tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post6859167084943134897..comments2023-04-14T03:44:27.772-04:00Comments on Tom Mullen's Blog: The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot ActTom Mullenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-27568403663763731532011-02-28T16:28:34.447-05:002011-02-28T16:28:34.447-05:00What were those great spiritual truths of Assyria,...What were those great spiritual truths of Assyria, Persia or even the USA? Didn't the greatest spiritual truths we recognize arise, not from a country, but from a man who claimed to be the incarnation of God? This God/man lived in a conquered country, conquered by a great empire on that list.<br /><br />And, anyone who thinks that Spain dwindled into apathy doesn't know much about the wars of revolution in South America, all of which took place well after 1750.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-90226570180567646442010-02-04T04:29:31.225-05:002010-02-04T04:29:31.225-05:00[ Written by BornFree ]
Re: David, 2/3/10 6:48 a...[ Written by BornFree ]<br /><br />Re: David, 2/3/10 6:48 am<br /><br />No, David, I am not an Attorney-at-Law. Matter of fact, I don’t even have a college degree. However, I hold no ill will toward any Attorney or other “men of letters” but, instead, I try to learn from those who honestly ply their trade and I attempt to expose the quacks among them. And that includes so-called “men of the cloth!” <br /><br />When I read a document such as “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” (capitalization as in the original title) of 4 July 1776, I am impressed by the words and phrases penned by Thomas Jefferson. How was he (they) so wise in word selection? Then, I find John Locke’s “Second Treatise on Civil Government” - published ca. 1690 by Cambridge University (Oxford) and later published in Boston, ca. 1745. There I find Jefferson’s words and phrases such as “guards and fences” / “consent of the governed” / “Life, Liberty and Estates” (Estates changed to “pursuit of happiness”) / and other phrases first penned by John Locke. Those Founders being educated men of the day, it is no leap to believe they were familiar with Locke’s “Second Treatise.”<br /><br />I sent you the entire definition by Webster’s 1828 – all the way to the period at the end. He continues with cites to biblical passages and usage that only confirms his definition. <br /><br />So, you can’t fathom a total reversal in meaning of such words and phrases? Consider this: In 1853 Stephen Foster wrote “My Old Kentucky Home” which became that state’s official song in 1928. One line of that song goes, “’tis summer the darkies are gay.” Gay? Was Stephen Foster saying the slaves were homosexual? Certainly not, because “gay” meant merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome according to Webster’s 1828, adding that it denotes more life and animation than “cheerful.” But, ask any high-schooler to define “gay” for you today! Is a homosexual with AIDS “more than cheerful?” Yes, David, Word Merchants even take common words and subvert their meanings 180 degrees via education, repetitive usage and dictionary revisions. Are politicians and political writers/educators above this corruption of words?<br /><br />With all the hype these days for “Reality Shows” on TV, we must not lose sight of true Reality. And, part of true Reality is recognition of the fact that NOT ALL MEN ARE HONORABLE. Our task is to expose the charlatans within the sphere of our individual area of influence. I like to say, “Each one teach one” and that begins with teaching one’s self and sharing Truth with your children and close friends who will in turn “teach one.” Thanks to “the power of 2” Truth will soon get around and INFORMED Voters can eliminate those who design to rule over them by Trick and Device.<br /><br />Food for thought. The Founders referred to the government they created (later domiciled in the District of Columbia) as the “general government.” There was no mention of “federal” vs. “national” because the word “national” was anathema in this land after 1783 – they had just defeated the greatest “national” government on the face of this earth! Yet there were, among the Delegates, some who preferred a “federal” government and others a “national” government. “General” was a neutral adjective used in reference to that government at the time. Has that old debate been settled? If so, when?<br /><br />Your question as to how we limit the government is moot. The fact that it IS limited is confirmed by Amendments IX & X. Those Amendments have NEVER been modified since adoption in 1791. The ORGANIC Law (the Constitution - law by “consent of the governed”) CANNOT be amended by STATUTORY Law (a Legislative Act). The criteria for Amendment of the Organic Law is set forth in Article V - example, Amendment XVIII. How to amend an Amendment? The same process as set forth in Article V - example, Amendment XXI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-42906737921695704282010-02-03T06:48:05.171-05:002010-02-03T06:48:05.171-05:00TO: BORN FREE (February 3, 2010 4:15 AM)
