The first time someone said that to me…well, that was another one of those lightbulb moments. It’s not just sorta like a mafia—it’s exactly like a mafia. It IS a mafia.
For all the flaws of the (Hamiltonian) Constitution, America still created the American dream. Decades after the Wilson Administration, my father was born into poverty, but through 100% full private scholarships, he went to a prestigious prep school and college and became an engineer to live a good middle-class life. How many legal immigrants have echoed this sentiment? I know at least 25 legal immigrants from other countries who have told me their horror stories and are living the good life in America now -21st century even – through hard work and determination and a little good fortune. (The good life as defined by each of us, since most of us want to live well, but don’t need it all – massive wealth.) Even the poor (“who will be with you always”) live better in America.
Dude, you make great arguments, but…I still believe that Americans are the heirs of the American Experiment because of the idea of the American Dream. (Work hard, do better.) But collectively, America has created and allowed further dependency on the government/taxpayers. How many Americans (or illegal aliens) are dependent on the government now? And, that is simply irresponsible (and unsustainable)! And, as Tytler predicted, dependency is the last cycle before tyranny in any democracy (constitutional republic too).
If anyone can talk about freedom with authority, it should be Viktor Frankl, who said, “Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.”
First things first: We must all be responsible. So, first we might end Dependency on the Government and Give Peace a Chance to End the War on Poverty!
Why not try that first and see what good tidings it might bring? You might say, well, no government, no dependency. But, some of us are scratching our collective heads saying…hmmmmmm, what about national defense? Uniting as a confederacy for that purpose was the whole idea behind the Articles of the Confederation. And, we did win the Revolutionary war with our first Constitution.
As to American exceptionalism, the million dollar question is where it actually came from.
As classical liberals, we generally believe that it came from freedom. From the meeting of free markets and free minds.
So what really happened?
A bunch of people came over here in the midst of the century that happened to be the philosophical zenith classical liberalism. Immigrants with fortitude, a raging desire for freedom, and a grounding in the Anglophone conception of liberty. They came to a continent filled with resources. They came to a continent where they did not have to fight against other modern European powers over the same bits of ground. Yes, they had to contend with an indigenous stone-age population, and that produced great tragedy, but it was not enough not to make this qualify as a new frontier filled with wide-open opportunities.
That was the source of the exceptionalism and prosperity.
We know that the Constitution did not CAUSE the prosperity or exceptionalism. Government cannot do that, because government produces nothing. The only question is whether a government gets in the way a little or a lot.
So yes, compared with all the other choices in the world at the time (other than the Articles of Confederation), the Constitution got in the way less than most. That is good. But it does not make the Constitution the source of the exceptionalism.
The only argument that remains, then, is to suggest that the Constitution facilitated the exceptionalism and prosperity by providing a framework that was superior to what would have existed in a pure state of nature. I have great difficulty with that argument for a variety of reasons too long to go into now. But even if I were to stipulate to that argument, I would still be forced to conclude several things:
1) the Constitution facilitated the early period of growth and did not get in the way too much, but
2) the Constitution still was not the SOURCE of that exceptionalism and prosperity, and
3) the Constitution (as Spooner said) then went on to either authorize what we have now, or failed to prevent it.
My conclusion, then, is that we err by crediting the Constitution for our exceptionalism and prosperity. Know what I mean, jellybean?
As far as ending the war on poverty—we cannot even get congress to end the completely retarded practice of changing the clocks twice a year. Governmental growth is a one-way journey. I simply do not hold out any hope of any substantial reform ever being possible. I think collapse will happen before reform does.
That is a really good answer. Thank you! I’m afraid you may be right about the collaspe first. “Out of chaos comes order.” It’s the type of order I worry about…But, I’m excited to learn about any ideas for solutions!
All wars are bankers' wars. The fact is that money promotes virtually all the unEthical behavior choices We see. If We all were living as richly as We choose, what would motivate wars, theft, murder, defraud? What need for a controlmind (government)? What would give anyOne power over any Others beyond being a bully, which, alone, would set One up for Ethical consequences, and even in a gang (why?), would still leave vastly greater number to mete Ethical consequences.
My first dip into this approach to a solution. Great article, and some great comments here as well. I appreciate Substack for providing a platform for such conversations. I am very interested to continue following the conversations and the freshness they represent. It is refreshing to be exposed to critical thinking, the skills of which the legacy media abandoned long ago in favor of propaganda and manipulation.
i would say accountable vs responsible. I see zero accountability by any of our systems while I see great ability to respond by everyone.
