Lysander Spooner wrote No Treason: Constitution of No Authority

[BaalChatzaf]

The power to produce is very different from the power to destroy. Obviously; But what other power does a corporation have (in a lassez faire society) but the power to produce, and what other power does a state have except the power to destroy?

A corporation can collect subsidies from the government. This is stolen money. Stealing is destructive. Consider Archer, Midland, Daniels supermarket and corporate whore of the world. It collects agricultural subsidies that were originally intended to keep small farmers from going under during the Depression.

To the extent that corporations benefit from trade restrictions that they push (by way of lobbyists) they are benefiting from government force. That makes them accessories.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

I'm afraid I do believe in Evil Corporations despite what you say.

GS,

It is tempting to ask you to name one.

The CEOs of the railroads which sought and received govt subsidies to build the transcontinental railroads I would agree were evil because they used money collected by the govt and to which they would not be entitled in the free market. Still they could not prevent J.J. Hill from building his better railroad without such subsidies.

We have a mixed economy in which there are businesses which count on govt to give them an edge, e.g. businessmen who have a license to enter the market, as the govt keeps non licensed competitors out. But there are many businesses which simply do their best to produce a better product or service.

There will always be those who want govt protections, tariffs, regulations on competitors, obstacles to potential competitors from accumulating capital which would enable them to go into business and compete. The system as it is set up is partly responsible and it should be our goal to eliminate such govt powers, the taxes, the regulations, the licenses, the permits to set the market free.

I see those individuals who advocate for such taxes, regulations, subsidies, licenses, Antitrust laws, permits to be the evil ones.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Feb 7PM 104292

gulch

Edited February 21, 2009 by galtgulch

[galtgulch]

I wonder if Objectivists have come to grips with Lysander Spooner's objections which are spelled out in his essay.

Would they be resolved if each or most citizens did indeed read the Constitution as a coming of age tradition and then did sign a copy of the Constitution in a ceremony in which they became signatories of the Constitution with the acquisition of certain rights such as the right to vote and enter the military? (I think the militia would be open to children of any age)

Simply google Lysander Spooner and find many sites where his works can be found such as:

www.lysanderspooner.org

gulch

www.campaignforliberty.com 21Feb 104244, 7PM 104292

Gentlemen and ladies,

I wish someone or more would simply address the issue regarding Lysander Spooner's contention that since the men who signed the Constitution are no longer alive that the contract they had among themselves no longer applies or is valid today because no one living today has signed the Constitution.

I think each of us should simply sign it, and there should be a process by which we could register our objection to any portion of it or of the Amendments, and if enough believe the Sixteenth Amendment is immoral that it would be nullified.

gulch

Edited February 22, 2009 by galtgulch

[tjohnson]

The power to produce is very different from the power to destroy. Obviously; But what other power does a corporation have (in a lassez faire society) but the power to produce, and what other power does a state have except the power to destroy?

A corporation has the power to engage in predatory policies towards competitors which are not related to competition. Microsoft prevents PC manufacturers from offering PC's without Windows on them or else face stiff financial penalties. How is this "producing" anything? It is in fact hindering innovation like alternate O/S 's like Linux and so preventing consumers from having more choices in the marketplace.

[BaalChatzaf]

The power to produce is very different from the power to destroy. Obviously; But what other power does a corporation have (in a lassez faire society) but the power to produce, and what other power does a state have except the power to destroy?

A corporation has the power to engage in predatory policies towards competitors which are not related to competition. Microsoft prevents PC manufacturers from offering PC's without Windows on them or else face stiff financial penalties. How is this "producing" anything? It is in fact hindering innovation like alternate O/S 's like Linux and so preventing consumers from having more choices in the marketplace.

No of these hinderences were maintained. You can get Linux with no trouble in various packages. Micro$soft did not prevent other operating systems from being used.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

No takers on the issue of the Constitution being a contract the signers of which are long dead?

I advocate that a formal ceremony be initiated in which everyone who understands the Constitution as a contract sign it once they reach the appropriate level of understanding.

Or at least legislate that elected officials and govt employees have to study and pass courses and tests on the Constitution and economic principles etc the way they make doctors and teachers and nurses take continuing ed courses in their fields.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Feb 11PM 104315; 22Feb 7AM 104339

gulch

Edited February 22, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

As a re-affirmation agreement I can support it on a voluntary basis.

Sort of a born again constitutionalist.