Alas, my...TO: BORN FREE (February 3, 2010 4:15 AM)<br /><br />Alas, my Black's is only the Revised Fourth Edition. And my only other unabridged is a New World Webster Twentieth Century Unabridged circa 1950. Perhaps I am even poorer than you.<br /><br />I will highly appreciate your transmitting the ENTIRE definition of "notwithstanding" from Webster. I just can't fathom a total reversal in meaning of such a phrase.<br /><br />My Unabridged Webster's has almost identical definitions as has my Random House. Neither cites a reversal in meaning from Webster's 1828.<br /><br />Is it possible that I and all those who don't possess a Webster's 1828 have been misinterpreting the Preemption Clause of the Constitution all these years?<br /><br />I suggest that your term, WORD MERCHANT, brings to mind mainly the attorney-class (lawyers). They make their livings with words. They are perhaps the most voluble branch of homo sapiens. Some of your responses suggest that perhaps you share their profession.<br /><br />But back on subject:<br /><br />I think that I could fully accept the Constitution had it required SUPER-MAJORITY VOTES just for simple passage of every bill and every committee vote.<br /><br />I would like to see a super-majority of four-fifths (80%) for simple passage.<br /><br />For overriding a president's veto, I recommend a super-majority of fourteen-fifteenths (93-1/3%.) <br /><br />Such super-majorities would ensure that the majority would have to be "deadly serious." Their actions would then impose the "tyranny of the majority" on a relatively-small number of unfortunate souls.<br /><br />Super-majorities approach somewhat the Quaker concept of requiring a "consensus" for adoption of a binding policy. I abhor the usual "half-plus one" majority rule. That, to me, is truly an abominable "tyranny of the majority." <br /> <br />I also propose that we limit government authority to the following:<br /><br />Seeking out and punishing only by restitution and/or retribution: (1) fraud, (2) misrepresentation, (3) theft, and (4) unprovoked, violent, physical aggression against others.<br /><br />There is only one problem: HOW IN THE WORLD DOES ONE (OR 300 MILLION) LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT?<br /><br />The last time I checked, Right Makes Might!David Michael Myersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-53936313366788772822010-02-03T04:17:46.492-05:002010-02-03T04:17:46.492-05:00[BornFree responding as ‘Anonymous’ – Google lost ...[BornFree responding as ‘Anonymous’ – Google lost my password ]<br /><br />Re: Tom Mullen, 2/2/10 11:25am<br /><br />I concur with your opinion of Jefferson. A great man but not without human frailties. In fact, HIS new administration was the target of “Marbury” (cited earlier).<br /><br />I see the greater problem as being one of John Q. Public buying into the glorification of the office of President. That’s tantamount to adoration of a King. More accurately his job is that of Chief Executive Officer, charged with executing the laws of the Legislative Branch (veto power notwithstanding). He has a secondary duty to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Navy, and state militias when they are called into the actual service of the United States.<br /><br />Why did Obama, McCain, Bush, et al constantly campaign for “Commander-in-Chief?” I think there’s a not-too-well-hidden agenda there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-48922563539775310772010-02-03T04:15:32.691-05:002010-02-03T04:15:32.691-05:00[BornFree responding as ‘Anonymous’ – Google lost ...[BornFree responding as ‘Anonymous’ – Google lost my password ]<br /><br />Re: David M Myers 2/2/10 11:23am<br /><br />Thanks for your time and thoughts on “notwithstanding.” Please do not take my response as harsh criticism – I mean nothing personal. After all, it is only by amicable dialogue that we may come to Truth.<br /><br />It is often said that prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, but I contend that the world’s oldest profession is that of a WORD MERCHANT or, the more modern term SPIN DOCTOR. How so? Because the FIRST Word Merchant on record is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden who tempted Eve with his ‘play on words.’ We have been plagued with Word Merchants ever since!<br /><br />In examining a 1787 document – the US Constitution - I choose the dictionary of a noted man who lived concurrently with the Founders and published his “1828” after many years of research (over 26 languages) and earlier of his publications. Thus, I submitted Noah Webster’s definition of “notwithstanding” for your contemplation.<br /><br />Also, in considering a legal document I use “Black’s Law Dictionary” 6th Edition. At age 75, with no paycheck, I can’t afford the 7th Edition. By the way, why does a LAW dictionary have to be ‘revised’ every 10 years? N.B. The definition of “United States” was omitted in the 7th Edition and new definitions were added for “United States Person” and “United States of America.” <br /><br />You choose to rely upon a 1966 dictionary for definition of words used in a 200-year-old document. That leaves a span of 179 years for the Word Merchants to ply their skills in public education of the American people.<br /><br />If we do not bother to test the veracity of “living interpretations” of classic documents AS WRITTEN, we are doomed to follow the soothesayers. <br /><br />You ask if I think there may be a few statutes NOT made in pursuance of the Constitution. YES! Let’s start with the Patriot Act that violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I have previously cited Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, which states that ANY law that is repugnant to the Constitution is VOID. What to do about it? A wise man many years ago impressed upon me that “rights not demanded and rights not defended equals rights surrendered.”<br /><br />David, I invite your attention to the 1787 US Constitution, as amended 1791. Nothing in the original seven Articles relates to a Citizen of any state except for the crimes of (a) treason, (b) piracy on the high seas, or (c) counterfeiting. Those seven Articles are primarily the “job descriptions” for elected and appointed Federal officers. On the other hand, everything in the Bill of Rights relates directly to individual persons and/or states insofar as the duty of the Federal government to guarantee and protect those persons and their unalienable rights (with Amendment IX being a ‘catch-all’ for all rights not enumerated).<br /><br />I have a question for you. Are you a 14th Amendment citizen? (Teaser: Why is “Citizen” capitalized in the Constitution prior to 1861 and NOT capitalized after 1865?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-48857409098714039212010-02-02T18:04:15.643-05:002010-02-02T18:04:15.643-05:00Hello Friends,
