The Global Liberty Community
Judge Agrees: The Constitution Is a Sham
Countless liberty advocates view the U.S. Constitution as the guiding star of a free society.
But then there’s reality. The government’s endless lies and scandals, the revolting cronyism, the insane economic debauchery, the brutal police state, the imperialistic militarism, the morass of criminalizing regulations, mass surveillance…the list goes on and on.
Believers in the Constitution say the solution to all these horrors – the key to a free society – lies in the government following the Constitution more closely.
This is the context for recounting a conversation I had with a certain former superior court judge and renowned Constitutional scholar. (I didn’t know I’d be writing about this at the time, or I would have asked permission to cite him by name.)
Suffice to say, I started the conversation explaining why I believe the Constitution is a sham. I not only expected him to disagree with me but also to school me in both the literal and figurative sense of the word. Before sharing what happened, more background is in order.
The Problem
The premise of Constitutionalists is that somewhere along the line the government stopped taking the Constitution seriously. They point out that the government only follows it when convenient and doesn’t hesitate to ignore or circumvent it.
The gist is that the Constitution is a bargain between the government and the governed. Constitutionalists are upset that the government isn’t upholding its end of the bargain. They talk in terms of the government “trampling” the document which was written to restrain state power from continually expanding and centralizing. Said trampling is extremely distressing to Constitution lovers because the document was supposed to be the safeguard against a Leviathan state (i.e. a massive and oppressive government). Some even view the document with a sense of religiosity, as if it’s a sacred instrument which can set us free.
Several commentators and media personalities have built a sizable following by advancing the message that if “the People” can get the government to stop the trampling, a free society will follow and the list of horrors at the outset of this essay will be dispatched. If that’s true, it seems obvious that “Restore the Constitution” should be the urgent call to action for any lover of liberty.
Ron Paul is the most famous Constitutionalist, having spent decades tirelessly denouncing both parties for ignoring the Constitution. Although his long career as a politician is over, his faith in the Constitution continues. His web site tells us, “The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for.”
A Challenge
I share the goal of wanting a freer society. I think about it – I truly long for it – every day. If you’re a Constitutionalist, I challenge you to entertain the notion that the Constitution is not the solution to a freer life or a freer society. I ask you to consider my explanation for why it’s part of the problem.
The Constitution’s construction was never going to constrain the government from doing whatever it wished to do, from invading nations, spying on everyone, imposing a global tax regime, imprisoning millions for victimless crimes, or conjuring trillions of new dollars through the Federal Reserve cartel to bail out and enrich its cronies. I’m always open to changing my views (and my talk with the judge helped me clarify what I believe), so please give me an open-minded hearing. If my reasoning isn’t sound, let me know.
Law of the Land
The United States Constitution is, to quote the document, “the supreme Law of the Land.” Law is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the whole system or set of rules made by the government.” In other words, the law as a whole is the collection of rules that politicians have made up. Every individual within the U.S. political jurisdiction is automatically opted into its system and set of rules.
Every year politicians create thousands of new laws. They are incorporated into volumes consisting of hundreds of thousands of pages of legalese. The laws are grouped into “codes” such as the CFR, USC, IRS Code, and codes for every state. These codes, along with the Constitution, executive orders, ratified treaties, county and city ordinances, and rulings from district courts to the Supreme Court comprise U.S. law as a whole.
We’re talking hundreds of thousands of pages of legalese. Literally.
It is the obligation of every citizen to comply with all these rules under threat of punishment. Not knowing the rules – in other words, ignorance of the law – is not a valid defense even though the law’s dizzying scope and complexity make it incomprehensible.
Enforcement
Who enforces the demand to comply with the system and its rules? It starts at the top with an oath by the President to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” By no coincidence the President is also the commander of all government military forces. Accordingly, every military agent under the President’s command swears an oath “to support and defend the Constitution” and “obey the orders of the President of the United States.”
Further, the domestic enforcers of the law, the police, also swear to uphold the Constitution. Note that all these people with weapons and cages at their disposal are government employees whose salaries are compulsorily funded by the individuals they purport to represent via the assumed authority of the Constitution.
Assumed Consent
Because individuals don’t get to approve or reject the Constitution whole cloth, much less its individual provisions, or the thousands of agencies and countless laws that spawn from it, your consent is assumed on your behalf by the government. Based on that assumed consent your compliance is demanded.
The Constitution purports to be the American social contract. A social contract is a concept which attempts to explain why authority of the government over individuals is legitimate. “Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms…in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.”
Let’s be blunt about what this means: The government assumes your consent and demands your compliance in return for opting you into its protection racket. Ever been informed that you sleep soundly in your bed or are free to voice your opinions only because the government’s troops fight to protect you? This is the protection racket dynamic at work. The continual urgings to thank and support the troops are meant to reinforce the legitimacy of the arrangement. The shibboleth “freedom isn’t free” is indeed true in the context of being opted into this protection racket.
And what to do if you don’t agree with the government’s ever-changing notion of freedom or the price it extracts for providing it? The fact that you’re not revolting or willing to take up arms to extricate yourself is proof of your consent, no? We’re told our option is to “love it or leave it.” In other words, abandon your property, family, friends, career, and culture if you don’t want to be party to the racket. Ironically the U.S. is the only nation that enforces a global taxation regime, so leaving it doesn’t actually relieve you from paying your flag lapel-pinned “servants.”
Objection to the Social Contract
Many liberty advocates will be pounding the table by now saying they don’t buy the social contract argument. As individuals with sole agency over their actions, the premise of strangers opting them into a system and their rules under threat of death for non-compliance has no moral justification.
After all, law as we know it has little to do with simply prohibiting murder, theft, and assault. Most crimes are non-violent acts which simply amount to breaking politicians’ rules. It’s estimated that victimless crime accounts for 86% of the federal prison population.
Objection to the automatic opt-in was given full voice by 19th century lawyer-abolitionist-entrepreneur-philosopher Lysander Spooner. His famed essay No Treason points out that the social contract gambit is illegitimate because the government drops the hammer on anyone who doesn’t agree to be party to the contract. Therefore, any agreement that you can’t voluntarily enter into isn’t a valid or binding agreement.
But…The Bill of Rights!
Since most people, Constitutionalists included, are convinced of the need for the institution of government, let’s continue examining the premise of the Constitution as a social contract where people submit to the government’s decrees in exchange for its protection of our remaining rights.
This is where the Bill of Rights comes in. It enumerates rights that will supposedly be protected in return for our compliance. So, for example, the government may decide to forbid you from ingesting various liquids or plants and yet promise under the Fourth Amendment not to arbitrarily spy on you or search your property for said liquids or plants.
The Fifth Amendment promises due process if it accuses you of disobeying one of its rules, and the Sixth Amendment assures a fair and speedy trial with specific charges backed by evidence presented in one of its courts. This is all to guarantee the People that the government will never arbitrarily cage people for years or summarily execute citizens or their children.
That over 90 percent of the government’s prosecutions never see a Constitutionally-guaranteed trial seems incomprehensible until you remember: The government makes the rules. Who goes to trial when it’s the equivalent of Russian roulette?: “The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that threatening someone with life imprisonment for a minor crime in an effort to induce him to forfeit a jury trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to trial.”
The system truly is rigged against you, and if you risk going to trial your odds of conviction are around 90 percent.
The Sham
At last this brings us to the sham. A sham is defined as “something that is not what it appears to be and that is meant to trick or deceive people.” So why is the Constitution a sham even if you buy into it being a social contract?
The answer is the Constitution’s phony method of dispute resolution. The government demands that it be the judge of any dispute between those it governs and itself. In other words, if you say the government’s done something wrong, it’ll be the judge of that. Has the government violated your rights? Not unless a government court run by government employees says so.