I tire of hearing about successful immigrants who are offered tremendous perks that the natural born are not.
Our systems have long been exploited by those who seek to milk it for all they can get and too many think throwing more money will fix the so called problems.
The results have been in, all has been studied, restudied at great cost to those stuck living with the end results and nothing meaningful improves and there is zero accountability for those responsible for the failures.
we are left with monstrosities and now are almost completely shut off from any ability to demand accountability and every day it gets worse.
agree. nope. appreciate your approach & conclusion. while I love much of the language, ideal & possibility of the constitution, the protection of the rights & power rising upward from the individual one over the many, i think we must accept that there will always be disagreements that must be allowed for. There is room for all if the liberty of freedom of movement & opportunity is open.
Hello all. I'm a newbie to this site (just today) - and I have some catching up to do so Question: what books/authors would you recommend that would lay a solid foundation to help me understand the flawed/challenged pieces & parts of "The Constitution is the greatest thing since sliced bread" theory/position? I'm fascinated and want to know more. Thanks in advance for your input. Cheers
Morning - For starters I'd like to better understand the key areas of the Constitution that we were told about in school and believed vs. what really happened and how that then changed the shape of the message that I haven't even recognized to this day. This will be another big domino for me to get a reality check on. Goodness sake, I've been one of those people rallying for "The Constitution", when it's apparent I don't have a solid understanding of the whole story. "I thought....", blah blah blah. So as my dad used to say "that's what you get for thinking" ha. I look forward to expanding my mental horizons and getting on solid footing that's connected to reality. Thank you. Secondarily, I'd be interested in consensual/market-anarchic solutions. Cheers
For the former, one book I really want to read but have not yet done so is The Hologram of Liberty. It is weirdly expensive on Amazon, but it is a normal price here: http://www.javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html
Great article! All we need to be free is give up the desire to control others. A shift of focus from what is wrong with our neighbors to what is right with our neighbors will open our eyes to the evil of government.
So true Joyce! I have noticed that so many people cut themselves off from very rewarding relationships because they have judged some lifestyle or behavioural traits in their neighbors, and as a result live much less enjoyable and profitable lives because of it. It surprises me because I find it easy to overlook various differences in outlook, opinions and mistakes by my neighbors, and always find things to admire or like about all of them. As a result of being friendly, non-judgmental and helpful I have had so many add to my life in wonderful ways. When my little woodshop burned down hundreds of people in my community held fund raisers and donated money time and labor to rebuild it. Some of these friends I like and value so much dislike others intensely, which I always found hard to understand. Yet all of these came together for me, not that I have done so much, other than noticing and encouraging the good, letting them know that I value them, and being helpful when I could.
“A regrettably large share of our legal experiences operate not in the shadow of the Constitution and its constraints, but rather in the shadow of explicitly unconstitutional rules, actions, and orders. In the time it takes for improper Executive Orders to be reined in, for illicit administrative decisions to be corrected, and for misinterpretations of constitutional power to be overturned, so much of society’s activity is framed by what we might call the not-Constitution — all those acts of government that are deemed illegal only after they have caused enduring harm. A most troubling aspect of government power is its insistence on pushing past constitutional constraints and operating in a blurry legal wilderness of its own creation while forcing Americans to prove that those power grabs lack legitimacy.” ~ J.B. Shurk
Those who refuse to see the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them.
This was written in the PAST, it is updated for 2024. Read the complete set and tell me where it is wrong.
What I don't understand is how you equate ALL government with evil. I think Bastiat laid it out in simple enough terms for a 13 year old to understand. He had the answer. Did you ever read it?
And I'm starting to pick up on your belief in your own mental superiority when I read statements like this;
Keep working at it. Keep asking questions. I believe most of you will get there eventually. And we’ll be there for you when you do. As if what YOU are writing is where we will all get eventually. Give me a break.
You make some excellent points, but the FACT OF THE MATTER IS that we haven't been FOLLOWING the Constitution. If people understood the PROPER function of government they couldn't or wouldn't VOTE to enslave themselves and their neighbors. A vote could only be for something they could do without a government. I can't go to my neighbor and INSIST he pays for my children's education so he can VOTE to have someone else do it either. The understanding of simple morality that Bastiat explained in "THE LAW" is the ONLY REASON for ANY kind of government. Once it steps out side of those boundaries it is no longer a government we should support and venerate. NO GOVERNMENT should be funded by force. It should be funded by use fees. You use the roads that are built, the fees are paid through items that are used on the roads. You want to use the school, you pay a use fee to do so. You don't force your neighbor at gunpoint to pay for your brats "edjewkashun".
