of the US and the state where you live: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=2006app\5625&invol=1
Take it to court, if they rule libertarians can opt out then you can.
There's the Mafia 'Mission Statement', something like:we run the protection racket on these streets. all non members must pay extortion as and when required and are subject to our acts of violence as they please us.
anyway, if you think that civilians should be able to opt out you should take your case to the Don's right hand man, if you 'convince' him, you won't need to argue with me.
Well, I'm sorry you think the game isn't fair. But if you can't get the law to recognize your right to opt out then...that's unfortunate. Will you break the law anyways?
Yes, it IS unfortunate that a band of knaves and ruffians won't recognize a person's right to his property. But you've yet to establish by what authority the 'Framers' could have possibly bound the lives of those NOT YET BORN to a contract, let alone those countrymen who have never signed nor even seen the contract to which the state claims they are bound.
By the authority of those still living I suppose and the power of the executive branch to uphold the laws of the US and the power of the judicial branch to judge you. As long as there is popular consent to the document, it looks like people who don't consent are still bound and as long as the US has the power to enforce the document, those who break the laws will be punished.
But again, perhaps you have an argument, you should take it to court. I am not a judge. I cannot tell you whether you are bound to the contract or not.
This is a correct explanation concerning by what power persons are compelled to obey the government and its edicts. This doesn't establish the authority in the first place, however.
That begs the question. You presuppose that the courts have authority to decide the matter in the first place.
I think the courts have the authority in the first place because they have the force to support their power and enough people like me who give consent for them to use that force.
Besides, if the courts don't have the authority who does? You? Do you have the power to enforce your ruling?
because that's how the law works.
That's not how any other law works. It's not possible for anybody to bind third parties to any agreement they make, at any time in history, except this particular group of people 200 years ago?
If it had been the intention of the Framers to let people opt out or their children opt out they would've included that language in the original document. But they didn't.
So?
Anyways, I give my consent to the Constitution and I think it's understood that pretty much everyone else living in the US does.
It only takes one person who doesn't...
We have the means of enforcing it, what do libertarians have?
Morality and justice. (And who is "we"? I doubt you have any means of enforcing anything. You're even more of a slave than "us" -- at least we're aware of our chains)
You can give consent for them to use their force on you. You can't give consent for them to use it on anybody else. If "because they have the force to support their power" is sufficient justification, there is, by definition, no such thing as a crime -- if I murder you, that very fact demonstrates that I had more force than you, and therefore my act was justified, so surely the courts should laugh in the faces of your relatives who want me prosecuted!?
I don't even know what Bloom is arguing. The so called constitution is an unsigned document. Even his theory that the signers could obligate everyone fails, because there are no signers. It is just a piece of paper with some words on it. Anyone that would argue that obligates anyone to anything just lives in a fantasy world, and cannot be reasoned with.
Can't have a discussion of the US constitution without posting good ol' Spooner:
http://jim.com/treason.htm
Seriously, if for some reason you haven't read it you should.
Spideynw: If someone built a grocery store, and then wrote some words on paper, that no one signed, declaring that everyone within 50 square miles has to buy food from that grocery store upon threat of death, would you think that would be a legitimate way to start a business? What if you were allowed to vote for the management? Would you then feel that you were obligated to buy food from that grocery store? Do you think this would give the business a legitimate claim to your money? Just because some words were written on paper and you were allowed to vote for management of the business? If this business were able to become established, and it was copied around the world, so that no matter where you went in the world the same kind of grocery store model existed, do you think in the future people would not be able to comprehend the market providing grocery stores? How was the business, called the United States government, established? It was established in the exact same way. Some men wrote some words on paper, called the U.S. constitution. No one signed it, (the signatures are as witnesses only, which means it was not even binding to those who signed it). It established the business called the United States government and let people vote for the management. If this is not a legitimate way to establish a business, that makes the business a criminal organization. That makes taxation and fees extortion. Just like the example above, do you really think the market cannot provide justice and education and roads without the government? If so, you can visit Mises.org for information on how markets work.
I think it might be too long to be digestable.
that makes the business a criminal organization
Sure, but what are you going to do about it?
Force only retreats before a greater force.
You have too options; help create a greater force, or submit to the existing force. (Force isn't necessarily violence)
If you chose to create a greater force, the question becomes how to keep the new force from being corrupted like the old one.
The framers of the Constitution had one strategy for attempting this. People like Tolstoy and Gandhi had another. Still, the real question is, if you were to win against the criminal organization, then what? What are you fighting for, and how do you propose to keep it if you win it?
"What are you fighting for, and how do you propose to keep it if you win it?"
I am fighting an intellectual battle against lies. Once enough people realize that the idea that U.S. government is legitimate, is a lie, and enough people lose their fear of not having a government, then the government will just go away, just like slavery went away once people realized owning another human being is wrong.
"I think it might be too long to be digestable."
There is some redundancy in it. I can probably cut some of it out. However, I do hope it is interesting enough that people will read something that is one page.
Did you guys even read the expatriation case? The court ruled that even if you're not a national, you're still under the jurisdiction of the state you reside in. So you can renounce your nationality but you will still be bound by the law. You can go to court and tell them they don't have the authority to try you maybe you'll win.
Also, I agree with Benjamin. Either you build a greater force or you submit to the current one.
There's no need to read the case if I don't recognize the court's legitimacy in the first place (though it's no surprise that the government court rules in favor of the government). You've yet to demonstrate the legitimacy of the court, other than by asserting the legitimacy of the Constitution (beg that question!).
Of course we're in agreement of the reality of living under such a system. I'm simply demonstrating how monstrous and illegitimate that system is.
You should go to court and tell them that they don't have authority. I would like to watch that.
It would be exactly like telling a mobster he doesn't have authority to run his extortion ring. A barrel full of laughs.