We often don’t even know what the government has decided to do to us because its decisions are made by secret court rulings. Is that constitutional? Let the government’s courts decide!
Imagine entering into a contract with a person where the contract appointed him as the judge of any dispute. In the event the person violated the terms of the contract and caused you terrible damages, as judge he would be in the position to say, “Upon my review of this case, I find that I did nothing wrong. Case closed.” This sham construction epitomizes why the government has with such abandon broken its own rules on countless occasions. People tend to be queasy about monopolies. Well, here we have a monopoly on both law creation and law enforcement.
Sham.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been party to many contracts. The patent ridiculousness of this monopoly over adjudication always bothered me. I took the opportunity I had with the judge to find out if I was missing the mark. When I gave the background and explained why the whole thing seemed absurd, he said, “You’re right, it is absurd. No valid legal agreement permits one of the parties to act as judge.”
Justice Undefined
This led to a conversation with the judge about justice, something the government purports to provide in the preamble to the Constitution. I told him I’d never heard a satisfactory definition of justice, so I asked what he thought the proper definition is. He looked at me, dead serious, and said, “I have no idea.” I pressed him and he wouldn’t bite. One thing he did acknowledge is that justice is not simply the enforcement of whatever laws exist.
I took the opportunity to ask the judge how many laws there are. He said he had no clue – and that nobody knows. Yet ignorance of the law is not a defense, even as the law is selectively applied and enforced by the government to suit its own purposes. After all we reportedly commit an average of three felonies per day. Warns retired law professor John Baker: “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. That is not an exaggeration.”
Meanwhile, under the Constitution the government has grown via tumoresque bureaucratic proliferation. We’re talking literally thousands of federal and state agencies employing millions of “servants” whose salaries are paid by those who have no choice to opt out of said services.
People’s abysmal opinion of politicians paired with low voter turnout signify something positive. People instinctively sense that the system is a sham.
Truth is always progress.
Speak the Truth
For those who care about liberty, the Constitution is deserving of contempt rather than respect. It has served to consolidate and centralize government power by its very design.
Reality is indisputable: The Constitution either authorized the current regime which controls literally every aspect of our lives, or it was utterly powerless to prevent it. Either way it’s “just a goddamned piece of paper,” as George Bush reportedly said. At last, something we can agree on.
Check out my free book on politics, decentralization and living a freer life. This article is published under the CC0 public domain license. Use it for any purpose you wish. Thanks for reading.
Join The Discussion
108 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Rick Rule April 14, 2015 , 10:16 pm Vote3
very nice work David.
David Montgomery April 14, 2015 , 10:25 pm Vote1
Thank you @rrule!
Zeroth Position April 15, 2015 , 1:45 am Vote3
Let us be blunt. The Constitution is a slave contract written by slave-raping hypocrites.
David Montgomery April 15, 2015 , 5:55 pm Vote0
Thanks for reading, @reece.
Calin Brabandt April 15, 2015 , 2:35 am Vote3
>We’re told our option is to love it or leave it. In other words, abandon
>your property, family, friends, career, and culture if you don’t want to
>be party to the racket.
In addition to being an example of aggression and the initiation of violence, the “love it or leave it” argument rests on the blatant disrespect of property rights (if one is into the concept of “rights”– and most people making this argument claim to believe in rights). “Voluntarily” consenting to governments “protection” is no different from being shaken-down by the mob and paying for “protection” of one’s business in a mob-ruled business district. Sure–one could close the business, forfeit clientele, markets, property, and everything one has built in the business and move (leave it), but clearly this decision and outcome is the result of aggression and violence. Why should it be considered to be any different when government is doing the shake-down?
David Montgomery April 15, 2015 , 5:07 pm Vote0
@calinb, thank you for commenting and reading.
Jimmy Riedelsperger April 15, 2015 , 1:05 pm Vote1
Thanks for writing this. You may find this article of interest. http://authoritycon.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-law-is-not-what-it-says.html
David Montgomery April 15, 2015 , 5:05 pm Vote1
@setfree Thanks for reading and for the link, Jimmy.
Ned Netterville April 15, 2015 , 2:10 pm Vote2
Yes, indeed, and thank you for a fine article. At the heart of the issue of liberty is nonviolence. Anyone subject to violence is not free, and anyone who is and doesn’t realize their impediment is missing a few brain cells. The rule of law is organized and institutionalized violence. Laws need be enFORCED, and force is violence. The one invariable fact about violence is that it always and only begets more violence, as an apple tree only produces apples, not prickly pears. We tolerate and some even embrace government violence in the collection of taxes, suppression of a multitude of behaviors we do not like, and whenever we write a law. Does anyone who willingly participates in our violent “democratic” society wonder who is to blame when an Adam Lanza blows away a bunch of school kids and teachers. Violence begets violence! Adam Lanza and cops shooting harmless civilians should be expected by people who use force to obtain their daily bread.
David Montgomery April 15, 2015 , 5:06 pm Vote0
@nednetterville, thank you for reading and commenting.
Serene Agorist April 15, 2015 , 5:02 pm
Excellent writing and very compelling arguments ! Thank you
David Montgomery April 15, 2015 , 5:59 pm Vote0
@ladyagorist, thank you for reading and for the kind words!
autonomous April 15, 2015 , 8:11 pm Vote0
Very good article. The question that shouts itself to me is, “Where do we go from here?” You already pointed out that we have no options here; we must leave family, friends, career, and leave the U.S. Even then, the IRS reaches the whole world.
We can renounce our citizenship, but the IRS has the power to ignore our renunciation. We can, instead, take up citizenship elsewhere, but then we are almost certainly serfs to a worse tyrant. There is no other country or group of countries that has sufficient resources to resist the tyrants in DC.
Are we left, then, in the situation of Patrick Henry, to choose either liberty or death; in reality, to choose death?
Calin Brabandt April 15, 2015 , 8:55 pm Vote0
I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no place for living libertarians to physically “go from here.” Future generations may have opportunities, if peoples’ minds can be changed to oppose violence (I think Stefan Molyneux provides guidance for the only path that can achieve this goal), but the changes required are multi-generational in scope and we are unlikely to have a Galt’s Gulch materialize during our lifetimes. Probably the best one can do now is free their own minds, hunker down, and participate in the state’s violence as little as possible, though I certainly do not consider this strategy to exemplify a life of liberty.
Though unlikely, I believe the probability that a geography offering substantial liberty in the near-term future might be realized still is non-zero. Doug Casey has mentioned that he’s had conversations along the lines of developing a stateless society, or at least one with far greater liberty than can be currently found anywhere on the globe, with several rulers of small nations. Seasteading might offer another opportunity. If a few of the gun grabbing billionaires of the world invested in seasteading and liberty, instead of spending countless millions to promote the state’s grabbing of peoples’ guns, I’m sure it could happen. Sadly, by far most billionaires are control freaks and not at all interested in promoting liberty for people.
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 4:58 am
@calinb, a fellow L.me member is working with Doug Casey on a Galt’s Gulch-esque project. http://onarchy.liberty.me/2015/04/06/a-brief-introduction/
Calin Brabandt April 16, 2015 , 6:23 pm Vote0
Thanks for the link! I will eagerly follow any news of progress from Onar.
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 4:51 am Vote1
Thank you, @autonomous. I appreciate your comments and will be thinking about your questions. In the meantime, don’t choose death. 😉
autonomous April 16, 2015 , 5:27 pm Vote0
David, I assure you that I choose life. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Joshua Richardson April 15, 2015 , 8:51 pm Vote0
I agree with your conclusions in theory, my only questions lie in the practice. How do we go about protecting our families without an organization to whom we have delegated our right to self-defense? If we do delegate that authority via written contract, do our children have to agree to it later? What happens if they don’t? Are the not allowed to continue living within the boundaries containing the people who did agree to it? If they are allowed to continue living inside those boundaries, are they allowed to mooch off the protection that they aren’t paying for?