You are so close, and yet in the pure state of nature, there will always be the predators that feed on the weak. SOMETHING has to be there to restrain them. And that something would end up being defined as "government".
Didn't your father and mother have RULES you had to follow as a child? Or were you allowed to take crayons and write all over the wall? Or take your breakfast and toss it on the floor? Or jump in your dad's car any time you felt and drive like a maniac in the neighborhood? You had to follow RULES laid down by mom and dad. That is GOVERNMENT at the lowest level. The family. When are you going to get it. It will EXIST as long as man exists. The issue is GOOD government vs BAD government. That's where we need to look for common ground. I don't think mom and dad in most cases was bad government. In my life, that might be another story having been abused and beaten as a child over bullshit. Maybe they were the impetus behind me being a renegade today.
You and I have covered most of this ground already. There isn't really much need to keep rehashing it. I know where you stand. I thought you knew where I stood too. I've said it in 9,000 different ways in all these posts! 🤣
I know you believe we have not properly followed the Constitution. I agree. But my point (or one of them, anyway) is that even if we were properly to follow the Constitution, it would still involve the nonconsensual imposition of authority. It would still involve a scenario in which some vote to impose their will and way of life on others. You can agree or disagree as to whether that is a problem, and that is fine. I believe it is a fundamental, insoluble problem. I stand against it. That means I would stand against the Constitution even if it were applied the way you want it to be applied. (I would far prefer it that way, of course, but I would still be technically against it on those principled grounds.)
You can disagree. That's fine. There is no need to keep picking at that disagreement, though. We already know that we are no on the same page there. We have other stuff we can talk about, when it comes up.
I have indeed read "The Law." I loved it. That does not mean that that is where classical-liberal thought ends. I mean, that's better than the guy who keeps on telling me I'm wrong "because Hobbes said so in 'Leviathan,'" but it's kind of similar. There are other books. Other ideas. People have taken the baton since Bastiat, just as he improved on Smith and Locke.
"And I'm starting to pick up on your belief in your own mental superiority when I read statements like this…As if what YOU are writing is where we will all get eventually. Give me a break."
—Not me or what I am writing. Just the ideas I am conveying. Market anarchism and the like. I believe those ideas are correct. People may agree or not, but that is my belief, and I am going to say so in no uncertain terms.
"NO GOVERNMENT should be funded by force. It should be funded by use fees. You use the roads that are built, the fees are paid through items that are used on the roads. You want to use the school, you pay a use fee to do so."
—That is vanishingly close to market anarchism. That is minarchism. Great! I do not want to have the minarchist vs. anarchist debate, though. We are too close in desired outcome for it to be worth it to spend time on the picayune differences. If we started reducing the size of government and got it to where you want it, I would be a very happy camper indeed. I probably would cease doing this and farm bees for the rest of my life.
I would still contend that it would be only a matter of time—perhaps a generation or so—before the minarchist state grew back into what we have now. Part of the reason why I am an anarchist is because I believe that it is not possible to >maintain< a minarchist state. But that is not an argument we need to go back and forth on either. We know where we stand.
And to your last paragraph, the disagreement is this: What you are talking about, really, in the maintenance of order. Rules so things don't break down. So people don't abuse one another. Yes, we need those.
I simply believe it is possible for those to come from other sources than an involuntary government. That does not mean that criminals will get away with murder—it just means that enforcement of the rules will come from another source.
I have written some about how this can be done. Others—Hoppe, Rothbard, The Tannehills, D. Friedman, et al—have written extensively about it. If you have read the from the body of literature on the subject and disagree with it, that's fine. If you have not, then you are essentially strawmanning my position with the void in which that information would go.
It takes me hours to write these pieces, and hours more to answer everyone's comments. It's much more than full time work. I know we have discussed all these matters before. Please, let us just acknowledge the gap and move on. It's a tiny fissure compared to the chasm that lies between you and I on one side, and, say, everyone on the left on the other side. We are 95% allies as much as we are 5% in disagreement. We should remember that. If we want to debate new issues as they come up, fine. But let's not keep covering this same ground.