I just saw this article come throu...Hello Friends,<br /><br />I just saw this article come through on a feed on my main page (www.tommullen.net). It seems researchers have discovered an early draft of the Constitution by James Wilson. There were missing pages that they found in another place under the title, "Continuation of the Scheme." I believe that is an appropriate title, given our subject here! :D<br /><br />http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20100202_Early_draft_of_the_Constitution_found_in_Phila_.htmlTom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-21499967479904589252010-02-02T11:25:11.296-05:002010-02-02T11:25:11.296-05:00I agree wholeheartedly with David's comments. ...I agree wholeheartedly with David's comments. If you doubt my reverence for men like Jefferson, just look at the cover of my book. He in particular is the whom I consider the greatest thinker and writer on the subject of liberty in our history. That being said, he went on to violate the higher limits on government set by the Constitution when he was president, even though he was highly suspicious of the Constitution while it was being written and only reluctantly endorsed it after it was drafted (conveniently while he was out of the country). It goes to show how troublesome the office of president is, as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all had trouble obeying the Constitution while serving - and they were arguably the greatest men to ever hold the office. It is no wonder that pipsqueaks of intellect and honor, such as Bush and Obama, hold the document and its supposed limits on government in contempt.Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-33621642455791874452010-02-02T11:23:25.038-05:002010-02-02T11:23:25.038-05:00TO ANONYMOUS? OR BORN FREE?
Thanks for the schola...TO ANONYMOUS? OR BORN FREE?<br /><br />Thanks for the scholarly analysis of my comment on Preemption. I shall enjoy digesting it in great detail.<br /><br />As it happens, there is an entire volume on preemption entitled:<br /><br />"Federal Preemption: States' Powers, National Interests"<br /><br />Editors: Richard A Epstein and Michael S Greve, The AEI Press, Published for The American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, 2007.<br /><br />That's what started my thinking on the subject.<br /><br />I am but a poor man and I don't own a copy of the Unabridged Oxford Dictionary or Noah Webster's.<br /><br />My best lexicon is an unabridged Random House Dictionary of the English Language, circa 1966.<br /><br />I didn't imagine that there would be a reversal or a gulf of contradiction between the meaning of "notwithstanding(1787)" and "notwithstanding(2010)".<br /><br />I quote the entry from my Random House:<br /><br />"notwithstanding<br /><br />--- prep.1. Without being opposed or prevented by; in spite of: Notwithstanding a brilliant defense, he was found guilty. He went to the game anyway, doctor's orders notwithstanding.<br /><br />---conj. 2. in spite of the fact that; although: It was the same material, notwithstanding the texture seemed different. <br /><br />----adv. 3. nevertheless; anyway; yet: We were invited notwithstanding.<br /><br />---Syn. 1. Notwithstanding, despite, in spite of -- imply that something is true, even though there are obstacles or opposing conditions. The three expressions may be used practically interchangeably.<br /><br />Notwithstanding suggests, however, a hindrance of some kind: Notwithstanding the long delay, I shall still go. <br /><br />Despite, now literary and somewhat archaic, indicates that there is an active opposition: Despite procrastination and disorganization, they finished the project.<br /><br />In spite of, the modern equivalent on an informal level, implies meeting strong opposing forces or circumstances that must be taken into account: He succeeded in spite of many discouragements.<br /><br />---Ant. 1. Because of, on account of."<br /><br />I think that I interpreted the word correctly as it is used in the context of the Constitution.<br /><br />In my crude way, I think it means that the judges in every state shall be bound by the "Supreme Law of the Land"<br /><br />NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE SAY.<br /><br />Lastly, I pose the questions:<br /><br />"Do you think that there might possibly be a few STATUTES on the books that do not meet the test of having been made IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION?<br /><br />"If so, what might you be thinking of doing about it?"David Michael Myersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-66844928473951554962010-02-02T11:18:16.729-05:002010-02-02T11:18:16.729-05:00hi david michael myers
I appreciate your points.