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for limiting the role that government plays, but I’m not sure I understand how you eliminate it completely without creating a whole new set of issues. I would love to have that discussion sometime and maybe there is a place at Liberty.me where that is happening that someone could point me to, because if there is a way to pull it off I would be very interested.
Thank you for your article!
Calin Brabandt April 15, 2015 , 10:18 pm Vote0
I don’t think it is wise to ever fully rely on other people for self-defense–voluntarily or otherwise, but voluntarily subscribing to services would result in far fewer problems and moral incursions than the state’s forced “services” (and this leads to an entirely new discussion).
>If we do delegate that authority via written contract, do our children have to
>agree to it later?
As long as the children are dependent on parents, guardian, or custodians, they would be forced to live under their caregivers’ contracts with service providers. Once they reach the “age of consent,” then of course they would no longer be forced to “accept” or live under any contract. I won’t get into what constitutes “age of consent” but the state’s largely inflexible definitions in law are not at all satisfactory, regardless and society could do far better without the state forcing its definitions and legal implications on people.
>Don’t get me wrong, I am all for limiting the role that government plays, but I’m
>not sure I understand how you eliminate it completely without creating a whole
>new set of issues.
No one knows exactly how to achieve a stateless society that is not based upon or plagued by violence, but many people have some pretty good ideas how to proceed in that direction. Of course there will be a “new set of issues” but they won’t involve the state holding guns to peoples’ heads (and in reality, actually killing people in great numbers). On the whole, both currently unresolved issues under state rule and the new issues will be far better served without the state and people will live far better lives.
I’ll plug Stefan Molyneux (“stefbot” on YouTube) again here. He argues that it will take several generations to realize a stateless society–a goal with timing and implications that are similar to the abolitionist movement, which changed the world for the better in ways that people could not previously foresee and required peoples’ minds to change.
According to Molyneux, the key to realizing positive change in the direction of eventually achieving a stateless society is found in changing how society raises and treats children. Children must experience a non-violent environment for it to be realized. Sadly, society is rapidly moving in the wrong direction with respect to this goal.
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 5:26 am
Thanks for reading and commenting, @joshuar. @calinb raised many good points. I’d add that if you’re unable to protect your family directly for whatever reason, you can absolutely protect your family by relying on other organizations, companies or individuals. The issue of course is whether you get to choose who to delegate to, or whether that choice is made for you politicians.
Alarm companies, bodyguards, security consultants, secure transport companies like Brinks, neighborhood watches, guard dogs, surveillance systems, the Peacekeeper app — these are just a few delegation possibilities that individuals can currently choose. In a freer world, there would be far more choices and far more innovations due to natural market demand.
And of course without government there would be no such thing as military conscription. Historically that alone would have saved millions of lives — and who knows how many in the future.
Joel Regen April 15, 2015 , 11:03 pm Vote1
excellent article.
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 2:35 pm Vote0
@jregen Thank you, Joel!
Ned Netterville April 16, 2015 , 2:20 pm Vote1
.28 “And why worry about your clothing? Look at the lilies of the field and how they grow. They don’t work or make their clothing, 29 yet Solomon in all his glory was not dressed as beautifully as they are. 30 And if God cares so wonderfully for wildflowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?
31 “So don’t worry about these things, saying, ‘What will we eat? What will we drink? What will we wear?’ 32 These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers, but your heavenly Father already knows all your needs. 33 Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need. [Including security, I believe.]
34 “So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today.-“–Jesus of Nazareth as quoted in the Gospel of Matthew 6:28-34, New Living Translation–(other instructions for obtaining one’s needs are provided in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).
David Montgomery April 16, 2015 , 5:25 pm Vote1
A big thank you to whoever sent the bitcoin tip! Much appreciated!
Marsha Familaro Enright April 16, 2015 , 7:02 pm Vote2
I’m sorry but I have to take a huge exception to this article. I think you’ve thrown every possible thing but the kitchen sink into it to criticize the idea of self-government which is embodied in the Constitution. If I had more time, I’d go line by line to show what I mean.
A constitution is nothing but a “paper barrier,” as deTocqueville says, if the ideas and the culture do not support its principles. Many of the dominant ideas in the culture today are so far from those on which the U.S. Constitution was based, it’s no wonder what is happening now is far from the goal of freedom its writers and supporters attempted to achieve. Yet you say very little about the philosophical changes which led to the practical changes. Instead, your bottom line is: the Constitution is a travesty because it organizes a society in which there is overarching law and a means of enforcement of that law, which results in abuse of power.
Big surprise. Like that wouldn’t happen under the anarcho-capitialist scenario in which some groups would gain power and money as enforcers.
That there will always be problems with each person having his rights equally protected is endemic to human existence. Not only are there criminals (private and public) who will violate rights, but people disagree on *so many things,* there are inevitably many disagreements on who owns what, who did what, what was right and wrong (look at all the arguing just about the *ideas* in the movement – when real property and persons are involved, the severity of the conflict rises tremendously). Conflict happens under *any* scenario. The goal is – how to reduce those disagreements to a minimum, implement the best means possible of peacefully resolving any conflicts, and continually refining the means of doing so. More reasonable people help with conflict resolution being easier, but reasonable people disagree all the time, so it’s never eliminated.
Contrary to your criticisms of law, a system of law is *essential* for enabling peaceful co-existence. It is the means of organizing people so that they have a regularized, known way of behaving with each other and so that they have a peaceful process for resolving conflict.
The original Constitution embodied the basic means of providing the most protection for each individual’s rights with the least official oversight possible. There basic inconsistencies in it, such as the acceptance of the slave states (although slavery itself was never mentioned or officially accepted in the document itself), and voting rights applying only to men. But these and others were such profound contradictions to its basic principles, they had to be changed. What the Constitution needs now is a purge of all those elements (original and added) which enable the violations of individual rights we see today. It needs clarification and even more controls on the government to make the government as limited as possible.
What I don’t understand about those advocating anarchy is: why don’t you just go ahead and compete? If it’s such a viable alternative, try it and see what happens. But I guess you’d have to organize yourselves for that…hmmm…is that anarchy? Or what level of “agreement,” to what ideas and values, do you have to have to make your stateless society?
Kevin Bittencourt Victor April 17, 2015 , 12:16 am Vote0
I would think anything voluntary is the approach for anarchists/libertarians to achieve a more free society. How legal systems would come to be is still uncertain whether it’s a conventional model or a more polycentric system. In general trying to figure out how it’s going to look like doesn’t seem very productive. Perhaps the market would decide which works best. What would a stateless society require should be a key question. What problems are restricting this goal and how can we deal with them to head in that direction?
There’s a difference between government and the State. Leanne has a good article about Nock’s “Our Enemy, the State” which is a book that discuss’s this and deals with the origin of the US and Constitution. At the end of the day the Constitution gave more power to the State. The Articles of Confederation attempted to keep a more decentralized political structure, but as history shows centralized authority won out.
Ned Netterville April 17, 2015 , 1:58 am Vote1
“the idea of self-government which is embodied in the Constitution.” Taken line by line it doesn’t reveal anything of self-government. What is shows is representative government by rulers elected by some of the ruled and not me, myself nor I.