I think my responses are more directed towards your readers than you. Even though it is a comment on a comment you may have made or something you may have written. And I think you’re right, we are apparently 95% in agreement. People show their CONSENT to be governed by psychopathic control freak parasites by voting for them and following their edicts. What IF we had an understanding among locals that IF the local government violates rights that they would be considered CRIMINALS and we were willing to stand together with arms, need be, like what happened in Athens Tennessee so many years ago? Then what? What if the local sheriff were to refuse to enforce obvious violations of the Bill of Rights? Anyhow, you’re the kind of guy who does make people think. Thanks! Personally, I think that if we HAD followed the Constitution it would be 95% BETTER than what we have today which is whole sale usage of the Communist Manifesto.
As long as humanity submits to its ego and arrogance (pretending to be a superior species), nothing will change. You can try to change the outside world but what needs to be altered is your inside world that reacts to the outside world. Inner peace, inner freedom and calm cannot be destroyed by the megalomaniacs and retarded globalists.
They want us to think they are going to live forever and that there is no way to stop them. They will all die too and in that explicit fact they are terrified. The power hungry and control freaks hate the idea that they will die. That hate always destroys them in the end. Do not follow their path and resolve to hate nothing. Throughout history the power freaks designed government to provide themselves assurance that they have control over everything. All governments have failed and continue to fail.
There is much wisdom in what you say. This is not going to get fixed by yet one more bloody revolution. As angering as their behavior is, that is still not the way. I won't work, and it just dooms us to more of the same that we've been having for the last few thousand years!
"They tell us that in order to avoid the insecurity of the “state of nature,” we must surrender “some” of our rights to them in order to “secure” the rest. They play on our desire for peace. They claim that only they can provide that peace."
And now the fkrs are actually telling us that only they can save us from nature itself. It's fkn bonkers. Talk about a God complex.
Where's that space ship to Mars because I'm thinking about it.
"Now, we may or may not actually honor this commitment. And since we alone have the authority to tax, coin money, and use legal violence, there is exactly jack squat you can do about it."
If I might add a couple more advantages to holding up the people with the powers of governance (Authority) :
A. Weapons of mass distraction used to manipulate minds and control the narrative
B. Weapons of mass destruction used to terminate the dissident and defeat their competitors at the expense of the labor from others that they claim to protect
C. Military branches consisting of humans with mass delusions of valor (no offense to the people in the military, Veterans, the dead or so called law enforcement because it's not their fault for being fooled; we've all been fooled regarding this illusion of "freedom") but I'm waiting for the day we can finally say "thank you for not serving" to be the proper compliment.
Some introspect: Infact I almost got sucked in by a Military Recruiter just before graduating highschool - with all the "perks" & even took a test that suggested I was qualified as an air traffic controller, but something made me decide not to commit to that at the last hour before signing into boot camp. And even though life might have been less challenging. I don't regret that decision.
D. Bankrollers: The illusion of money in All it's forms - that which creates fame, purpose, success, value, and more precisely - wealth as being the precipice of human life itself.
I guess that "B" & "C" could be considered "legal violence" but I prefer to be more specific.
Generally it's all too sickening to know. And it's just as exciting to know that there's a far better way to live life if only everybody knew these factors including the ones doing the dirty work. It's a shame that the guilt of what they've already done and planned to do makes them not want to change the coarse.
It's like a mob shakedown. If you don't pay us, we won't protect you. As a matter of fact, if you don't agree with us, harm may come to you and yours.
That’s exactly what it is!
The first time someone said that to me…well, that was another one of those lightbulb moments. It’s not just sorta like a mafia—it’s exactly like a mafia. It IS a mafia.
Right on! All governments are criminal organizations.
Don't forget the actual people that choose to be part of it.
For sure. People in government commit more crime, day in, day out, than all the non-government criminals combined.
http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/QuitGov/faq.htm
For all the flaws of the (Hamiltonian) Constitution, America still created the American dream. Decades after the Wilson Administration, my father was born into poverty, but through 100% full private scholarships, he went to a prestigious prep school and college and became an engineer to live a good middle-class life. How many legal immigrants have echoed this sentiment? I know at least 25 legal immigrants from other countries who have told me their horror stories and are living the good life in America now -21st century even – through hard work and determination and a little good fortune. (The good life as defined by each of us, since most of us want to live well, but don’t need it all – massive wealth.) Even the poor (“who will be with you always”) live better in America.
Dude, you make great arguments, but…I still believe that Americans are the heirs of the American Experiment because of the idea of the American Dream. (Work hard, do better.) But collectively, America has created and allowed further dependency on the government/taxpayers. How many Americans (or illegal aliens) are dependent on the government now? And, that is simply irresponsible (and unsustainable)! And, as Tytler predicted, dependency is the last cycle before tyranny in any democracy (constitutional republic too).