...hi david michael myers<br /><br />I appreciate your points.<br /><br />As I mentioned heretofore, when one peels back enough of the layers of the records, we find only the withered ink blot bones left remaining from the skeptical attacks of the revolutionist framers. <br /><br />These said assertions do make for great distracting entertainment fodder but in now way are these novel upon the historical record.<br /><br />It is most interesting to note, we find these very said assertions upon observation, always arise within the cyclical dynamic of times of political chaos and economic monopoly.<br /><br />Oh wait, is that not precisely the germinating element that the great framers experienced pre and post revolution?The Old Guardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-2612710631104707632010-02-02T09:59:09.591-05:002010-02-02T09:59:09.591-05:00OLD_GUARD
There is a great difference between tho...OLD_GUARD<br /><br />There is a great difference between those who conceived of, wrote, and proclaimed the Declaration, and those who, in 1787 executed a peaceful coup and proclaimed a new constitution.<br /><br />Most Federalists were attorneys (lawyers, if you prefer), a group essentially devoted to a strong, coercive, central government. The Federalist Papers are nothing more than a lengthy plea for a strong, coercive, central government. Read 'em and weep.<br /><br />The "Pre-emption Clause" of the Constitution (Paragraph 2 of Article VI) nullifies any pretensions to a federation of "sovereign states."<br /><br />IMHO, the Articles of Confederation could have been slightly modified to take care of the few obvious weaknesses in national defense (Financing wars, etc.)<br /><br />Practical people, and Americans are generally a very practical people, can find ways to get along with each other so that everyone prospers.<br /><br />The Articles provided for a TRUE federation of sovereign states. The Constitution provides for an overwhelming, coercive, central government --- by design!<br /><br />The result? An IMPOSSIBLE-TO-LIMIT GOVERNMENT that grows by the second like a cancer gone wild.<br /><br />TANSTAALG [There Ain't No Such Thing As A Limited Government]<br /><br />That's what this discussion is all about. It is not meant as any disrespect toward those of good will who thought they were doing the right thing!David Michael Myersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-54144542133057404212010-02-02T07:54:55.652-05:002010-02-02T07:54:55.652-05:00I always find to my amazement the complete disrega...I always find to my amazement the complete disregard and perpetual dishonor given to the greatest convening of revolutionist political philosophers that have every graced this earth.<br /><br />Further, under their blood and given to you by them, to which, you Sir, express under THEIR blood, Freedom of Speech & press protections, the ultimate dishonor.<br /><br />You see, Sir, if you really go back and peel away the layers of hundred of years of revisionist opinion, the essence of the Constitution begins to manifest from original intent, your, we the people, under the great Constitutional design are responsible for precisely every attack and degradation to the Liberty and Freedoms contained therewith.<br /><br />perhaps its time to grow up......The Old Guardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-39653488221249380182010-02-02T05:49:50.277-05:002010-02-02T05:49:50.277-05:00BornFree writes,
Re: David Michael Myers, 1/30/10...BornFree writes,<br /><br />Re: David Michael Myers, 1/30/10 11:48 am & 5:10 pm<br /><br />“Pre-emption clause”<br /><br />I am a little more than a casual reader of the US Constitution and I have never heard that phrase before. Thus, I take it that you are referring to Article VI, Clause 2, which is commonly called the “Supremacy Clause” – at least that’s what you quoted. I add the following observations regarding that Clause.<br /><br />1. There are 3 elements to the Supreme Law of the Land: <br /><br />(a) “This Constitution,” which was Ratified by the people of the several states, thereby making it ORGANIC law (See Black’s 6th Edition, page 1099). Ratification constitutes “consent of the governed”;<br /><br />(b) “and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;” which refers to STATUTORY laws (see Black’s, 6th Edition, page 1412) PROVIDED such laws meet muster with “made in Pursuance thereof”. That distinction was settled 207 years ago by Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, when he closed with: “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but THOSE ONLY WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that A LAW REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS VOID, and that courts, as well as other departments, ARE BOUND BY THAT INSTRUMENT.” Marbury stands unchallenged today as a Landmark Case.