“Like that wouldn’t happen under the anarcho-capitialist scenario in which some groups would gain power and money as enforcers. ” Power and money do not make for enFORCErs. Force is violence, and violence is what governmental systems monopolize in government. In a voluntaryist system (call it anarcho-laissez faire, not capitalism, a word Marx devised), money and power have no means of employing force. It is an attribute of government, constitutional or otherwise.
“Contrary to your criticisms of law, a system of law is *essential* for enabling peaceful co-existence. ” PROVE IT. What you are saying is the status quo is essential. That concept would have disabled every creative idea in every discipline if it prevailed.
“What the Constitution needs now is a purge of all those elements (original and added) which enable the violations of individual rights we see today. It needs clarification and even more controls on the government to make the government as limited as possible. ”
Good luck with that. Even if all the excess baggage was removed, and all the added protections added, it would soon enough morph into the same leviathan we see today, which morphed from the original constitution and small government, because the nature of government is that it will increase because those who rule have power, power corrupts, and one of their powers is the “right” to spend other people’s money, which acts like an aphrodisiac on those rulers addicting them to ever more spending. (It would happen to you too if you were in the position of ruler.)
“What I don’t understand about those advocating anarchy is: why don’t you just go ahead and compete? If it’s such a viable alternative, try it and see what happens. But I guess you’d have to organize yourselves for that…hmmm…is that anarchy? Or what level of “agreement,” to what ideas and values, do you have to have to make your stateless society?”
Evidently there is a great deal about anarchy and about people you don’t understand. First off, anarchists need no organization and they certainly aren’t waiting to organize before beginning to tear down your constitutional government by merely withdrawing their support. It won’t take long to educate enough people to the advantage of voluntary over violence that their numbers become sufficient to collapse the violent state by merely refusing to support it. Oh, I know, you statists may kill a few of us for not paying your taxes or fighting your wars, but the more you kill the more of us will withdraw our support and the faster constitutional government will implode. Those taxes statist relish are the state’s Achilles Heel. We plan to cut it, but we needn’t organized for that.
Marsha Familaro Enright April 17, 2015 , 2:31 am Vote1
Your comment about the Constitution not mentioning self-government is a straw man. The Constitution must be taken together with the Declaration (it certainly was by those who fought the revolution), which is a declaration of independence to become self-ruling.
All the voluntarist “systems” I’ve seen proposed rely on you, as the individual, using money to buy self-defense, i.e. FORCE. If some people have more money…they can buy more force. Simple deduction, plus it’s what goes on every day, it’s the very thing many complain about in terms of people buying special favors, i.e. the force of current government. Also, how do people who do not have enough money to buy self-defense get their rights protected. How are people agreeing on what their rights are? Whose property is whose?
This is some of the reason you need law, which provides a peaceful system by which to resolve conflict and to work to protect each individual’s rights. History proves that when you have no system of law in a given territory, you have continuous violence. That’s what’s happened under anarchy before, and it tends to devolve into a feudal system, a system of rival gangs, until further developments consolidate power.
Then you have kings and emperors and, if you’re lucky and the right ideas and principles get discovered and adopted, that eventually evolves into representative government which works to protect individual rights. Without the English and their peculiar history, I’m not sure where we’d be.
Without the English colonists coming to America, highly educated and knowledgeable, with their families, for a principle of freedom, and forging their societies in the crucible of self-government with the context of Enlightenment ideas, I don’t know where we’d be.
The Sicilian Mafia arose under conditions in which there was no government protecting property, so owners turned to the experts in force, former soldiers of the feudal leaders, to protect their property.
Regarding government power being corrupting – why wouldn’t that be true of those enforcers in the voluntarist “system,” a la my point above? Or are you imagining some future world in which people are so rational no one will be corrupted by having the money and the guns? Just exactly what is your conception of people?
You really ought to stick to arguing the facts and ideas, instead of devolving into ad hominem attacks on me or anyone else. It’s the sign of a weak argument and proof of my thesis that conflict so easily deteriorates into the unreasonable. Hence, we need…
Calin Brabandt April 17, 2015 , 4:41 am Vote1
>The Constitution must be taken together with the Declaration
>(it certainly was by those who fought the revolution), which is a declaration of >independence to become self-ruling.
Sadly and in truth, it must not be taken together with the Declaration of Independence. Also sadly, the founders did not stop with the Declaration of Independence! The Bill of Rights is barely of any significance today and the Declaration of Independence does not even pretend to serve as law, as does the Constitution. I don’t see how you can even begin to perceive the rule by a bunch of rich white guys (which was the predominant ruling class, post-American Revolution) to be “self-rule.”
Like Ned explained, self-rule is when I decide what I shall do and how I shall spend my time in life without others initiating aggression against me in an attempt to force or coerce me to do what I please. This definition of self-rule is the essence of liberty. Throw the non-aggression principle into the mix and you have the basis for a stateless society–not necessarily one without rules (voluntarily subscribed rules), but one without rulers for sure. If I initiate aggression against another person, my action may be legitimately and morally countered with violence.
It doesn’t matter whether a tyrannical despot, a republican congress, or a democratic mob rules over me; their existence is mutually exclusive with self-rule..
>All the voluntarist “systems” I’ve seen proposed rely on you, as the
>individual, using money to buy self-defense, i.e. FORCE. If some people have >more money…they can buy more force.
Force is only wrong when it is used in the initiation of aggression. The state never provides equal self-defense (or equality in any resource required in life) to members of a society anyway, which is what you seem to be alluding-to. A system that attempts to distribute resources equally cannot be realized and, in attempting to do so, it becomes necessarily violent (initiates aggression on people).
>Regarding government power being corrupting – why wouldn’t that be true of >those enforcers in the voluntarist “system,” a la my point above?
I think most voluntarists recognize that, yes, this can be true in a stateless society too, but the state is the most horrible thing possible when it comes to the corruption and harm associated with the concentration of power. If you are concerned about this (and you should be), the state is the very last thing you should want! Hundreds of millions of people were killed by the state (including a good number by people of the United States) since the beginning of the last century. Only the state can put up numbers like that!
>You really ought to stick to arguing the facts and ideas, instead of devolving into >ad hominem attacks on me or anyone else. It’s the sign of a weak argument and >proof of my thesis that conflict so easily deteriorates into the unreasonable. >Hence, we need…
Uggh–I charge you with calling the kettle black! What constitutes proof of your thesis? Even if I accept your assertion that a conversation has deteriorated, it has nothing to do with proving a thesis.
Ned Netterville April 17, 2015 , 9:52 pm Vote2
Ms. Enright, your use of the terms straw man and ad hominem imply familiarity with logic, but I find your thesis and your arguments illogical. Not you, mind you, which would be ad hominem, but your arguments, which is what we are debating and attacking them is not ad hominem. I confess and apologize that I did use the word “you” in that last paragraph, which constituted ad hominem, when I should have attacked the weird idea you postulated about anarchists having to organize, etc. But let me now parse a few of your ideas, which I find illogical.
You callmy criticism of the fact that the Constitution makes no mention of self government a straw man, and then go on to acknowledge my statement to be factual; that self government is not in the Constitution unless we add the Declaration of Independence to it in order to find self government. So in effect you acknowledge you were wrong and I was right about the Constitution. But to make my point even more formidable, if you go through the Declaration of Independence you will find nothing of self=government there either.
What the Declaration proposes is as far from self-government as I can imagine; Here is what it says, “”…that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” These are all things no self=governing iondividual has to power to do.
So you made a demonstrably illegitimate (wrong, false, etc.) claim about the content of the Constitution in the first place, and implied that if you had time you could show us through your intimate knowledge (viz., “line by line”) thereof the self government therein, which we anarchists were too careless to see for ourselves, but in fact isn’t there. So let us be clear about it: the Constitution created a system of representative government, which is not self government. Self government and representative government are distinctly different terms and distinctly different ideas.