If we have to do any immersions in liquid, I would like mine to be 151 proof Appleton Rum please.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gulch,

Spooner's premise, that the charter document of a government is a contract and has the same nature as a business contract, is wrong. This premise rests on another, that the nature of force is an asset or service that can be traded and nothing more.

In the best of all possible capitalistic worlds where bullies don't exist, force can be traded up to a point. (And it is in our society, but this is another issue since such trade is subordinate to government force.) We live in a world where bullies do exist. They don't give a damn about capitalism or trade and they are very good at inflicting damage. Power without strength is not power and there are oodles of strong bullies. We have to deal with them. That is what government is for.

A contract observes the governing principle of free trade backed by law for enforcement.

The charter document (or tradition) for any government observes the governing principles of those who put it in place by force. (Whether it is drawn up by vote is irrelevant to this point.) This goes for the most primitive tribe to the most elaborate constitutional arrangement. It is what the founders decide it should be and that is that. There is no other way. The structure is also kept in place by force from generation to generation.

The charter document of the USA government was unique in history in that those who put it in place observed the governing principle of checks and balances on power, backed by a new definition of power emanating from the sanction of the governed—not the right of the governors. This came from a definition of man as bearing individual rights and not being merely the subject of a sovereign ruler or state.

The USA Constitution took power from the hands of bullies and turned it on them to restrict their destructiveness.

It does not treat force and power as disembodied commodities or services that can be traded at will, but instead as capacities for action wielded by specific individuals. We change those individuals and limit their actions against others under this new arrangement based on checks and balances and the principle of individual rights for all people.

Democracy with short terms of office is one form of checks and balances under this new governing premise, since time is a critical factor in developing strength and consolidating power. Diluting power into three branches of government, going so far as to put a jury of common citizens at the tail end, with further possibility for appeal to overturn the jury's decision, is another form of checks and balances that does not allow the strength of any individual or group to develop enough to consolidate into a bully-ship (dictatorship).

Looking at history, I think the USA Constitution is one of the miracles of mankind and Spooner, for as much as I love what I have read of him, missed the boat on understanding its nature.

A government is not a business arrangement. It is organized power. You can use it to protect some people from other people, or you can use it to rule all people. You cannot change that nature because you cannot change the nature of the human species and eradicate the will to be a bully from all human beings. You either limit bullies or you obey them. There is no other choice.

Since the government can destroy you just as much as any bully can destroy you, you cannot wish it out of existence just as you cannot wish bullies out of existence. If you do not limit them, both bullies and government, you place your own destruction at their whim and pleasure.

If you want to fight bullies, you must do so by force. If you want to fight the government, you must do so by force.

America gave us a third alternative for changing government while keeping the limitation on bullies. It did so with a document, a rulebook for wielding power. If you want to change the government, you can check it and tip the balance the other way by organizing election campaigns and choosing rulers with different ideas who will undo the mess created by former rulers.

For example, the States themselves undid the alcohol prohibition amendment, replacing the 18th Amendment with the 21st. Presidents like Reagan undid a lot of previous damage. No doubt we will have one hell of a job undoing the mess being made by both President Bush and President Obama, but it is doable and I believe it will be done once "The One" is voted out of office.

This is possible only because of a document, maintained by force and oaths of allegiance from citizens, that observes individual rights within the context of checks and balances on power. In preserving a government, who started it is irrelevant (for as great an achievement as the Founding Fathers made). The principles underlying it is the real issue. The alternative is a different body of governing principles, not a different trade of produced values or real estate.

I say the USA Constitution is one of the greatest achievements in human history. Our present good life was made possible by the fact that productive individuals flourished under it and our leaders were never able to become true dictators.

That is not an issue I wish to put up to negotiation and bargaining, nor do I wish to be able to sell it like you do with contracts. I understand inalienable to mean not open to contractual agreement. One does not sell the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because these rights are not products or services or property.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The power to produce is very different from the power to destroy. Obviously; But what other power does a corporation have (in a lassez faire society) but the power to produce, and what other power does a state have except the power to destroy?

A corporation has the power to engage in predatory policies towards competitors which are not related to competition. Microsoft prevents PC manufacturers from offering PC's without Windows on them or else face stiff financial penalties. How is this "producing" anything? It is in fact hindering innovation like alternate O/S 's like Linux and so preventing consumers from having more choices in the marketplace.

