Constitutionalists: 1 + 1 = 3 (Part 1 of 2)
People who revere “the Founders” and the U.S. Constitution have massive internal contradictions in their heads. (So did I, back when I did that.) I’m not saying that such people are bad, or stupid, but I am saying that they have been taught to feel religious devotion to a hodge-podge of self-contradictory ideas that have been twisted, misrepresented and deified. The purpose of this article is to separate the genuinely wise and virtuous bits and pieces of thought from Revolutionary days, from the authoritarian mythology which contaminated and perverted those ideas into something anti-freedom and anti-human. Of course, people who feel deep emotional reverence for such things are likely to be made uncomfortable by this article, just as I was uncomfortable when I started to examine my own loyalty to and love for the Constitution many years ago.
For starters, as I often point out, “the Founders” did not all believe the same thing. Though they may get lumped together a lot, there were major, fundamental differences, philosophically and tactically, among the different individuals now referred to as “Founders.” The most obvious divide was between the federalists and the anti-federalists.
In all the flag-waving, constitution-worshiping propaganda I was subjected to when younger, I don’t recall anyone ever mentioning to me the fact that two of most prominent characters of the Revolutionary days—Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine—were both ardent and vocal opponents of the U.S. Constitution, predicting (and rightly so) that it would create an authoritarian monster that would quickly become even worse than a king. For a crash course in some of the major disagreements, watch this:
It’s worth mentioning that the Soviet Union, communist China, and North Korea (among others) also had constitutions, creating democratically-elected republican “governments,” which also were theoretically limited by a “bill of rights” in each constitution. But while Americans have no problem seeing through the thinly veiled charades of those regimes being about serving and representing the people, while protecting the rights of the individual, they still believe the very similar—and equally false—mythology that they were taught about the U.S. Constitution. So let’s consider a few issues and concepts, and compare the mythology to the reality, regarding the origins of this country.
1 - “The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are the two greatest documents ever written!”
Just as “the Founders” tend to get lumped together, the Declaration and the Constitution tend to get lumped together, even though they expressed drastically conflicting ideas. In short, the Constitution was a massive betrayal and perversion of the ideas expressed in the Declaration. In fact, other than the false assertion that “governments are instituted among men” in order to secure and protect individual rights, the Declaration is almost an anarchist document. It basically says that if “government” does anything other than protect individual rights, the people should change it or get rid of it. (What they got wrong was the notion that “government” could ever be a legitimate protector, without being a parasitical aggressor.)
Between the signing of the Declaration, and the ratification of the Constitution, how did we get from the idea that all people have equal rights (the Declaration) to the idea that some people have the right to rob (“tax”) everyone else (the Constitution)? And how did we get from the idea that the people have the right, and the duty, to “alter or abolish” any “government” which becomes destructive of individual rights (as it says in the Declaration), to a situation where a centralized authoritarian ruling class has the right to call out the militia to “execute the Laws of the Union” and to “suppress Insurrections” (as it says in the Constitution)?
In short, the Declaration said that “government” should only protect individual rights, while the Constitution pretended to create a new ruling class and “authorized” it to violate the rights of individuals in various ways.
2 - “The Constitution was made to limit government!”
There are two ways in which this statement is patently false. First of all, both the federalists and the anti-federalists, when the constitution was under debate, agreed that the entire purpose of the new constitution was to strengthen and expand central “authority,” as compared to the situation that existed under the “Articles of Confederation,” which was basically just a pact between state “governments,” where there really was no national “government” with any real power of its own.
Secondly, the U.S. Constitution pretended to create a legitimate ruling class, and claimed to give the new centralized political “authority” a number of new powers. At the insistence of the anti-federalists, and over the objections of the federalists, provisions were eventually added to the original version (added in the form of the “Bill of Rights”) in an effort to limit those powers. (Below we’ll get to how and why those “limits” utterly failed.) But to say that the true purpose of the document which created the power to begin with was actually to limit political power is nonsensical.
It’s analogous to putting a bomb in your living room, putting some pillows around it, and then saying that the purpose of the bomb is to protect people from being blown up. You might want to argue that the purpose of adding the pillows was to protect people from the blast (even if such a plan is misguided and ineffective), but to say that the bomb is there to protect people is just absurd. Similarly, to say that limiting political power was the primary purpose of a document which created a ruling class is logically ridiculous.
(In Part 2 of this article (https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/constitutionalists-1-1-3-part-2-of-2), we will look at more of the wisdom, and more of the lunacy, which was expressed in Revolutionary days.)