Ms. Enright: “All the voluntarist ‘systems’ I’ve seen proposed…etc, ” I contend you haven’t seen many or you wouldn’t be saying what you said. In the first place, if you had extensive knowledge about voluntaryism, you would not use the word “system,” not even withing quotation marks, in the same breath with voluntaryism. I do not find a definition of system that fits most ideas regarding what voluntaryism is that would allow it to be called a system. The balance of your comments in that paragraph seem to me to be based on the belief that any alternative to the status quo must take the status quo as a starting point. I disagree. Thinking outside the status-quo box, for exmple, I can imaging a society virtualy devoid of violence because, unlike people living in a governed society wherein force and violence are endemic and even used by many to acquire their daily bread, without the violence of laws and enforcing police powers, people would be accustomed to relying on education, persuasion and voluntary cooperation to such a degree and in so many circumstances that the very thought of resorting to force would be absent in virtually all people. Does this sound too utopian to you? Look around you and you will see that it is very likely the way you conduct virtually all of your affairs with your fellows, and if so, be of good cheer, for you are well on your way to being a voluntaryist in most matters.
“Simple deduction,…” No it isn’t. It is an illogical conclusion because the premises are all wrong. And here is why the premises are all wrong: “…it’s what goes on every day, it’s the very thing many complain about in terms of people buying special favors, i.e. the force of current government.” That is right, and that is why we need let the current constitutional system of government self destruct. But you can’t use the existing wrongs to defend the existing system, nor imagine they would persist under entirely different circumstances.
Ms. Enright: “Also, how do people who do not have enough money to buy self-defense get their rights protected. How are people agreeing on what their rights are? Whose property is whose? ”
You assume, mistakenly, that these concerns you raise are effectively addressed under the current constitutional system, whereas in fact they are not. Far from it. In America, many poor people are preyed upon by thugs, con men, and even their own government agents who are supposed to protect them. Do you suppose people now agree on what their rights are??? Prove it! Do you need a nanny state to tell you what is or isn’t yours? I don’t.
TMs. Enright: “This is some of the reason you need law, which provides a peaceful system by which to resolve conflict and to work to protect each individual’s rights. ” So far, you have given no reason why you need law. Certainly the system we now have is anything but peaceful. Don’t you read or hear the news. We are killing each other at home and murdering people abroad in senseless wars. Ask the poorest black people in Ferguson, MO, how well their local, state and federal governments were working to protect their rights from predatory traffic laws, predatory cops, and predatory courts. Utopian ideas of what Constitutional government should be like, which have no basis in reality, might be called straw men or merely fables.
I could go on refuting your arguments, which sound like the propaganda the government schools are propagating, but I’m tired. Thanks for engaging.
Jeff Peterson II May 2, 2015 , 7:02 am Vote1
“why wouldn’t that be true of those enforcers in the voluntarist “system,” a la my point above?”
I would challenge Marsha to describe how law would be enforced in an anarcho-capitalist society? This statement and her “a la” one before that is telling she may be unfamiliar with it.
Marsha Familaro Enright May 2, 2015 , 4:16 pm Vote0
Jeff – Did you see my reply below in which I discuss the idea of polycentric law, DRO’s etc.? If you did and you’re still asking me that question, I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re seeking.
Dave Burns May 4, 2015 , 9:10 pm Vote0
I can’t find the discussion of polycentric law @marshafamilaroenright mentions. Is the comment system wonky?
Marsha Familaro Enright May 4, 2015 , 9:35 pm Vote0
Dave Burns – I can see it, which made me think it was posted, but I see now that it says “awaiting moderation.”
David Montgomery May 5, 2015 , 3:04 am
update: Grant said having multiple links in a comment triggers a moderation holdback as an anti-spam precaution, so we’re good now.
—
Marsha, I don’t moderate the comments on my blog, so I don’t know what happened there. I’ll ask @grantbrown about it. If you don’t mind trying to repost we can see if that works. Thanks. @marshafamilaroenright @jeffpetersonii @daveburns
David Montgomery April 17, 2015 , 4:24 am Vote2
@marshafamilaroenright Marsha, thank you for reading and for your comments. In reviewing your and Ned’s exchange, it seems at least some of the disagreement is about accepted definitions of words. For example, you reference the Constitution as being self-government. I don’t share that definition. Self-government means I govern myself. I make my own choices and suffer the consequences if they harm others or myself. Being forced at implicit gunpoint to pay a group of complete strangers to give me literally thousands of orders about what to do and not do isn’t self-government under any framework I can rationalize.
I don’t think my thesis is based on a kitchen sink approach. It’s a recap of 1) Spooner’s point that nothing is an agreement if you don’t get to choose whether to participate and 2) the legal reality (confirmed by the Judge) that even if you accept social contract theory, no contract is valid if one of the parties of the contract is also the judge of any dispute. You mentioned a desire to rework the Constitution and add more protections. As long as the dynamic in point #2 is present, no number of bells and whistles will work. It’s the reason why this piece of paper did nothing to stop the relentless and ongoing growth of Leviathan.
There’s also some definition cross-talk about law provision. I think you’re assuming that law provision and enforcement have to come from one and the same source — a monopoly arrangement. You might be interested in taking a look at some writing about polycentric legal systems. In any case, people who identify as ancap (I tend to steer clear of labels for a variety of reasons) would be quick to point out that in a stateless society, there would be massive market demand and therefore fierce competition to provide security services because, simply put, most people want to lead peaceful (assault free) lives. The absence of a monopoly provider of laws (rules) and enforcement thereof does not mean that no rules and no enforcement would exist. Technology is a wonderful ally here. Look how cryptographically secured money like Bitcoin obviates the need for rules about counterfeiting and prosecuting those would attempt to do so (whether by individuals or by political means, e.g. quantitative easing and bailouts).
Your point about culture and philosophical changes is well-taken. The state has benefited greatly from most people becoming evermore confused (even oblivious) about what freedom actually means and about what economic conditions create prosperity. Most of this confusion/oblivion stems from the state’s own relentless conditioning and propaganda. When the meaning of words is undermined, thinking clearly about cause and effect becomes a real struggle. And even when you do the work to think clearly, having a substantive, reason-based conversation with someone else is extremely difficult. People get frustrated and angry feeling like they’re talking past each other, and that’s because they are. This is of course the desired outcome for the political class, and every election season is a nauseating pageant demonstrating this sad reality.
Marsha Familaro Enright April 19, 2015 , 3:02 pm
I appreciate you ratcheting back your rhetoric somewhat Ned, and I appreciate your considered reply Dave. BTW Ned, many of your criticisms of my comments refer to the present-day state of the Constitution which, if you recall, I agree is hugely problematical. One of my main objections to your argument, Dave, is that you assert that the current implementation of the Constitution causes our worst problems because of its geographical organization of enforcing rights. I don’t think you’ve made the case that that is the primary reason for the decline.
I objected that there were fundamental philosophical and cultural changes since the Enlightenment – i.e. ideas influencing the way that the Constitution is implemented that – were crucial to these developments. Further, you make no mention of the significant increases in liberty that have occurred since the Founding, including but not limited to, the strengthening of the rights of women and gays, and, most especially the outlawing of slavery.
I’m arguing that there are reasons why an overarching system of law is important, and that the system now in place, based on the Constitution, needs to be carefully considered and reworked. BTW, all the Founders and many, many others over the centuries saw the Declaration and Constitution as one statement of founding philosophy and consequent law; this is not an idiosyncrasy of mine.
Remember, we’re all here because we want to live in as free a society as possible. What we’re arguing about is: what is possible.