Look!: All this means is that the choices that do become available and survive are cherce. Not one steam engine manufacturer made the transition to diesel-electric. I'll start worshipping the consumer as you do when consuming produces any thing.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I believe in the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies to large corporations as well as governments. I believe when governments and corporations get too large and powerful they begin to have a harmful effect on the culture because they seem to take on an aspect that is beyond the control of the individuals making up said entities - you can have good people in bad systems. It seems to be something that afflicts humans that maybe there is a limit to how large an organization can be before it becomes unwieldy. Microsoft is as good an example as any - they have done little in the way of innovation and much to hinder it in the world of operating systems and software because they abused their virtual monopoly of the market place.

No one has, had or ever will have "absolute power." There are always qualifications so you are left with an illustrating rhetorical device. As for your thesis, please come with the data. In any case, you seem to be aiming for the easier target--the corporations--instead of the harder target--government. After you bring the corporations to heal, you'll do the same for Darth Varder?

--Brant

edit: Vader?

Edited February 22, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

The power to produce is

Look!: All this means is that the choices that do become available and survive are cherce. Not one steam engine manufacturer made the transition to diesel-electric. I'll start worshipping the consumer as you do when consuming produces any thing.

--Brant

Baldwin Locomotive Inc. did.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The power to produce is

Look!: All this means is that the choices that do become available and survive are cherce. Not one steam engine manufacturer made the transition to diesel-electric. I'll start worshipping the consumer as you do when consuming produces any thing.

--Brant

Baldwin Locomotive Inc. did.

How long did that last?

How dare you contradict me!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The power to produce is

Look!: All this means is that the choices that do become available and survive are cherce. Not one steam engine manufacturer made the transition to diesel-electric. I'll start worshipping the consumer as you do when consuming produces any thing.

--Brant

Baldwin Locomotive Inc. did.

How long did that last?

How dare you contradict me!

--Brant

The were ultimately beat out by G.M. and G.E. who, at the time, had the better technology.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Greybird]

Whatever Michael is talking about, to me, it has little to do with the actual substance of No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. So we might as well take this seriatim.

The only way to properly appreciate Spooner is to actually read Spooner. You can do so with No Treason (No. 6) here, with footnotes and predecessor arguments, or here, more readably and compactly. (The second link is only 111 KB. It can be read in 45 minutes.)

[Lysander] Spooner's premise, that the charter document of a government is a contract and has the same nature as a business contract, is wrong.

That is not Spooner's premise. That is an almost perfect inversion of Spooner's premises. It's not involving a single premise, anyway — it's two syllogisms. To use "objective," here, in Rand's sense for epistemology, wherein Spooner didn't benefit:

Axiom. Whatever cannot be governed, in human relations, by contract (of some form) can only be governed in terms of the use of force against unwilling parties.

Premise A1. Contracts involve agreements between competent parties, with objective evidence, and which are placed under objective bounds.

Premise A2. The Constitution does not involve agreements between competent parties, nor uses objective evidence of the agreements or of the parties, nor observes objective bounds.

Conclusion A. The Constitution is not a contract.

Premise B1. Only contracts can effectively and validly govern peaceful human relations.

Premise B2 (from conclusion above). The Constitution is not a contract.

Conclusion B. The Constitution cannot effectively and validly govern peaceful human relations.

Conclusion C (from using axiom above). The Constitution only operates in terms of the use of force against unwilling parties.

... This is the core of Spooner's argument. He assumes the axiom above, and, unlike Rand, doesn't demonstrate it. He simply contends that actions in society can involve either peaceful relations under generally accepted objective rules, or can involve the imposition of force, but cannot combine the two.

The "A" reasoning above is fleshed out in the first half of No Treason, with examples from generally accepted legal principles. The "B" reasoning in the second half is fleshed out with historical examples.

Spooner contends that a Constitution (all such documents) fails precisely because it is not a contract, and calls for a society that is ruled by the arbitrary use of force. I'll readily grant that this contention is counterintuitive in a society such as ours, and that is why Spooner is so often misunderstood. What he marshals in support of the "A" line above, though, is overwhelming.

He discusses it better than anyone here could do, certainly better than I could do, but it touches on everything from elections, to taxation, to legislation, to generational change, to the natures of oaths and of written evidence.

This premise rests on another, that the nature of force is an asset or service that can be traded and nothing more.

That's a calumny which Objectivists of all sorts have thrown around for far too long. Spooner nowhere says this. Force, he contends, is neither an asset nor a service — but protective staff, weaponry, procedures, and the legal reasoning used to shape how these are used are, indeed, market phenomena.

Here, the elaboration is better done by the likes of Murray Rothbard (see Power and Market) and others who benefit from the tools of Austrian economics. Yet Spooner manages to anticipate many of their points.