If anyone can talk about freedom with authority, it should be Viktor Frankl, who said, “Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.”
First things first: We must all be responsible. So, first we might end Dependency on the Government and Give Peace a Chance to End the War on Poverty!
https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/give-peace-a-chance-end-the-war-on-9f8?r=76q58
Why not try that first and see what good tidings it might bring? You might say, well, no government, no dependency. But, some of us are scratching our collective heads saying…hmmmmmm, what about national defense? Uniting as a confederacy for that purpose was the whole idea behind the Articles of the Confederation. And, we did win the Revolutionary war with our first Constitution.
As to American exceptionalism, the million dollar question is where it actually came from.
As classical liberals, we generally believe that it came from freedom. From the meeting of free markets and free minds.
So what really happened?
A bunch of people came over here in the midst of the century that happened to be the philosophical zenith classical liberalism. Immigrants with fortitude, a raging desire for freedom, and a grounding in the Anglophone conception of liberty. They came to a continent filled with resources. They came to a continent where they did not have to fight against other modern European powers over the same bits of ground. Yes, they had to contend with an indigenous stone-age population, and that produced great tragedy, but it was not enough not to make this qualify as a new frontier filled with wide-open opportunities.
That was the source of the exceptionalism and prosperity.
We know that the Constitution did not CAUSE the prosperity or exceptionalism. Government cannot do that, because government produces nothing. The only question is whether a government gets in the way a little or a lot.
So yes, compared with all the other choices in the world at the time (other than the Articles of Confederation), the Constitution got in the way less than most. That is good. But it does not make the Constitution the source of the exceptionalism.
The only argument that remains, then, is to suggest that the Constitution facilitated the exceptionalism and prosperity by providing a framework that was superior to what would have existed in a pure state of nature. I have great difficulty with that argument for a variety of reasons too long to go into now. But even if I were to stipulate to that argument, I would still be forced to conclude several things:
1) the Constitution facilitated the early period of growth and did not get in the way too much, but
2) the Constitution still was not the SOURCE of that exceptionalism and prosperity, and
3) the Constitution (as Spooner said) then went on to either authorize what we have now, or failed to prevent it.
My conclusion, then, is that we err by crediting the Constitution for our exceptionalism and prosperity. Know what I mean, jellybean?
As far as ending the war on poverty—we cannot even get congress to end the completely retarded practice of changing the clocks twice a year. Governmental growth is a one-way journey. I simply do not hold out any hope of any substantial reform ever being possible. I think collapse will happen before reform does.
That is a really good answer. Thank you! I’m afraid you may be right about the collaspe first. “Out of chaos comes order.” It’s the type of order I worry about…But, I’m excited to learn about any ideas for solutions!
I’m on it!
(If my brain does not turn to a pile of jello first.)
All wars are bankers' wars. The fact is that money promotes virtually all the unEthical behavior choices We see. If We all were living as richly as We choose, what would motivate wars, theft, murder, defraud? What need for a controlmind (government)? What would give anyOne power over any Others beyond being a bully, which, alone, would set One up for Ethical consequences, and even in a gang (why?), would still leave vastly greater number to mete Ethical consequences.
Money Motivates the Most Marvelous Manifestations! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-motivates-the-most-marvelous
Accounting For the Energy We Add (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/accounting-for-the-energy-we-add
Tips and Tricks for Surviving the Performance (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/tips-and-tricks-for-surviving-the
"ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS!"
I haven't scrolled through that page in a while, it's a good one. Thanks for refreshing my memory!
https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerswars.pdf
🙏🏻💜🙏🏻 Most welcome!
My first dip into this approach to a solution. Great article, and some great comments here as well. I appreciate Substack for providing a platform for such conversations. I am very interested to continue following the conversations and the freshness they represent. It is refreshing to be exposed to critical thinking, the skills of which the legacy media abandoned long ago in favor of propaganda and manipulation.
Please stick around and continue to offer your views. Lots more to come!
Don't forget that good ole fashioned money...
The opener reminded me of one of my favorite moments of levity from Breaking Bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqnHtGgVAUE
"Did you know you have rights? The Constitution says you do! And so do I." hahaha Odenkirk was fantastic in that role.
Ha! Plus the hottie cop! LOL
Hahaha yes! Time to go to Naughty Jail!
i would say accountable vs responsible. I see zero accountability by any of our systems while I see great ability to respond by everyone.
I tire of hearing about successful immigrants who are offered tremendous perks that the natural born are not.
Our systems have long been exploited by those who seek to milk it for all they can get and too many think throwing more money will fix the so called problems.
