Text of The Freeman's Constitution

[Wolf DeVoon]

deleted

[Selene]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14457&page=1#entry211331

This was a link started by MEM.

[Peter]

Thank you very much Wolf.

I got a call from a credit card company today saying my card had been used but they declined the transaction, and it gave the last four digits of my card. It turned out to be MY card company when I called the number on the card - the number the caller gave me was not the phone number on the card, but still . . . those four digits appear on a lot of transaction slips, like from Walmart . . so I am suddenly cautious about going to other sites. I did make a purchase yesterday but for a different amount and it is supposedly on its way. Books written by Patrick O'Brien.

Peter

[Peter]

Your spelling of acquiesence should be acquiescence. Your statement, “A state of revolutionary war exists at the time of this writing . . .” is untrue. Comments about every article are UN-needed within the original Constitution. Simply print your constitution as a separate document and then comment elsewhere, even if such comments are present within the US Constitution. I think you are wrong to not use The United States Constitution as a template for comparison, for clarity and for better sales of your product. Start with a preamble and then duplicate the structure but with your ideas. Even incorporate agreeable amendments within The Freeman’s Constitution instead of tacking them on as you think of something else as America has done. A Bill of Rights should be enumerated even if you need a ninth to highlight: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I will read the rest.
Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

I will read the rest.

Don't bother. It was a mistake to show it to you.

[william.scherk]

There is nothing else quite like Wolf's constitution -- not least that it is a good read. A nice review from Marotta.

I was always interested in that star-crossed utopia that a few folks got up to back in the day -- of which Wolf has offered us some further thoughts here and there at OL -- Laissez-faire City. In refreshing my memory, I came across this ad which appeared full-page in the Economist. Such purity of purpose.

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[Wolf DeVoon]

I was always interested in that star-crossed utopia [Laissez Faire City]

LFC was founded in 1995. Four years later, I tried to save it from rule by edict, by advocating the rule of law. It's difficult to relate how much was at stake Roughly $10 million paid-in capital, an encrypted currency, a bank, a stock exchange, a thousand shareholders and stakeholders on six continents, high value property in the diplomatic quarter of San Jose and a mountain fortress in Nosara. It didn't have to fail with top brass at each other's throats. But they rejected the rule of law. There was no mechanism to adjudicate controversies. At the end I was appointed general counsel and proxy for the king -- too late to repair the damage done by seven years of arbitrary rule and a fatal grab for all the marbles.

I spoke about it in COGIGG. There's another tidbit in my forthcoming Eggshell, but I hesitate to tell the whole story. Laissez Faire City was a renegade enclave of freemen, its pioneers hunted, jailed and slandered.

It's all very well to vilify Midas and Galt — both of whom are dead. They gambled their lives, their fortunes, and their honor to establish a virtual Gulch beyond the reach of government. I knew those men personally and did everything in my power to help them. Most of the men and women who lived and worked at Laissez Faire City gave up professional careers to share the risk of disaster if we failed. [Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch, p.6]

[Jonathan]

I will read the rest.

Don't bother. It was a mistake to show it to you.

That's the old Pup that I remember: hyper-sensitive to criticism and very pouty.

J

[Peter]

Already my 10 minutes of study shorts his fuse. Well, I try to mix humor in so perhaps I will write any criticism I have of The Freeman's Constitution in the humor section in its own thread. There Wolf can ignore it.

[Wolf DeVoon]

That's the old Pup that I remember: hyper-sensitive to criticism and very pouty.

Nice way to end it. Ad hom crowned with an insult.

[Brant Gaede]

Hyper-sinsitive to whot Petered pistted. It wesn't werth anythong or fury funny (lake this isnot ither), eospecially for corructing a speelling mystake. The creition of doctionaries mide it a fold daye fer the speelling Nazies. To thes doy I'm so indoctronated I hite to "misspell" a ward, but a atavistic streek mokes me hite the midern speell-chocker evon mure (evon os I us ot, especually fer typers), fer, contra a reel ductionary, ther is anly on woy to sperll iny on ward nowe, assumming ot's on the speall chocker ot alle.