<br /><br />(c) “and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;” – Not ALL Treaties, but only those “made under the Authority of the United States." Where does the United States get its Authority? Nowhere but from the Constitution itself. <br /><br />2. Following the last semi-colon we find: <br />“; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing to the Contrary notwithstanding.” –Period, end of the Clause. <br />Apparently, you interpret “notwithstanding” as granting “total centralized control” over the states of the Union. That, indeed, would be “pre-emption” but I call your attention to Noah Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English Language” (1828) for definition of the word NOTWITHSTANDING: <br /><br />“NOTWITHSTANDING, the participle of ‘withstand’ with ‘not’ prefixed, and signifying not opposing; nevertheless.” <br /><br />Noah Webster’s reading of this cite would be “any Thing to the Contrary NOT OPPOSING.” Hence, the objects of this phrase (the Judges in every State) are not bound to violate their Oaths of Office when US STATUTORY Laws conflict with the state laws they are sworn to uphold.<br /><br />I believe the noted lexicographer Noah Webster (1758-1853) was more capable of understanding the meaning and intent of words used by the Founders than any 20th Century word-merchant/spin-doctor. To believe otherwise is but to subscribe to the doctrine that the Constitution is a “living document” that must change with the times! I submit that one must understand words in the definition of the day in which they were written rather than the opinion of a modern-day Progressive.<br /><br />In closing, I concur with your remark about Lincoln and his War of Northern Aggression "for the Union" but remember - one can tie two cats tails together and have "union" but it's a far cry from achieving "unity!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-91651482997725050712010-01-31T22:02:34.995-05:002010-01-31T22:02:34.995-05:00Yesterday I attended an on-line seminar "Revi...Yesterday I attended an on-line seminar "Reviving the Constitution" sponsored by Hillsdale College (while there was an audience in attendance, for what I understand well over 30,000 attended worldwide via the internet - as a sidebar, the wonderful thing I discovered about attending on-line is that I did so in my pajamas)<br />During the lunch break (enjoyed by those in attendance) internet viewers were treated to this lecture given lat year by Mark Steyn<br />Do give it a view .. I think it was quite to the point.<br />http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/default.cfm?id=12000&type=flv&test=0&live=0Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766146310258847899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-12686559086198038002010-01-31T21:24:46.300-05:002010-01-31T21:24:46.300-05:00If you love the Declaration of Independence and Th...If you love the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson you need to read this free ebook! It is by far the best book on Thomas Jefferson and the American Revolution.<br /><br />http://canng.com/articles/cscent.pdf<br /><br />A Common Scent<br />(A Historical Novel about Thomas Jefferson<br />showing who fought for liberty and who fought<br />for selfish reasons in the American Revolution)<br />by<br />Steffan Stanfordhttp://canng.com/http://canng.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-9897470957224992010-01-31T19:14:55.861-05:002010-01-31T19:14:55.861-05:00Mr. Mullen-
Absolutely stellar article today at L...Mr. Mullen-<br /><br />Absolutely stellar article today at LRC. I'll be posting it at www.DumpDC.com this week.<br /><br />I've been writing about Spooner's "No Treason" to direct people to the truth about the Constitution, and writing about the superiority of the Articles of Confederation.<br /><br />Thanks for writing the article.<br /><br />Russell D. Longcore, Editor<br />www.DumpDC.comRussell D. Longcorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16466637128713404511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-69350679852884992932010-01-31T19:12:56.932-05:002010-01-31T19:12:56.932-05:00If you start with the basic concept of right and w...If you start with the basic concept of right and wrong, it is a small step to realize what's wrong with any country that has problems. <br /><br />The saying "times change" is misleading. Times don't change. People change.<br /><br />Countries don't have problems. The people in those countries have problems.<br /><br />As someone said earlier, the people of America have lost their moral compass. What are morals, other than knowing, and adhering to, the implications of right and wrong?<br /><br />No matter how you frame it, without morals, people will take advantage of other people. Whether it be one citizen to another, one citizen to a "free" entitlement, a government to its citizens, an employer to his employees, and so forth, it's always the same. Without morals, and inherent sense of what's right and what isn't, abuse of one another will continue.<br /><br />Unions were supposedly created to protect employees from unscrupulous employers. Now the unions exploit the employer.<br /><br />Governments are supposed to exist to protect the interests of the people. Why? Because "bad" people abuse other people, and an entity "has" to exist to protect the people. Then the government ends becoming self serving and abusing the very people it is supposed to protect.<br /><br />It all boils down to immorality.<br /><br />Where does morality come from?<br /><br />Why is morality missing?<br /><br />How does one learn and adhere to moralistic principles, the basics of right and wrong?