In that respect, we know much about what has worked and what hasn’t. We know the basics of human nature and motivation and where the frayed edges are, i.e. where people inevitably, no matter how peaceful and rational, have problems living with each other. I’m asking, given this knowledge: what are the best ways to organize in order to avoid conflict and maintain peace while insuring that each individual’s rights are protected.
And, in reference to Ned’s comments that he knows what his rights are: perhaps, but does Man X and Woman Y agree that those are your rights? If they don’t, conflict ensues. This is where a system of law is important, so we have an open, agreed-upon acknowledgement of rights, a system of implementing them, a system by which to change the law when necessary (e.g, for example, we’d like a plethora of laws restricting our actions taken off the books), and a system of resolving conflict – all by argument and open process, not force.
And yes, people can learn to behave so much better than they do now – isn’t that what becoming “civilized” means, and history shows that’s possible?
I know something close up and on the ground about how to develop peaceful, reasonable human beings, both from raising my own children, seeing how my husband’s parents raised theirs (all 9, amazingly reasonable and peaceful, they don’t fight amongst themselves even, which is really rare), and from the hundreds of children ages 3-15, who have attended Council Oak Montessori School , which I founded and have run for 25 years.
Further, it is my current mission to bring this methodology up to higher education, which I have been doing for the past 6 years through The Great Connections Seminar. Many of the students who attend report that the experience is transformative, hugely increasing their autonomy, confidence, knowledge, and reasoning skills.
If you’re not familiar with how an authentic Montessori school operates, it’s methodology is probably one of the best ways to learn how to live in a free society, it is an environment in which humans can flourish to the maximum. One of Montessori’s main aims was world peace. She created a methodology that truly encourages autonomy, if implemented well (and without the huge amounts of collectivist ideology that is used in many Montessori schools as a result of the staff’s interpretation of the program).
If you’re interested, I have written several articles on the subject to which I can refer you, and I can also parse out more details if you have specific questions. The articles are available here at my blog and elsewhere on the web; Montessori: The Liberator of Children might be of most interest: http://fountainheadinstitute.liberty.me/2014/06/30/maria-montessori-the-liberator-of-children-2/.
The methodology nurtures flourishing, peaceful humans through the physical layout, to the psychological principles by which a good Montessori teacher operates the classroom, to the carefully invented learning materials that induce a Flow experience in children, both keeping their natural enthusiasm for learning alive and motivating them to discipline themselves so that they will be able to joyfully use more materials and learn with others, to the consciously taught principles of Grace and Courtesy.
Most of the children who graduate from Montessori elementary programs are truly exceptional human beings – and that is noted by extended family members as well as traditional teachers who encounter them in high school and college and friends and co-workers – and even enemies.
So I certainly agree that humans can be taught how to act in so much better a fashion than they are currently, and it makes a huge difference in their behavior. On this matter, Dave, you assert that the current educational problems are solely a result of government schooling; I would argue that that is a huge factor, but ideological developments also contribute mightily. On this, I’ve written the chapter “Liberating Education,” in the book Common Ground on Common Core.
However, regardless of how well a child is raised, there are problematic factors that inevitably arise because people are complicated.
The claim that most people want to be peaceful is strong, but, on its own, overlooks several issues, not the least of which is that most people don’t consistently understand and act on their long-term self-interest, i.e. carefully keeping in mind others’ rights and property. It is a lot of work and complex to do that. Only too many are willing to push the boundaries if they can get a material, social position, or power advantage.
Another factor: when we disagree about ideas, we try to use reason, logic and the facts; yet, often, the entire scenario of ideas, facts, and experience, and often reasoning ability, is different from one person to another.
Consequently, people will disagree on what is right and wrong, who owns what, etc. Some circumstances make such conflicts harder to resolve and emotions tend to fly – especially when property and close relationships are involved (e.g. children, divorce).
Some people will be bad, by nature, choice, mistakes in upbringing, or perhaps factors we have as yet identified. All this makes for inevitable conflict.
I’m interested in a society with the most freedom within a structure that allows me to pursue my interests, not be an expert on force (i.e. personally self-protect most of the time – historically shown to be very time consuming). Those societies with the most advancements have such a system. So how do we get those systems to be as free as possible?
Regarding “self-governance”: if you mean following your own judgment and decisions to do exactly and always only what you feel like doing, then that can happen if you live entirely by yourself – a rare possibility and not even a desirable one for the most part.
Once you live with other people, you constantly make decisions about whether you are going to go along with what they think and want or not, whether regarding a partner, your children, co-workers, friends, and, on the largest scale, acquaintances and strangers in your society at large.
There is no way, in a larger social situation, that you can decide each matter completely and always according to your own judgment.
That’s why the voluntarists propose dispute resolution organizations, defense agencies, and judges/legal systems. If by “according to your own judgment” you mean you decide to go along with the judgment and actions of the DRO or judge or arbitration committee, that’s not in kind different from deciding that you will go along with the current political situation until you can find a peaceful way to change it.
Representative government is the method of self-governance in which you choose people who will make decisions about the law and its implementation for you and others. With DRO’s etc, you are choosing representative governance. The difference with the limited government system of the Constitution – or shall we say its improved version – is that the representation covers a given geographical area whereas voluntarists argue that you could have multiple, differing, i.e. disagreeing, arbitration and enforcement agencies in the same geographical area.
As for polycentric law, we already have a taste of that with the multitude of different governmental organizations, the states, counties, cities, towns and villages, which, as the Founders said, are “laboratories of democracy” and compete with each other. Even closer to polycentric is the multitude of different countries in the world and their different legal systems, competing right now. How different is that from a future world in which *not* everyone has learned to be reasonable and peaceful and some have chosen to organize into big groups with weapons who disagree with you about who owns what and who should be able to do what?
Again, the voluntarist difference from the limited governmentalist is the belief that you can do that within the same geographical region. A s far as I can see, the fundamental problem with that would be the conflicting understanding of rights and property, and conflicting judgment, among differing people.
(For those interested, Randy Barnett’s Structure of Liberty is one of the most detailed and expert explanations of a polycentric law system and this article does a fine, even-handed job of discussing it, along with some criticisms: http://blogs.gonzaga.edu/gulawreview/files/2011/02/PalchakLeung.pdf.)
I would like to note that Barnett, Friedman, and others proposing voluntarist legal systems usually argue that restitution and ostracism would be the main methods of enforcement. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t see why the ostracized criminals won’t form their own gang a la my point above people disagreeing as to rights and property.
Dave mentioned that under the society he conceives, there would be “fierce competition” to provide security services. I agree – and that’s what I’m concerned about, because they are competing in money *and* force, not in money alone.
Dave Burns May 5, 2015 , 7:25 pm Vote1
I’m tired of arguing about the endpoint of the process, which none of us are likely to see. Philosophy is interesting, but that which is true and that which is convincing are not always the same thing.
I am more interested in how we can make positive progress. I am happy to hear about Marsha’s daily efforts, which have some hope of making the world a better place.
That said, I figure if we’re smart and tough enough to get rid of the monopoly state, some marginalized thugs won’t be much of a challenge. Maintaining the voluntaryist utopia won’t be very difficult, *assuming you can get there at all.* This just shows what a big assumption that is. It assumes we’re going to get a lot better at knowing when and how to stick together to defuse violence and when to get out of the way.
So, how do we start moving in the right direction? When it comes to practical steps we can take right now, I think politics/antipolitics is the big question that separates us, not “what will utopia look like.” And even then, we can all get on board with a good nonpolitical initiative, like bitcoin for instance. So don’t let the fun philosophical discussion monopolize your attention.