The results have been in, all has been studied, restudied at great cost to those stuck living with the end results and nothing meaningful improves and there is zero accountability for those responsible for the failures.
we are left with monstrosities and now are almost completely shut off from any ability to demand accountability and every day it gets worse.
And it isn't going to get better within the system. That's one of the reasons I am taking the approach I am.
Also Remember: They giveth and then they taketh away. Eventually ending up being either another dissident or joining the club...
agree. nope. appreciate your approach & conclusion. while I love much of the language, ideal & possibility of the constitution, the protection of the rights & power rising upward from the individual one over the many, i think we must accept that there will always be disagreements that must be allowed for. There is room for all if the liberty of freedom of movement & opportunity is open.
Right on. Let’s see what we can do!
Hello all. I'm a newbie to this site (just today) - and I have some catching up to do so Question: what books/authors would you recommend that would lay a solid foundation to help me understand the flawed/challenged pieces & parts of "The Constitution is the greatest thing since sliced bread" theory/position? I'm fascinated and want to know more. Thanks in advance for your input. Cheers
Heya Teddy J, nice to meet you.
Are you looking for
—why all forms of democracy are problematic?
—ways in which consensual/market-anarchic solutions can work?
—the scammy ways in which the Constitution was conceived and rammed through?
Or something else?
Morning - For starters I'd like to better understand the key areas of the Constitution that we were told about in school and believed vs. what really happened and how that then changed the shape of the message that I haven't even recognized to this day. This will be another big domino for me to get a reality check on. Goodness sake, I've been one of those people rallying for "The Constitution", when it's apparent I don't have a solid understanding of the whole story. "I thought....", blah blah blah. So as my dad used to say "that's what you get for thinking" ha. I look forward to expanding my mental horizons and getting on solid footing that's connected to reality. Thank you. Secondarily, I'd be interested in consensual/market-anarchic solutions. Cheers
For the former, one book I really want to read but have not yet done so is The Hologram of Liberty. It is weirdly expensive on Amazon, but it is a normal price here: http://www.javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html
For the latter, I have a partial reading list at the end of this post: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/no-way-i-can-convince-you-anarchism
Hoppe and Friedman would be the best places to start, IMO.
And keep checking in here!
Great article! All we need to be free is give up the desire to control others. A shift of focus from what is wrong with our neighbors to what is right with our neighbors will open our eyes to the evil of government.
"All we need to be free is give up the desire to control others."
🔥
"A shift of focus from what is wrong with our neighbors to what is right with our neighbors will open our eyes to the evil of government."
Also 🔥!
So true Joyce! I have noticed that so many people cut themselves off from very rewarding relationships because they have judged some lifestyle or behavioural traits in their neighbors, and as a result live much less enjoyable and profitable lives because of it. It surprises me because I find it easy to overlook various differences in outlook, opinions and mistakes by my neighbors, and always find things to admire or like about all of them. As a result of being friendly, non-judgmental and helpful I have had so many add to my life in wonderful ways. When my little woodshop burned down hundreds of people in my community held fund raisers and donated money time and labor to rebuild it. Some of these friends I like and value so much dislike others intensely, which I always found hard to understand. Yet all of these came together for me, not that I have done so much, other than noticing and encouraging the good, letting them know that I value them, and being helpful when I could.
“A regrettably large share of our legal experiences operate not in the shadow of the Constitution and its constraints, but rather in the shadow of explicitly unconstitutional rules, actions, and orders. In the time it takes for improper Executive Orders to be reined in, for illicit administrative decisions to be corrected, and for misinterpretations of constitutional power to be overturned, so much of society’s activity is framed by what we might call the not-Constitution — all those acts of government that are deemed illegal only after they have caused enduring harm. A most troubling aspect of government power is its insistence on pushing past constitutional constraints and operating in a blurry legal wilderness of its own creation while forcing Americans to prove that those power grabs lack legitimacy.” ~ J.B. Shurk
Those who refuse to see the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them.
This was written in the PAST, it is updated for 2024. Read the complete set and tell me where it is wrong.
Fact is Chris...the answer you are trying to convey has already been given. In 1850 by Frederic Bastiat. https://www.courageouslion.us/p/the-law-2024
What I don't understand is how you equate ALL government with evil. I think Bastiat laid it out in simple enough terms for a 13 year old to understand. He had the answer. Did you ever read it?
And I'm starting to pick up on your belief in your own mental superiority when I read statements like this;
Keep working at it. Keep asking questions. I believe most of you will get there eventually. And we’ll be there for you when you do. As if what YOU are writing is where we will all get eventually. Give me a break.