<br /><br />Until each person realizes the incorporates the answer to this simple question, nothing will change. <br /><br />We may get a new regime, a new party, a new law, a new president, etc, but the end result is the same: one group of people, however small or large, exploiting another group because of immorality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-81152852709183386582010-01-31T16:28:52.276-05:002010-01-31T16:28:52.276-05:00Rothbard, Spooner, Mises, Hayek, Locke, Jefferson,...Rothbard, Spooner, Mises, Hayek, Locke, Jefferson, Adams, Aristotle, Cicero,Harry Browne - yes, I've read them all, and I appreciate their arguments. Many of the arguments made here are well-articulated paraphrases of many of them (and I don't mean that as a slam, because these ideas are all as old as civilization itself). I would like to point out that the arguments here about the demonstrated superiority of voluntary exchange and private property over government are well-taken (I make them myself all of the time), however they ignore the fact that those accomplishments by private enterprise take place in a context of private property being protected by government, albeit "selective protection" as it will intervene if we steal from each other but ignores the fact that it steals from us. I have also read Hoppe's "On the impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution" (http://mises.org/story/2874)and found it fascinating, but am left with the same questions.<br /><br />As Burke said above (and I agree with his comment about state governments - one example: they all have the choice to opt out of Medicaid and none of them do, not even the "Live Free or Die" state of NH or Montana - if all we did was scale the federal government back to its intended limits under the Constitution, we wouldn't be complaining about the federal government right now. I made a similar point in the article we are all discussing.Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-7057636510939297812010-01-31T16:14:06.120-05:002010-01-31T16:14:06.120-05:00from Sete:
Tom, Tom, pleeeeeze . . . haven't ...from Sete:<br /><br />Tom, Tom, pleeeeeze . . . haven't you ever heard of Murray N. Rothbard? He answered all your questions re. anarchy, private security, private justice systems, etc. etc years ago . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-86419000561265342972010-01-31T13:11:53.808-05:002010-01-31T13:11:53.808-05:00Ihavesayso - short and to the point .. and right o...Ihavesayso - short and to the point .. and right on target. Like itDalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766146310258847899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-470621942494758752010-01-31T12:29:26.285-05:002010-01-31T12:29:26.285-05:00Government, at all levels, has no rights or entitl...Government, at all levels, has no rights or entitlements...only duties and responsibilities! - Ihavesayso, 1928 - ?Ihavesaysonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-30641030545858549512010-01-31T10:11:18.762-05:002010-01-31T10:11:18.762-05:00People who attack the Constitution as a document f...People who attack the Constitution as a document for oppression without saying anything about the oppression of the states make me suspicious. <br /><br />Conservatives use "states' rights" claims as a way of getting away from the Bill of Rights and its limitations on their religious agenda.<br /><br />James Madison as president once vetoed a roads and bridges bill, saying that there was no authority in the Constitution for such acts. Were the Constitution construed in the light of the philosophy that underlay it--the Enlightenment tradition of reason and the rights of man--no one would be complaining about an overweening federal govt today.Burkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-87265825207734507112010-01-31T05:41:23.013-05:002010-01-31T05:41:23.013-05:00Tom, I respectfully disagree with your opening sta...Tom, I respectfully disagree with your opening statement that the US Constitution does not establish “limited government.” Who would attempt to read and interpret a document without first reading its “preface?” The preface to the US Constitution is called “The Preamble” and it states (1) Who wrote it, (2) the purposes for its writing, and (3) To Whom it was written. Let’s reflect on those items, in order:<br />1. Who wrote it? “We the People of the United States, …”. The Delegates were chosen by the people of the several states of the Union to the task. One must understand the term “United States” in accordance with the legal definition at Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page1533, stating that there are several meanings to the term “United States.” In this case, it means “the states in Union” (under the Articles of Confederation); the chosen Delegates wrote under authority granted to them by their several states of the Union.