David Montgomery May 10, 2015 , 3:38 am Vote1
@daveburns, thanks for reading and the thoughtful comments. “that which is true and that which is convincing are not always the same thing.” Great quote. I think we’re already moving in the right direction, and I suspect philosophical discourse helps keep practical efforts on track. The reason I say that is philosophy/ideas tend to impassion people, whereas practical considerations don’t as much.
Since you mentioned bitcoin, it seems from his white paper like Satoshi was driven by big ideas rather than a burning desire to make it more convenient to buy a pizza or to avoid wire transfer fees. Big ideas generate the energy and drive needed to build concrete solutions that lift us up.
Dave Burns May 11, 2015 , 1:58 am Vote0
@David Montgomery, in my case, I think philosophy distracts me from pursuing more practical goals. It’s true that Satoshi had philosophy in mind as an inspiration, but his achievement transcends philosophy by tempting even those who disagree with him to participate.
Please write more articles, your stuff is terrific.
David Montgomery May 9, 2015 , 2:43 pm Vote3
Marsha, thanks for the follow-up comments. There are some misunderstandings here. You wrote that I’ve argued that “the current implementation of the Constitution causes our worst problems because of its geographical organization of enforcing rights. I don’t think you’ve made the case that that is the primary reason for the decline.”
This isn’t my argument. My argument is structural in nature, not geographical. Even if one buys into the non-consensual opt-in of a social contract, the Constitution cannot be a valid form of agreement between the governed and the government. It’s not a matter of tweaking or updating it for the times. The structure itself is unsound. You can’t have a party to a contract also appoint itself as the judge of any dispute. If you do, you might have some initial good faith behavior, but you will always end up in the long run with that party (in this case, the government) dominating the other party (in this case, the governed.)
Whether or not early politicians viewed the Declaration as part of the Constitution doesn’t affect how things played out for the structural reason I outlined. People who take the Declaration seriously and actually withdraw their consent will be branded criminals (see Irwin Schiff) and domestic terrorists if they resist imprisonment for acting upon the withdrawal of their consent.
Regarding my comments about self-government not being the Constitution but rather making one’s own decisions and living with the consequences… Nothing about that implies that you need to live as a hermit to do so. There are constant considerations that we make about the ramifications of our behavior regardless of what sort of society we live in. I never suggested that self-government means you can live life like a bull in a china shop, or that you can sweepingly make huge decisions that affect other people and impose those decisions on them. (Well, you can, actually. It’s just that it doesn’t work well. We call it government.)
Your last point about your fear of competition when it comes to security services is contradictory to your point about human nature. We all know that humans sometimes act aggressively, murderously, dishonestly. And the people who are most inclined to this behavior — the ones who seek to dominate others — are the same people who will gravitate and do whatever it takes (meaning the very things unaggressive people would never do) to control any political system. That is all the more reason to be anti-monopoly of force. You want decentralization — that is, competition — to deal with the inevitability of aggressive behavior. If you monopolize the means to provide security, when the promised security that’s being provided turns into tyranny the consequences are catastrophic.
Marsha Familaro Enright May 13, 2015 , 3:51 am Vote0
@david montegomery here’s why I said that we disagree based on geography:
do you agree that in a voluntarist society, one would need to use some kind of agency to defend you physically, and in disputes? This would be a form of representative government different from the one embodied in the Constitution at least by the fact that it wouldn’t be the only one in a given geographical area.
Right now, you have the right to “fire” the U.S. government, but only by moving to another territory, under a different “Dispute Resolution Agency.”
That’s the way the market for DRA’s works right now. Rothbard proposed that it could work a different way: by having multiple DRA’s in the same territory.
I’ll leave my comments at that for now.
David Montgomery May 13, 2015 , 4:53 am Vote1
@marshafamilaroenright, since this discussion is multi-threaded I’ll repeat your question to avoid confusion.
“Do you agree that in a voluntarist society, one would need to use some kind of agency to defend you physically, and in disputes?” I think there would be competition among various companies, agencies, organizations, and insurance firms to provide various security and dispute resolution services.
Where you make a leap that I don’t is when you equate these entities with “representative government.” They don’t meet the definition of government. Government auto-opts you into its “services”, no matter how lousy they are and no matter how vociferously you refuse them. Government’s monopolistic territorial claim, despite your owning title to your own property, means you cannot “unsubscribe” without abandoning your property and local ties and moving far away. The other entities don’t work that way and hence are categorically different than government.
It needs to be said that in America moving thousands of miles away still doesn’t relieve you of paying for said services even though you no longer receive them. U.S. taxation is based on citizenship, not geography. So no, you don’t “have the right to ‘fire’ the U.S. government” by moving to another territory. You can pay $4,000 to the government and attempt to renounce citizenship *after* you’ve already moved out of its monopolized jurisdiction, but your request will be denied unless you’ve already spent the time and money to get another passport. None of this resembles the market dynamics which form the basis of a voluntary society.
Leanne Baker April 16, 2015 , 7:53 pm Vote7
What a great discussion here! The article itself is well-written, and valuable because it helps us to “see things as they are” — if a society is not fitted to the words in the document, the document loses its meaning. The Constitution was designed to establish the State in the U.S. after the Articles of Confederation, and it has achieved its purpose. My latest article is a review of Nock’s “Our Enemy, the State” and for those who want a better understanding of how we are where we are, I can think of no better book than his. Having said that, I try to not draw too fine a line on where and how individuals choose to fight for liberty. I support some of the causes of Campaign for Liberty, for example, and I took an excellent all-day political action seminar that CFL hosted in our area last year. In day-to-day life, I deal with the world we have, but as I become more aware, I can make more decisions to opt-out of the system when opportunities present. For now, that’s enough for me.
David Montgomery April 17, 2015 , 4:30 am
@leannebaker Thanks for reading and the kind words, Leanne. Looking forward to reading your Nock review. Here’s the link for all who are interested: http://superfluouswoman.liberty.me/2015/04/16/our-enemy-the-state/
Rick Rule May 10, 2015 , 4:21 am Vote2
@davidmontgomery
Wow, the response is as good as the original article. GREAT post my friend.
Jorge Trucco May 10, 2015 , 5:59 am
Excellent article, David! I’ll be quoting and translating…! Congrats!
Jorge Trucco May 10, 2015 , 6:02 am Vote1
@reece Well put!
Jorge Trucco May 10, 2015 , 6:05 am Vote0
@calinb Well said!
Jorge Trucco May 10, 2015 , 6:11 am
You may want to read “the Market for Liberty”, @joshuar .
https://liberty.me/groups/the-market-for-liberty-the-book/
Jorge Trucco May 10, 2015 , 6:38 am
@davidmontgomery Agreed. The key here is to be anti-the monopoly of force. Especially when that monopoly is institutionalized, meaning “legitimized” by its own “laws”.
David Montgomery May 11, 2015 , 2:02 am Vote0
@rrule Thanks Rick!
David Montgomery May 11, 2015 , 2:04 am
@coquitru What an honor, Jorge, thank you! I’ve never been translated before.
Ned Netterville May 11, 2015 , 9:59 pm Vote1
MEF: “Representative government is the method of self-governance…”
As long as you maintain this fiction, we shall just have to agree to disagree because we’ve reduced it to semantics.
The problem with the current constitutional government is, ta, ta, ta, taaa….it is a government. Some people ruling others by force. I view the present government as a gang of thieves and murderers. Have you any suggestions regarding how the present constitutional government–gang–might be reformed so as to eliminate its reliance on force and violence? I believe such reform will reduce all governments to zero., nada, zilch, gone. A regimen of nonviolence will fill the void. but if you demand to know exactly how that will work, you’ll have to remain suck with the present violent system.