(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "[email protected]" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)
Even that this is OT, I would like to know what you think about this argument:
https://steemit.com/nap/@lasseehlers/philosophy-is-dating-or-marrying-a-single-mother-violating-the-non-aggression-principal-nap-here-is-my-argument-for-a-yes-to
If the statists would actually abide by the Constitution, anarchists could peacefully coexist with them.
Peaceful coexistence is impossible with a gang that thinks it has the moral right to forcibly extort everyone else, which is exactly what the taxing clause of the Constitution claimed.
I disagree. It is possible as long as the statists are too weak to impose their lust for power. As long as attempting to actually effect their depredations would obviously result in their ignominious defeat, they're likely to do business as necessary.
Just like tiny, venomless snakes can be trusted around mice.
Valid point. And sort of like arguing whether unicorns would be purple or pink if they existed.
We need watchers. But we also need to keep an eye on watchers. That's why I promote government as a service within anarcho-capitalism (AKA capitalism). I think a government should be like a mall. I allows shops to setup and earn and people to come and shop at ease. The mall charges a fee based on the resources consumed (Which should be how taxes are based on. I support fee and VAT based taxation and oppose taxes based on profits.)
Governments should co-exist with anarchy in the form of city states like HK, Monaco, Singapore etc.
In what way do these city states 'co-exist with anarchy'?
Um, "anarchy" means the ABSENCE of a ruling class. "Government" is a ruling class. By definition, you can't have both.
Think of it like Ethereum, NEO, EOS, Waves, Komodo etc. Private police force wouldn't be as same as government police force. I know many libertarians advocate for private police/security. What I'm saying is privatize the entire governments in the form of city states. Switzerland currently has a very loose and lite version of what I'm trying to describe.
The best example I can think of is Dash DAO. The Decentralized Autonomous Organization has multiple centralized groups such as Dash Core, DashForceNews and also film makers and Sports teams and also individuals who are not a part of any centralized group.
A person may work individually and later decide to join a centralized group or vice versa.
You could also take the crypto projects as examples.There is Cobinhood DEX which run on Ethereum and there is BTS which doesn't run on some other platform.
Truth! I agree
This s document was perfection. It’s the fact none of our leaders abide by it that is the problem!
The document created an illegitimate, violent and inherently immoral ruling class. The fact that the beast became even worse than what the Constitution described doesn't make the original plan good.
Created that class ? Are u aware of what was here before this document ?
Yes, the Articles of Confederation, which was far LESS authoritarian and oppressive than the new constitutional republic immediately became. Try watching the video in the article above.
https://steemit.com/kl/@tjunaidi/movie-review-kl-gangster-2-6d8a300848c88
I LOVE Josie the Outlaw! What a great and reasoned discussion of American legal history.
Also, bombs make peace. Nukes is probably the only thing keeping NK from being overrun today. Ain't sayin' it's right, just sayin' it works, like most violence.
You can make the same argument for personal firearms.
I do.
Thanks!
Good post you
Nice article. I'd like to know more about the author's personal philosophy, and gurus. Not because I want to challenge or criticize but because I'm always interested in learning who influenced people I consider like-minded in some way.
1 - My philosophy can be summed up rather simply: each individual owns himself, and violent aggression is wrong, even when it's done in the name of "authority." (That makes me an anarchist/voluntaryist, by the way.) 2 - I have no gurus.
You ARE a guru.
Also, you undoubtedly did have influences that imparted to you wisdom. Certainly you have never claimed to have thought up voluntarism all by yourself.
I think that's what @cosimo means.
Guru might have been the wrong word. I'm a big fan of Aldous Huxley myself. I'd consider him to be someone who has helped to "enlighten" me. That's more what I was looking for. Whose philosophies does he follow that isn't someone like Nietzsche or Kant that any self-proclaimed thinker would be very familiar with.
Having influences is different than having gurus you follow. Larken just means no one or two people convinced him in a moment of his major beliefs he now has, he mostly argued himself there with refining his own arguments against strangers.
Thats what he will tell you, anyway. :)
Tough one for me to read, but it would be wrong not to hear this out. As you can see from my profile pic, I have an aligience to a constitutionally based cause. I won't bore you with mu particular brand. I do not disagree with anything you have said here. The way people hold a torch for something created by the very institution that has enslaved them is nothing but hypocritical, I have to admit this. My own stance is that the constitution of the UK gives us a way out of the system(article61) and once that is done, then it would give us a chance to allow folk like yourself to come up with a better way of living and a new style of society. It is just a tool, a lawful instrument to dismantle the system. The key to the exit may have been made by our oppressors but if it is a way of clearing the deck then maybe that is better than just hoping people will learn to work around the matrix. For many people like you and I, living a self sufficient lifestyle is a great step forwards(less is more) but while the matrix exists it will act like a black hole and suck more victims into it. If the constitution can help us remove the rot, then those who chose to use it should be respected for that at least. I do get the feeling however, that my own style of constitutional loyalty differs from those in the US. The group which I support has some very traditional patriots and when I apply your article to those individuals, I begin to relate. If we just try to starve the beast by ignoring it and working around I believe we may leave too many innocents behind. I love your work, especially the video you did on how to get your points across to people, without being a dick(hope I'm doing OK?) But with the research I have done about forced adoptions and how it is linked to human trafficking has shown me that we must remove these scumbags from power and lock them away for good. Once that is done, its over to you guys. As I said at the start, bud. Your post is spot on but just a little harsh maybe...Love your work brother! Keep on keeping on!