<br />2. The purposes? “… in Order to (a) form a more perfect Union, (b) establish Justice, (c) insure domestic Tranquility, (d) provide for the common defence, (e) promote the general Welfare, and (f) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution…”<br />3. To Whom was it written? “… for the United States of America.” First, it is not a Constitution OF but a Constitution FOR the United States of America. Here we find Black’s second meaning of “United States” as clearly indicated by inclusion “of America.” “The United States of America” is the corporate title (trade style, d/b/a, if you please) assigned to the General Government at Article I, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. <br />The state Delegates proposed this “new” constitution for the United States of America, limiting its purposes to those enumerated in the Preamble, and subjecting it to Ratification by the people of the several states in accordance with the provisions of Article VII. <br /><br />It is noteworthy that the Powers granted to Congress at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18, conform to the above stated purposes. It is further noteworthy that Article I, Section 8 is one long sentence with its no stronger pause between its Clauses than a semi-colon.<br /><br />You also wrote …<br />Although several states tried to hold out for a bill of rights before ratifying the Constitution, those ten amendments weren’t actually ratified until 1791 – four years after the Constitution was ratified.<br />Please note: The US Constitution was not declared in effect until March 4, 1789; the Bill of Rights was declared December 15, 1791; however, 3 states ratified the BOR in 1789, 6 in 1790; 2 in 1791; “Four years after the Constitution was ratified” is misleading. Interestingly, Mass., Ga., & Conn. did not ratify until 1939!BornFreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16239490807064829091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-47447688266824899962010-01-30T23:43:40.961-05:002010-01-30T23:43:40.961-05:00David - "I am not convinced that all of the e...David - "I am not convinced that all of the evils that we suffer from today would not attend our lives without government." I would agree ... what we lack is any type of moral compass. We are a society that has lost, or at best continues to loose our ability to fend for ourselves. I have heard the government described as a "pusher" and we are the "junkies" needing that "fix" ... to what level is our addiction would be difficult to say, as it would vary from individual to individual. However, the ecstasy of entitlement has become stronger and stronger. <br />Back in the late 20's and early 30's when the government began their plethora of alphabet agencies to assist the citizens hit hard by both the dust bowl and the depression, there was great reluctance and great suspicion on the part of the citizenry to accept aid. This of course has changed over time to where it is EXPECTED. <br />So, in a very real sense we are as complicit as the government. <br />But even beyond this - we are confronted with other massive problems of our own making that even make us becoming a totalitarian nation unlikely and if so, very short lived at best ... a MASSIVE debt - approaching 120 TRILLION dollars (debt plus unfunded liabilities) We "make" virtually nothing (thanks to a massive array of regulations, disincentives, not to mention litigation for even the most trivial of things (someone once said that we are a nation of lawyers, not laws) - we are a consumer nation and I often maintain are no more than a nearly 29 hundred mile long shopping mall.<br />I wonder if we have over the decades, become an empire that is too big. When I refer to us as an empire I refer to that within our borders - this was territory acquired and then incorporated into what is this nation, I am not insinuating any "bad" connotation to the term. I often think that perhaps the most effective method of staving off a total chaotic collapse would be to break up into smaller more manageable "nation/states"<br />I think another thing we need to realize (and history shows) is that the life cycle of civilizations - of nation/states is - as I mentioned in an earlier post - cyclical, not linear. So perhaps we need consider how best we can modify the back end of the cycle to set the stage for a strong and vital "rebirth".<br />I think that we need to try to emulate at least one great strength that the founders seem to have processed - an ability to learn from history by their ability to recognize the patterns of the past.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766146310258847899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-32403574799686909552010-01-30T22:46:14.564-05:002010-01-30T22:46:14.564-05:00@ David Michael Myers: Oh yes, I do agree that wha...@ David Michael Myers: Oh yes, I do agree that what we have now is a state of war of every citizen against every other. I did not mean to imply that condition didn't exist now, under government. What we have now is terrible, if we followed the U.S. Constitution it would be much better, and if we improved upon the U.S. Constitution it would be better still. I am arguing that while we have arrived where we are today under government, I am not convinced that all of the evils that we suffer from today would not attend our lives without government.<br /><br />@Nico - yes, your first statement seems to be one way, although I don't know how you establish one law without one government to support it. This speaks to jurisdiction - I believe that most government could be accomplished very locally, with the scope lessening as you went away from the community (regional, state, federal).