[...] We live in a world where bullies do exist. They don't give a damn about capitalism or trade and they are very good at inflicting damage.

True enough, but this has nothing to do with whether the Constitution properly has any role or "authority" to deal with this — in any objective sense. That is what Spooner talks about.

Power without strength is not power and there are oodles of strong bullies. We have to deal with them. That is what government is for.

This doesn't differ, in substance, from what Bob Kolker calls for constantly. It's only different in lacking his bloodthirstiness.

That governments under constitutions are used for this does not demonstrate that such use springs from objective evidence or principles, as are properly used for defining all other human relations.

[...] The charter document (or tradition) for any government observes the governing principles of those who put it in place by force. (Whether it is drawn up by vote is irrelevant to this point.) This goes for the most primitive tribe to the most elaborate constitutional arrangement. It is what the founders decide it should be and that is that.

Apart from the historical weakness of claiming "principles" as such for any such relations in nine-tenths of recorded history — as Spooner says, it's only involved the forcible "trying of conclusions" at gunpoint — this leads me to believe that you haven't read No Treason at all.

What you say may reflect realities of power relations, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with how a constitution is justified or, for that matter, whether it can be justified on objective principles. This is what Spooner writes about.

[...] The [Constitution of 1787] took power from the hands of bullies and turned it on them to restrict their destructiveness.

That is what Spooner eviscerates at great length, with copious historical examples, many of them drawn from the (then recent) war involving Southern secession. His point in adducing such evidence is to support his earlier demonstration: that the Constitution is not any sort of agreement that can be said, on generally accepted and objective principles, to be valid in the first place. And that such a document, vacant except as to governmental forms, cannot help but lead to utter "destructiveness."

Most of the rest of MSK's post has to do with how he sees the authority of such a constitution being carried out. It has nothing to do with Lysander Spooner, however, whose point was that one has to question how any such structure is created and by what reasoning it is supported.

[...] In preserving a government, who started it is irrelevant (for as great an achievement as the Founding Fathers made).

Spooner doesn't see the issue of "preserving" any such institution as being relevant, much less who started it. One of his prime concerns, though, is whether such an institution can be seen in any objective sense as being sustained, and how. This comes up in his lengthy discussion of the supposition of continuing consent to the Constitution. Here, too, the matter of evidence is crucial, and Spooner finds it to be lacking on a half-dozen grounds.

[...] I say the [Constitution of 1787] is one of the greatest achievements in human history. Our present good life was made possible by the fact that productive individuals flourished under it and our leaders were never able to become true dictators.

This brings up a host of issues, such as what parts of our current fiat-money economy, "homeland security" police state, and foreign Empire Michael is choosing to not look at, for whatever reason. I say that seriously, not out of being snarky.

"Never able to become true dictators" ignores a nearly constant drumbeat of claims of power in American history, nearly all of such instances of adding to Leviathan being propelled by some claim of a new and insuperable crisis. (Not coincidentally, see Robert Higgs's dissection of this phenomenon in Crisis and Leviathan.)

This still, though, not only has nothing to do with Spooner, but also is an inversion of his argument. The subtitle is The Constitution of No Authority, not that of No Usefulness. The creation of 1787 may indeed have had a role in preventing (or substituting for) worse depredations yet, such as what most of Europe and Asia have endured in the Total-State 20th Century.

Yet that has nothing as such to do with whether human beings have been productive — which is a phenomenon that precedes and is logically prior to that of political organization. The marketplace, and a general acceptance of the importance of objective principles, are what make productivity possible ... and, later, the political structures and their depredations upon it. Not the other way around.

As to the Constitution's relevance to this truth, Spooner himself should speak, in his conclusion to No Treason, the two most important items of which I've noted in boldface.

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.

Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

I don't have time to go through all this in depth right now, but I will. I read No Treason years ago, and like Gulch, I was struck by the argument that we cannot be bound by a contract signed by other people. You seem to insinuate Spooner made no such argument. I'll have to reread it. (NOTE: I dealt with this partially in an edit below.)

You are also quick to take my comments like "bullies exist and we have to deal with them," say something noncommittal like "that may be true," then proceed to ignore them. Unfortunately for your critique, this is one of my premises. It stems from my own concept of government as stemming from human nature, not as some artificial construct worked out in the mind only. Thus it is not subject to some kind of agreement, and I remember clearly Spooner calling the constitution an "agreement." Rules must be made and enforced to limit bullies. I repeat, this goes beyond a trade agreement.