--Boant

[Jonathan]

That's the old Pup that I remember: hyper-sensitive to criticism and very pouty.

Nice way to end it. Ad hom crowned with an insult.

Pouty Pup,

The concept "ad hominem" means to "respond to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the content of their arguments."

I didn't do that. What I was doing was observing your demonstrated pattern of behavior. I wasn't doing so as a substitute for addressing the content of your arguments. In fact, you hyper-sensitively removed your arguments before I could even read them.

See the way that it works? Any criticism of your behavior isn't an "ad hom" just because you're not man enough to accept the reality that the criticism identifies. You're a delicate little hypersensitive pouty puss pup. That's reality.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

criticism of your behavior isn't an "ad hom" just because you're not man enough to accept the reality that the criticism identifies. You're a delicate little hypersensitive pouty puss pup. That's reality.

Repeated use of defamatory fighting words is so strange that I gave some thought to it. I doubt very much that anyone else has undertaken a campaign to vilify and demean an author. Maybe I haven't been paying attention. Could be that it's widely practiced and par for OL.

The question of Jonathan's identity crossed my mind. I've infuriated Machan, Sciabarra, Hudgins, Murphy, Kinsella, Whitten and a variety of lesser lights -- but none of them would talk like Jonathan. It's vaguely possible that he might be an embittered former LFC investor who despises me because I was a high profile privileged insider.

But the best explanation, I think, is that Jonathan is personally affronted by the existence of someone different. Let's suppose he's right, that I'm an inferior sort of being. No sane man of strength would go out of his way to insult me -- always alert and eager to jump on another opportunity to poison debate.

Jonathan's bizarre allegation about "sock puppets" makes me wonder about his mental stability.

In any case, here's the bottom line. I often make mistakes, one of which was to engage Peter in this thread about constitutional law. Apparently he was incapable of grasping that The Freeman's Constitution had nothing to do with the United States or territorial government or executive power anywhere. The text pertains (noted explicitly and repeatedly) to the organization of a laissez faire judiciary, which is the most fundamental subject matter in Objectivist constitutional law. Legislators and tyrants may come and go, but the abiding questions of public justice and due process transcend whatever else masquerades as expedient policy in Galt's Gulch or the United States of America.

"Men are incapable of confessing openly that they want to escape justice. Friend or enemy of due process, we declare with one voice that our conduct is fair and honorable, with malice toward none. The claim is usually false. In simple, 18th-century language: Men are not angels. Our protestations of innocence and truth are frequently exaggerated and unwarranted. That's why we need courts of justice, with compulsory production of evidence, cross-examination, and felony penalties for perjury." [Laissez Faire Law, pp.160-161]

Ask yourself whether Jonathan is fair and honorable, with malice toward none.

Certainly there must be something more important to do than patrol OL to ridicule a lesser being.

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan pretty much is open minded enough to hit more than you with this kind of thing. He does it to Greg too because Greg is not amenable to any argumentation whatsoever. He merely asseverates. I couldn't say it's OL particularly and not especially you.

Since you deleted your constitution all he had left to talk about was you. Hence, the ad h. There is a nuanced but big difference between ad h. and argumentum ad h., illustrated in this thread. Ad h. per se implies argumentum ad h., but it ain't necessarily so. In this case, no constitution = no argument. I prefer an argument for then we can say this and that is an invalid argument if it is. What's to argue about name-calling or personal characterization? In the first place one is standing on a big, solid rock just underwater in a stream. In the second, it's all in a swamp, likely quicksand.

The score so far:

Wolf for deleting: -1

Jonathan for complaining the way he did : -2

Me for being a superior being* : 0

-Brant

*my fav--and if you don't like it I have a few things to say about yo Momma!

[Jonathan]

criticism of your behavior isn't an "ad hom" just because you're not man enough to accept the reality that the criticism identifies. You're a delicate little hypersensitive pouty puss pup. That's reality.