<br /><br />Regarding voluntary communities, I do believe that the deterrent effect of government from its negative powers is somewhat underestimated by those looking for stateless society. I don't subscribe to Josef Conrad's vision that man has a "heart of darkness" that is only restrained by society, but government does fulfill a necessary role in its negative powers. It is its assumption of positive powers that causes all of our problems.<br /><br />Regarding the natural law, I agree with Locke, who said that "nature has a law to govern it, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who would but consult it, that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, and possessions."<br /><br />For Locke, reason is the law of nature and the non-aggression principle is the product of reason. However, reason depends upon observation to supply it with information, and everyone does not see the world the same way, even if their powers of reason are equal. Hobbes was a brilliant thinker, but his vision of the world led him to the exact opposite conclusion. He saw reason as self-preservation only, and so his reason led him to conclude that the state of nature was much darker than Locke (and many of us) see it. That is why Hobbes ultimately concluded that a "leviathan" govenrment was needed whereby individuals gave up all of their rights in return for the security an absolute monarch would give them.<br /><br />In a stateless society, the Hobbes' of the world are free to see it this way and act upon it, and even if they do not assume positive powers, they still may define aggression differently and defend themselves against it.<br /><br />I certainly think many of the commenters are doing some impressive thinking, and perhaps at some time I will change my mind. However, I believe that mankind and liberty is still best served by a government limited in its power to the justifiable force that individuals have to defend themselves against aggression. This is, of course, only a negative power for govenrment and for government one that can only be exercised after the fact - government cannot prevent crime or preempt military aggression. That is why the Constitution allows Congress to "declare war," i.e., conclude that a state of war already exists, at which time military force is justified. One of the shortcomings, in my opinion, is that the Constitutions does not make this a requirement before military action, although I am sure that the founders envisioned French or English troops marching on Philadephia while a legislative body either wasn't yet convened or was arguing while the enemy lit its torches.<br /><br />I hope to hear more from everyone on this subject. I don't think anyone, including me, has completely nailed their position, so the dialogue probably helps us all. Maybe you'll make an anarchist out of me yet. :)Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7411063121304264984.post-22185390297613531242010-01-30T19:27:17.144-05:002010-01-30T19:27:17.144-05:00Yeah...I don't think the U.S. military, or the...Yeah...I don't think the U.S. military, or the National Guard, would have any trouble subduing those who they are ordered to violently attack, even if they are U.S. citizens, fighting for their constitutional rights, and they took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.<br /><br />You would think their oath would make them our allies, but in fact, they would be brain-washed into thinking that we are domestic enemies of the U.S. (with no regard to whether or not we are enemies or allies to their cause of defending the Constitution), and therefore, it is their duty to subdue us. They are trained to not think for themselves. They are trained to allow their superiors to tell them how to think.<br /><br />I like the idea of covert, secret revolutionary societies. Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.<br /><br />Tom, look what you've caused. You're quite a rebel-rousing revolutionary. You should be on a No-Fly list somewhere, you terrorist.<br /><br />Maybe it was not you who wrote an article about the gradual loss of our ability to imagine solutions to problems without involving the government.<br /><br />However, I'll answer your questions about how a society would work without government by saying this...<br /><br />"So, it is not surprising that an absence of reason has accompanied our loss of liberty, for in fact it is only the former that can make possible the latter. No one would logically conclude that they would benefit by placing their life, liberty, or property under the arbitrary power of anyone else, for to do so is profoundly illogical. Yet, every generation, Americans have surrendered more of their rights to a government that has grown into the most pervasive institution of power that has ever existed in human history. They have done so for the most part because they have allowed their passions to replace their reason. Until we recognize this, every “change” we make is going to be for the worse." (Tom Mullen, Sep. 2009, "Next, They'll Have Us Salivating")<br /><br />Take this reason to the absolute, and remember that "Liberty is an Absolute" (Tom Mullen, July 2009).Crustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15458299808222210322noreply@blogger.com