I look. I see bullies. They beat people up and kill them. I don't want them to beat me up or kill me. So I will make them stop. Defining the grounds for government and implementing it is a great way to do so.

I have not seen you address this premise. If you wish to critique what I write, it is incorrect to ignore the premise and start waving around words like "Empire" and start insinuating that I support this stuff or do not look at it. I really dislike this kind of argument of crawling into someone's head while refusing to look at what is written on the screen even as it is quoted. You don't even have to look it up. It's right in front of you.

I see your underlying approach based on the premise of some kind of utopia. But utopia only exists if we change human nature. So long as human nature exists, government will reflect it, I don't care how much you or others ignore it.

Until it is changed, I prefer to limit bullies, not give them free reign.

From your arguments, you apparently prefer to acknowledge them, but not take them into account when dealing with how to organize force. But they do exist and they will literally bash your skull in if not prevented from doing so by the same force they utilize.

I will get back with Spooner quotes and comments on your comments.

EDIT: But I will mention one right now. Quoting you quoting Spooner:

"

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.

"

This presumes that the proper form of making rules binding on all for delimiting force is only by contract. This is what I contest. And taken one step further in this logic, this presumes that I can sell my fundamental rights by contract. I contend that nobody can because they are inalienable.

I judge this to be utopia and total disregard of the existence of bullies.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I see your underlying argument based on the premise of some kind of utopia. But utopia only exists if we change human nature. So long as human nature exists, government will reflect it, I don't care how much you or others ignore it.

Until it is changed, I prefer to limit bullies, not give them free reign.

From your arguments, you apparently prefer to acknowledge them, but not take them into account when dealing with how to organize force. But they do exist and they will literally bash your skull in if not prevented from doing so by the same force they utilize.

I will get back with Spooner quotes and comments on your comments.

Michael

I see that it is time to invoke Thomas Hobbes and -Leviathan-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I have not yet read Leviathan, but from the gist of what I have gleaned from arguments I have read that cites it, it argues for a sovereign ruler. I am not arguing for this, but I am arguing that a government is the only means that mankind has come across to control the disruption of peace by bullies in reality, and that a government based on checks and balances and individual rights is the only one I have seen devised that impedes bullies from becoming lifelong monarchs.

I did read some of Thomas Paine and I very much like his premise that society stems from man's goodness and government stems from his wickedness, although I consider this to be a bit oversimplified as a view of human nature.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I have not yet read Leviathan, but from the gist of what I have gleaned from arguments I have read that cites it, it argues for a sovereign ruler. I am not arguing for this, but I am arguing that a government is the only means that mankind has come across to control the disruption of peace by bullies in reality, and that a government based on checks and balances and individual rights is the only one I have seen devised that impedes bullies from becoming lifelong monarchs.

I did read some of Thomas Paine and I very much like his premise that society stems from man's goodness and government stems from his wickedness, although I consider this to be a bit oversimplified as a view of human nature.

Michael

The Sovereign Ruler is the State. It is, as Hobbes puts it, an artificial person. Hobbes was an atheist and a thorough materialist (and a terribly bad speller) and he gave the earliest best argument for having a State. A State (even with the potential for tyranny) is what keeps people from killing each other by acts of preemptive self defense. A State also guarantees or tends to guarantee long term possession of asserts and wealth which is a precondition to any long term investment which is a precondition to increasing prosperity. Without a State, we get something like Somalia, where, as Hobbes writes, life is nasty, brutish and short.

Hobbes had a pessimistic view of man in his "natural" state (no government, no law, no rules). Locke on the other hand believed that man in his "natural" state would tend to benevolence. Either view could be argued.

I am re-reading Leviathan and when I am done I will start a Hobbes thread.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hobbes had a pessimistic view of man in his "natural" state (no government, no law, no rules). Locke on the other hand believed that man in his "natural" state would tend to benevolence. Either view could be argued.

Bob,

I find both views to be lacking. Some human beings are jerks and some are benevolent. There are many factors that make this so. Volition is one, genes another, environment another, nutrition another, and so on.

When people are in a healthy state, I hold that they tend to be benevolent. But there is a lot that makes them sick and deformed—physically, developmentally and spiritually. A bully is one sick bastard. What's worse, we all have terrible days or moments when we suffer and do violent things we later regret.

If we could eradicate bullies and suffering from the human species, I would have no problem with eliminating government. To that extent I am an anarchist.