You make some excellent points, but the FACT OF THE MATTER IS that we haven't been FOLLOWING the Constitution. If people understood the PROPER function of government they couldn't or wouldn't VOTE to enslave themselves and their neighbors. A vote could only be for something they could do without a government. I can't go to my neighbor and INSIST he pays for my children's education so he can VOTE to have someone else do it either. The understanding of simple morality that Bastiat explained in "THE LAW" is the ONLY REASON for ANY kind of government. Once it steps out side of those boundaries it is no longer a government we should support and venerate. NO GOVERNMENT should be funded by force. It should be funded by use fees. You use the roads that are built, the fees are paid through items that are used on the roads. You want to use the school, you pay a use fee to do so. You don't force your neighbor at gunpoint to pay for your brats "edjewkashun".
You are so close, and yet in the pure state of nature, there will always be the predators that feed on the weak. SOMETHING has to be there to restrain them. And that something would end up being defined as "government".
Didn't your father and mother have RULES you had to follow as a child? Or were you allowed to take crayons and write all over the wall? Or take your breakfast and toss it on the floor? Or jump in your dad's car any time you felt and drive like a maniac in the neighborhood? You had to follow RULES laid down by mom and dad. That is GOVERNMENT at the lowest level. The family. When are you going to get it. It will EXIST as long as man exists. The issue is GOOD government vs BAD government. That's where we need to look for common ground. I don't think mom and dad in most cases was bad government. In my life, that might be another story having been abused and beaten as a child over bullshit. Maybe they were the impetus behind me being a renegade today.
You and I have covered most of this ground already. There isn't really much need to keep rehashing it. I know where you stand. I thought you knew where I stood too. I've said it in 9,000 different ways in all these posts! 🤣
I know you believe we have not properly followed the Constitution. I agree. But my point (or one of them, anyway) is that even if we were properly to follow the Constitution, it would still involve the nonconsensual imposition of authority. It would still involve a scenario in which some vote to impose their will and way of life on others. You can agree or disagree as to whether that is a problem, and that is fine. I believe it is a fundamental, insoluble problem. I stand against it. That means I would stand against the Constitution even if it were applied the way you want it to be applied. (I would far prefer it that way, of course, but I would still be technically against it on those principled grounds.)
You can disagree. That's fine. There is no need to keep picking at that disagreement, though. We already know that we are no on the same page there. We have other stuff we can talk about, when it comes up.
I have indeed read "The Law." I loved it. That does not mean that that is where classical-liberal thought ends. I mean, that's better than the guy who keeps on telling me I'm wrong "because Hobbes said so in 'Leviathan,'" but it's kind of similar. There are other books. Other ideas. People have taken the baton since Bastiat, just as he improved on Smith and Locke.
"And I'm starting to pick up on your belief in your own mental superiority when I read statements like this…As if what YOU are writing is where we will all get eventually. Give me a break."
—Not me or what I am writing. Just the ideas I am conveying. Market anarchism and the like. I believe those ideas are correct. People may agree or not, but that is my belief, and I am going to say so in no uncertain terms.
"NO GOVERNMENT should be funded by force. It should be funded by use fees. You use the roads that are built, the fees are paid through items that are used on the roads. You want to use the school, you pay a use fee to do so."
—That is vanishingly close to market anarchism. That is minarchism. Great! I do not want to have the minarchist vs. anarchist debate, though. We are too close in desired outcome for it to be worth it to spend time on the picayune differences. If we started reducing the size of government and got it to where you want it, I would be a very happy camper indeed. I probably would cease doing this and farm bees for the rest of my life.
I would still contend that it would be only a matter of time—perhaps a generation or so—before the minarchist state grew back into what we have now. Part of the reason why I am an anarchist is because I believe that it is not possible to >maintain< a minarchist state. But that is not an argument we need to go back and forth on either. We know where we stand.
And to your last paragraph, the disagreement is this: What you are talking about, really, in the maintenance of order. Rules so things don't break down. So people don't abuse one another. Yes, we need those.
I simply believe it is possible for those to come from other sources than an involuntary government. That does not mean that criminals will get away with murder—it just means that enforcement of the rules will come from another source.
I have written some about how this can be done. Others—Hoppe, Rothbard, The Tannehills, D. Friedman, et al—have written extensively about it. If you have read the from the body of literature on the subject and disagree with it, that's fine. If you have not, then you are essentially strawmanning my position with the void in which that information would go.