Repeated use of defamatory fighting words is so strange that I gave some thought to it. I doubt very much that anyone else has undertaken a campaign to vilify and demean an author. Maybe I haven't been paying attention. Could be that it's widely practiced and par for OL.

In your mind, someone's identifying you as being hypersensitive is "defamatory" and "fighting words"? And you don't think that such an overblown reaction is proof of your hypersensitivity? Hahahaha!

The question of Jonathan's identity crossed my mind. I've infuriated Machan, Sciabarra, Hudgins, Murphy, Kinsella, Whitten and a variety of lesser lights -- but none of them would talk like Jonathan. It's vaguely possible that he might be an embittered former LFC investor who despises me because I was a high profile privileged insider.

Your mistake is in imagining, due to your thin-skinnedness, that I must be "infuriated" and "embittered" in order to laugh at your posings and your hypersensitivity.

But the best explanation, I think, is that Jonathan is personally affronted by the existence of someone different. Let's suppose he's right, that I'm an inferior sort of being. No sane man of strength would go out of his way to insult me -- always alert and eager to jump on another opportunity to poison debate.

No, the best explanation is the one that I've given: You're extremely thin-skinned. You see any criticism of you or your work as being a "campaign to vilify and demean." You sniff and snivel, blow things way out of proportion, and flounce. You portray yourself as a poor little victim of mentally unstable, vicious attackers.

And, btw, despite what you want to believe about yourself, you're not "different." You're very much like many others who populate online O-land: Very, very full of yourself, and very, very thin-skinned and pouty.

Jonathan's bizarre allegation about "sock puppets" makes me wonder about his mental stability.

So, you're saying that you don't write your own praiseful synopses in the third person for your self-published books?

In any case, here's the bottom line. I often make mistakes, one of which was to engage Peter in this thread about constitutional law.

Boo-hoo-hoo! Whahhhh! Whahhhh!!!

"Men are incapable of confessing openly that they want to escape justice. Friend or enemy of due process, we declare with one voice that our conduct is fair and honorable, with malice toward none. The claim is usually false. In simple, 18th-century language: Men are not angels. Our protestations of innocence and truth are frequently exaggerated and unwarranted. That's why we need courts of justice, with compulsory production of evidence, cross-examination, and felony penalties for perjury." [Laissez Faire Law, pp.160-161]

"People who constantly quote their own self-published works in conversations as if they were the ultimate treasury of wisdom crack me up." [JUQAEAS, p.152]

Ask yourself whether Jonathan is fair and honorable, with malice toward none.

Certainly there must be something more important to do than patrol OL to ridicule a lesser being.

Did I say that you're a "lesser being"? No, I did not. You're just so hypersensitive, pouty and thin-skinned that you imagined my minor criticism as being something that it wasn't. QED.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Minor criticism"? Bullshit. Call me pup in person and you'll have a dramatically new outlook on life.

I spent the day directing heavy construction equipment, making decisions that can't be undone. What did you do?

[Jonathan]

"Minor criticism"? Bullshit. Call me pup in person and you'll have a dramatically new outlook on life.

I spent the day directing heavy construction equipment, making decisions that can't be undone. What did you do?

You've said that before, Pup. Last fall. And then I asked you to specify what you imaged that you're going to do when I call you "Pup" to your face. You didn't answer, little man. Do you think that you're a big bad ass street fighter? Squeak up! What little punishment fantasy do you have in mind for me, Pup? How violent and emotionally out of control are you dreaming of getting due to your hypersensitivity to being called "Pup"?

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Okay, fine. For you it's internet sport, and you think you're winning.

[Jonathan]

Okay, fine. For you it's internet sport, and you think you're winning.

Answer the question. You brought it up. You made the veiled threat. Be man enough to unveil it. What do you imagine that you're going to do to me if I call you "Pup" to your face?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Okay, fine. For you it's internet sport, and you think you're winning.

Answer the question. You brought it up. You made the veiled threat. Be man enough to unveil it. What do you imagine that you're going to do to me if I call you "Pup" to your face?

J

"When you call me that, smile."

--The Virginian