Or your oppressors gave you a fake "key," which will get you nothing, but will forever keep you trying that avenue. Sorry to be blunt, but that's what all "political" action is--campaigning, petitioning, voting--it's all a game to keep the subject class powerless while giving them something pointless to TRY to fix things with. Lastly, the solution is not to remove certain people from the throne. The solution is to remove the throne. And that depends upon what people believe, not on politics.
That is not our approach. We do not recognise the crown or any of its agents. Voting is pointless because the debate is being cast by a treasonous authority that have continued to rule after being told to leave, so they have no right to ask you to vote. As I said, I agree, when it comes to your views on politics, it is all designed to waste time I get that. But how can we remove the throne without entering their realm? Any kind of documented law is a human interpretation of the natural laws of nature. The more time has gone on the more un-natural laws have been added, which cloud the more honest parts of these documents. The further you go back in time, the closer you get to people living within relatively peaceful societies. Magna Carta is just the Christian version of natural law and it has its own little add-ons that seek to benefit the Christian community. Nature law, in this instance, has been tainted by religion and politics.(Later this was further diluted with the creation of parliament, who then re-wrote Magna-Carta, to further suit their needs)
Every nation has a similar story and to me it shows that when humans live together, they always create 'laws' or rules to live by and to keep the peace. It appears this is almost instinctive, but something, a long time ago, really changed the balance of thing, to the benefit of evil. Whether it was the creation of property or just horrific coincidence, something has changed and the idea of controlling those who live around you has prevailed. The 'key' I hold is one from over 800 years ago, from when people lived much like you wish to. In the times of Alfred the great and before the population grew to an extent where written laws were deemed necsesary. To me it seems an unfortunate coincidence that this well-intended deed(the creation of Magna Carta) was done at the same time as the European invasions, which brought along with it, Germanic, Roman law. This style of law goes against everything Natural law stands for and has been eroding the goodness of Magna Carta for the last 8 centuries. It has now been totally replaced with the Puppet show we see today.
All that being said, how does anarchism and volunteerism help those who can't get out of the system, because of debt, or because their kids have been taken from them by the CPS?
I am a big fan of volunteerism and try to promote it myself but it too holds huge contradictions that need to be addressed, if you wish to see your ideal world come to fruition.
I submit that bypassing their institutional control mechanisms wherever possible creates greater personal power. In the end, growing communities that do this, and employ burgeoning technologies to, will eventually enable ignoring assholes to render them obsolete.
I see no alternative but, eventually, war. Since little creates, enforces, and grows such toxic insitutional power as war, that is the very last possibility that should be contemplated, and be avoided until no other means is possible, and has become certain to succeed.
Until then, improving the ratio of your personal, familial, and community assets to, and while decreasing those of your enemies, will maximize this growth in your power.
Good luck!
good comment. much food for thought here. maybe this is the only tool we have. At least folk are generally moving in the right direction, when it comes to our consumerist lifestyle and encroaching police state. Good luck to you bro, however you choose to fight the powers the shouldn't be.
You'll be infiltrated by all new scumbags, seeking to use you to usurp those whose power they seek.
It is the way of the world.
End the power, and you end the ability of scumbags. Scumbags are largely a symptom, rather than a cause, I think.
YMMV.
That is very true and something we deal with all the time on the Facebook page, that was one of the reasons I stopped using it. The real problem with every group or ideology of a peaceful society, is that they are hampered by the lack of a sustainable plan. It's one thing to hope that, over time, enough of us will change our ways, to make a difference in our group consciousness. But nobody seems to have a plan as to how we deal with psychopaths? They will always exist and they operate by stealth. In a society of peace and unconditional faith in the good will of humans, psychos will rise to the top, and history will repeat. Not much point in criticizing something when your alternative doesn't work either...