But so long as there are bullies—and even good people with moments of temporary insanity—who attack innocent people with violence, I'll take government warts and all and try to make it work as best I can.

Michael

[galtgulch]

If we could eradicate bullies and suffering from the human species, I would have no problem with eliminating government. To that extent I am an anarchist.

But so long as there are bullies—and even good people with moments of temporary insanity—who attack innocent people with violence, I'll take government warts and all and try to make it work as best I can.

Michael

We intend to eliminate the bullies from govt:

www.campaignforliberty.com

104402

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We intend to eliminate the bullies from govt:

Gulch,

That is an ongoing process. I wish it were possible to to it for once and for all, but it can't be done without changing human nature. You have to do it one bully at a time and a new one always pops up. This is where I marvel at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

If you want to be as effective as possible in your pro-freedom activities (which incidentally I applaud), my suggestion is do not leave out bolstering checks and balances. Believe me, those who like power don't like checks and balances, but they are afraid to mess with that part. They can BS about individual rights and fool people, but they know that BSing about checks and balances doesn't work. They run smack up against others who like power.

Look what happened with Terry Schiavo for a clear example.

The thing they secretly dream about is how to eliminate checks and balances so they can have all the power. So keep checks and balances on the table always.

Michael

[galtgulch]

We intend to eliminate the bullies from govt:

Gulch,

That is an ongoing process. I wish it were possible to to it for once and for all, but it can't be done without changing human nature. You have to do it one bully at a time and a new one always pops up. This is where I marvel at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

If you want to be as effective as possible in your pro-freedom activities (which incidentally I applaud), my suggestion is do not leave out bolstering checks and balances. Believe me, those who like power don't like checks and balances, but they are afraid to mess with that part. They can BS about individual rights and fool people, but they know that BSing about checks and balances doesn't work. They run smack up against others who like power.

Look what happened with Terry Schiavo for a clear example.

The thing they secretly dream about is how to eliminate checks and balances so they can have all the power. So keep checks and balances on the table always.

Michael

Michael,

I appreciate your responses.

A little disappointed that despite my pleas, no one chose to comment on the whole issue raised by Lysander Spooner. I am not an anarchist but the idea of the Constitution being a contract, like a business contract, had a certain appeal. My wife is smarter than me and points out that the Constitution is not a contract. So the question remains if it is not a contract how does it get to be upheld for those of us who didn't sign it.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23Feb 104450

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

We intend to eliminate the bullies from govt:

Gulch,

That is an ongoing process. I wish it were possible to to it for once and for all, but it can't be done without changing human nature. You have to do it one bully at a time and a new one always pops up. This is where I marvel at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

If you want to be as effective as possible in your pro-freedom activities (which incidentally I applaud), my suggestion is do not leave out bolstering checks and balances. Believe me, those who like power don't like checks and balances, but they are afraid to mess with that part. They can BS about individual rights and fool people, but they know that BSing about checks and balances doesn't work. They run smack up against others who like power.

Look what happened with Terry Schiavo for a clear example.

The thing they secretly dream about is how to eliminate checks and balances so they can have all the power. So keep checks and balances on the table always.

Michael

Michael,

I appreciate your responses.

A little disappointed that despite my pleas, no one chose to comment on the whole issue raised by Lysander Spooner. I am not an anarchist but the idea of the Constitution being a contract, like a business contract, had a certain appeal. My wife is smarter than me and points out that the Constitution is not a contract. So the question remains if it is not a contract how does it get to be upheld for those of us who didn't sign it.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23Feb 104450

gulch

Gulch -

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself on this. The idea of periodic reaffirmations of the Constitution having any sort of legal-contractual validity just doesn't make any sense! What if a country has a population of 1,000,000 and only 999,000 so affirm? What does this mean? What could it mean? If you are trying to get to some sort of notion of everyone agreeing on the Constitution you're going to have a hard time getting there - unless you affirm that they so agree by not LEAVING THE COUNTRY when they are old enough to have the option to do so.

There might be a symbolic benefit in such a reaffirmation, but nothing contractual makes sense...

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So the question remains if it is not a contract how does it get to be upheld for those of us who didn't sign it.

Gulch,

I already said that: by oath of allegiance and by force.

What do you think you did your entire childhood at school? You crossed your heart, looked at the flag and said, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all."

The republic is defined by the Constitution.

I believe the oath taken by the military specifically mentions the Constitution.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

The President's oath also mentions the Constitution. This oath is given in article 2 sect. 1 of the Constitution. I believe Congressmen and Federal judges take an oath to defend the Constitution.