It takes me hours to write these pieces, and hours more to answer everyone's comments. It's much more than full time work. I know we have discussed all these matters before. Please, let us just acknowledge the gap and move on. It's a tiny fissure compared to the chasm that lies between you and I on one side, and, say, everyone on the left on the other side. We are 95% allies as much as we are 5% in disagreement. We should remember that. If we want to debate new issues as they come up, fine. But let's not keep covering this same ground.
I think my responses are more directed towards your readers than you. Even though it is a comment on a comment you may have made or something you may have written. And I think you’re right, we are apparently 95% in agreement. People show their CONSENT to be governed by psychopathic control freak parasites by voting for them and following their edicts. What IF we had an understanding among locals that IF the local government violates rights that they would be considered CRIMINALS and we were willing to stand together with arms, need be, like what happened in Athens Tennessee so many years ago? Then what? What if the local sheriff were to refuse to enforce obvious violations of the Bill of Rights? Anyhow, you’re the kind of guy who does make people think. Thanks! Personally, I think that if we HAD followed the Constitution it would be 95% BETTER than what we have today which is whole sale usage of the Communist Manifesto.
do you know these guys?
https://cspoa.org/
As long as humanity submits to its ego and arrogance (pretending to be a superior species), nothing will change. You can try to change the outside world but what needs to be altered is your inside world that reacts to the outside world. Inner peace, inner freedom and calm cannot be destroyed by the megalomaniacs and retarded globalists.
They want us to think they are going to live forever and that there is no way to stop them. They will all die too and in that explicit fact they are terrified. The power hungry and control freaks hate the idea that they will die. That hate always destroys them in the end. Do not follow their path and resolve to hate nothing. Throughout history the power freaks designed government to provide themselves assurance that they have control over everything. All governments have failed and continue to fail.
There is much wisdom in what you say. This is not going to get fixed by yet one more bloody revolution. As angering as their behavior is, that is still not the way. I won't work, and it just dooms us to more of the same that we've been having for the last few thousand years!
None of it!! 👏👏👏
❤️🔥❤️
🔥😊👍
"They tell us that in order to avoid the insecurity of the “state of nature,” we must surrender “some” of our rights to them in order to “secure” the rest. They play on our desire for peace. They claim that only they can provide that peace."
And now the fkrs are actually telling us that only they can save us from nature itself. It's fkn bonkers. Talk about a God complex.
Where's that space ship to Mars because I'm thinking about it.
"And now the fkrs are actually telling us that only they can save us from nature itself"
—All the while, they manipulate the weather themselves…
"Now, we may or may not actually honor this commitment. And since we alone have the authority to tax, coin money, and use legal violence, there is exactly jack squat you can do about it."
If I might add a couple more advantages to holding up the people with the powers of governance (Authority) :
A. Weapons of mass distraction used to manipulate minds and control the narrative
B. Weapons of mass destruction used to terminate the dissident and defeat their competitors at the expense of the labor from others that they claim to protect
C. Military branches consisting of humans with mass delusions of valor (no offense to the people in the military, Veterans, the dead or so called law enforcement because it's not their fault for being fooled; we've all been fooled regarding this illusion of "freedom") but I'm waiting for the day we can finally say "thank you for not serving" to be the proper compliment.
Some introspect: Infact I almost got sucked in by a Military Recruiter just before graduating highschool - with all the "perks" & even took a test that suggested I was qualified as an air traffic controller, but something made me decide not to commit to that at the last hour before signing into boot camp. And even though life might have been less challenging. I don't regret that decision.
D. Bankrollers: The illusion of money in All it's forms - that which creates fame, purpose, success, value, and more precisely - wealth as being the precipice of human life itself.
I guess that "B" & "C" could be considered "legal violence" but I prefer to be more specific.
Generally it's all too sickening to know. And it's just as exciting to know that there's a far better way to live life if only everybody knew these factors including the ones doing the dirty work. It's a shame that the guilt of what they've already done and planned to do makes them not want to change the coarse.
Yeah, I think it's good that you did not end up in the military.
Once again Christopher you hit the bullseye! Perfect and full of Energy!
And now's where the real fun begins!
Ready and Willing!
It’s great John Galt stuff. Could you imagine? I’ve worked in industry. I can’t see it happening, not with the human need to rule others.
Galt's Gulch was a separate enclave. That is one approach, and I support it. But it won't be mine. Not exactly, anyway.
" I can’t see it happening, not with the human need to rule others."
—We will never know unless we actually try.