I'm not the guy with the answers to this, but to just go off and leave everyone, to live a life of volunteerism, while those who are not fortunate enough to be in a position to do this rot inside the Gulags, is slightly cowardly. I would love to live a life of volunteerism, but that just isn't possible with the way the system gets you from birth. If families do not register their children they have to run and hide or loose their children to the CPS. So you see it isn't as simple as "hey just leave the grid and live by your wits" If your lucky enough to be able to live this way then that's hunky-dory but don't make the mistake of thinking it is as easy for everyone else. Without a way to stop the state-funded brain-washing of our kids, that goes on from the day they are born, then volunteerism is a pipe dream and you damn the majority who are trapped, like myself and many others here in the UK.
Who is "going off and leaving everyone"? This is about ending the existence of ruling class (which the political process absolutely NEVER does). It's not about hiding from them, or running away from them.
But our causes are the same and your article belittles what we are trying to achieve. I feel that your post is directed towards the US constitution and for that your words hold more weight. The D.O.I was derived from Magna Carta, but as MC(1215) was diluted by parliament(Parliament was created around 50 years after the sealing of MC1215) Article 61 was edited out of the later versions, of which the US built its own constitution from. As the DOI came from the diluted version, it has no 'emergency clause' like MC1215 does.
It states clearly that the laws set out in the original Magna Carta can not be repealed and this is the one 'The people' gave their blessing to.
If you had looked further back into the history of constitutional law, then maybe you could see the good in what a lot of 'Constitutionalists' are trying to achieve. I still agree with your post. Most constitutionalists, especially those that you refer to, are chasing ghosts. A spirit of what once was.
I never intended to be dis respectful to you, your work is priceless. But you haven't really answered my question about how we free those who are locked inside the matrix. What is the plan of volunteerism for this? Because if there is no answer. for the sake of my conscience I would rather go my way for now.
Thanks for the time. I appreciate your perspective as it help me stay grounded. There is truth in every message and I just want to keep digging until we come to a real, long term solution. Peace bro and hope the new year treats you well.
I believe that power does not depend on scribbles, rather the point of a sword. Perhaps folks with swords might rally around the Magna Carta.
Sadly, I think those with the swords are already rallied, and not around the Magna Carta, in the UK.
Fortunately for all of us, there is a new technology that might subsume swords altogether. The blockchain has unglimpsed potential to route around censorship, as does the darpanet.
However, as darpanet is being transformed by Gargle, Farkbork, and Twaddle into the greatest propaganda tool the world has ever seen, I fear similar application of C&C to blockchain.
We shall see how things shake out.
You are a wise old owl brother.
Well, I can verify old anyway =p
I will never bleat that it's easy. I just think that eschewing such institutional controls are may be possibly is the best route. We do have to make tradeoffs, and I can't comment on yours.
Perhaps there is a place for disingenuity, but it's not something I am capable of, and frankly, really suck at.
I have lived in the woods, off the land, but didn't do that to my kids.
Better for them, or worse? Dunno, but they did live, so the outcome I needed to happen did happen.
I can't even envision living off the land, as I did in Alaska, in England, or the UK. Can't speak to it.
Knowing that a rational society can potentiate the abolition of institutions designed to enslave is a good step forward, and people who are able to clearly reason can form a core able to recruit those less able to reason, and follow those that reason better.
Regardless of your actual ability to be entirely free, through subterfuge, misdirection, and crypticism it can be better potentiated.
I hope the UK has long the benefit of your insights.
The bottom line is the majority of people want no part of real freedom and responsibility. And until they do there will be no voluntary society of an kind until then. I think there was good intentions by some in the making of the constitution however misguided it was.
I don't think the AOC was any better then the constitution except for the fact that it prevented a larger central government. State governments were just as oppressive in their states as the central government became when created. Which is why their creation grew into the beast we know today. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The whisky rebellion and the federal response was an ominous sign right out of the gate.
However humanity as a whole is far from the voluntary cooperation peace and harmony sought, and that authoritarians have attempted to create by force through out history.
I would disagree that the constitution created a government as oppressive as a King at least not at its inception.
I do think humanity will eventually learn to work together without the use of force and respect the rights of the individual. That will be a great leap forward IMO.
Good thought provoking article my friend.
"The bottom line is the majority of people want no part of real freedom and responsibility." I think the key to fixing this problem is in the next generation and the parenting we give them. We need to treat our children with respect and parent them peacefully if we wish them to seek the independence and individual responsibility that comes with true freedom. I am doing my best to do this with my own children and I evangelize the concept as much as possible, even to non-liberty-conscious acquaintances. It took me over a decade away from my parents to come to my present set of principles by which I now live. My goal for my children is that they are there at least a decade before they leave my home.
When one considers that the founders were simply the lawyers and politicians of their time, and therefore no better or worse than those of today, it becomes much easier to dismiss their saintly status and instead view them for what they really were: lawyers and politicians.