To get from the status quo to voluntaryism requires thinking outside the box of the status quo, which your comments here indicate you are not yet ready to do. You would like to have assurance that a system radically different than the status quo with which you are familiar but not happy, will be better than the bad present system. Life offers no guarantees regarding the future–thank God. You are worried about how we will adjudicate the difference that are bound to occur where ever there are people. The present system stinks. I think we can do better. You do too, but you want to retain the use of force endemic to all governments. I insist that is the problem. The force, the violence, must go, and with it all governments because all are dependent upon it. Try to imagine a world without force and violence and maybe you will begin to see what voluntaryists see.
Marsha Familaro Enright May 13, 2015 , 3:59 am Vote0
Ned, funny that you, on the one hand, insist that getting to a society of voluntaryism requires “thinking outside of the box” and on the other tell me you have no thinking as to how to get to it. Also, that your box is one of pure imagination since you believe we can get to a world with no force or violence. Government is NOT the only source of force and violence. But maybe you’ve had the good fortune to have never run into thugs in your life.
Ned Netterville May 18, 2015 , 3:27 am Vote1
@ MEF: “Government is NOT the only source of force and violence. But maybe you’ve had the good fortune to have never run into thugs in your life.”
Actually, very soon after deciding nonviolence in every situation is the strongest security, I was accosted one night while out jogging by two inebriated men, who I believe were college students. One arrested my run by positioning himself directly in front of me in the middle of a road that had no moving traffic, while the other positioned himself behind me. The one in front informed me that I was about to have my lunch handed to me, or some similar crude threat. I simply stood there, I may have prayed, but surprisingly I wasn’t frightened. After a minute or so the one in front stepped aside and told me I had better run. I refrained from reminding him that running was what I was about when he stopped me, and I continued on my way. A coincidence? Who knows? There is a passage in a favorite book of mine that says, “Keep on the firing line of life with these motives [viz., helping others] and God will keep you unharmed.”
Marsha Familaro Enright May 19, 2015 , 3:48 pm Vote0
@nednetterville in addition to my comments in reply to this (which I inadvertently put below, not in direct response to this comment), I was thinking more about your encounter. It’s good that the drunks stepped aside for you, but I know plenty of guys that wouldn’t have.
I grew up in Elmwood Park, IL, a suburb loaded with Mafioso. The mob boss, Jackie Cerone, lived around the block and his right hand man, Bill Messino, directly in back of our house. Their kids were constant bullies at school, harassing and hurting many of my friends for being artists, wearing white socks with black shoes – any excuse. Staring them down did not work.
Their use of force was NOT caused by govt prohibitions. They enjoyed it, they enjoyed exercising their physical power and ability to intimidate. That’s how they elevated their self-image.
In a better society, there may be fewer of these types, but, nevertheless, there will be some.
Calin Brabandt May 19, 2015 , 8:02 pm Vote0
>Their use of force was NOT caused by govt prohibitions.
>They enjoyed it, they enjoyed exercising their physical power and ability to >intimidate. That’s how they elevated their self-image.
You’ve just described the psychological profile of nearly all people empowered by government (our masters and rulers)!
Though undoubtedly true about the kid bullies, their parents’ power was (is) greatly elevated due to opportunities to trade in black markets (markets made by government). At least some of their children’s bullying behaviors are derived from their parent’s success in those markets.
Marsha Familaro Enright May 19, 2015 , 10:39 pm Vote0
Doubtless the kids learned from the parents. You’ve made no case of what’s the chicken and what’s the egg. Further, regarding your claim that no gang was started to enforce protection rackets – what’s *your* evidence for that? Can you show me the history of every gang and how it got started?
Ned Netterville May 21, 2015 , 4:04 pm Vote0
@ MFE: “I grew up in Elmwood Park, IL, a suburb loaded with Mafioso. The mob boss, Jackie Cerone, lived around the block and his right hand man, Bill Messino, directly in back of our house. Their kids were constant bullies at school, harassing and hurting many of my friends for being artists, wearing white socks with black shoes – any excuse. Staring them down did not work.
Their use of force was NOT caused by govt prohibitions. They enjoyed it, they enjoyed exercising their physical power and ability to intimidate. That’s how they elevated their self-image. ”
Marsha, allow me to point out that the bullying to which your friends were subjected occurred under the protection of the Constitution and laws prescribed as part of “the rule of law.”
My own experience with forcible people since I became an in-your-face libertarian has all been at the hands of the state. I’ve had handcuffs put on me so tight I thought I’d get gangrene in my hands, been thrown violently on the hood of my vehicle during a traffic stop subsequently proved to be illegal (not all judges are entirely corrupted by the power of their office, usually because they haven’t been at it long enough), been caged for a total of about 134 days without anyone ever even hinting I had done harm to another person, had a car with my tools in it stolen by a judge who had been at his corrupting job too long, and experienced numerous other violations of my rights at the hands of government operatives. When you think about it, the mafiosi are a bunch of pantywaists when compared with the state’s enforcers. Did you see the tv coverage of Ferguson, MO, when the local enforcers brought out their heavy artillery to battle the local citizenry? Those mafiosi don’t have armored Humvees.
Marsha Familaro Enright May 21, 2015 , 5:04 pm Vote0
Ned, I’m sorry to hear you’ve suffered all that abuse at the hands of government officials.
However, you are missing the point I’ve been trying to make here for weeks now: criminals will always exist, ostracism doesn’t sound an effective punishment for them as gangs can form and then become powerful forces to contend with. One of the reasons the Mafia is not more power in the U.S. than it is, is because it has to compete with powerful government forces.
In southern Italy, it practically runs the place – it has displaced the government. It could displace your private defense force unless you have a solid plan to deal with it, force meeting force. That’s just the reality of having to deal with other people who do not respect rights, who would rather use force to get what they want than trade.
Ned Netterville May 21, 2015 , 7:37 pm Vote0
MFE: “However, you are missing the point I’ve been trying to make here for weeks now: criminals will always exist, ostracism doesn’t sound an effective punishment for them as gangs can form and then become powerful forces to contend with.”
Marsha, actually you may be the one who is missing the point. As I recall, you began by asserting in effect that the people are safer under the Constitution than they would be under voluntaryism. However, you have pointed to the Mafia, which doesn’t do too bad if it doesn’t thrive under the “protection” of a Constitution, while I have argued government is a more powerful and dangereous gang of bandits than the Mafia. While we don’t know if the Mafia could survive a regimen of voluntaryism, we do know the more powerful gang of thugs–government–would not. So, wouldn’t we be better off under the one only-possible gang, and the lesser on at that, than with the two real-not-potential gangs we’ve got with the Constitution?
Calin Brabandt May 21, 2015 , 6:52 pm Vote0
>However, you are missing the point I’ve been trying to make here for >weeks now: criminals will always exist, ostracism doesn’t sound an >effective punishment for them as gangs can form and then become >powerful forces to contend with
Marsha,
I agree with you that criminals will always exist. Are people here ready to turn this into a “gun thread,” because I don’t see anyway around it; people must be armed and people must be armed in a truly un-infringed manner! They must not only be armed when they have a permission slip from their rulers and masters. There must not exist special classes of people who may be armed and those classes of people who may not be lawfully armed. “Shall not be infringed” is simple! The word “infringed” provides perhaps the highest level of semantic power possible in English! 😉
There is much that we can do to reduce their numbers significantly (mostly embracing a stateless society based on the NAP) and I can see how ostracism could be effective even against hardened gang members but, in the end, the only solution is an armed society–plain and simple! Are you hungry? The solution is food. Are you being violently attacked? The solution is arms. This is where the “rubber meets the road.” It’s simple–for any animal in nature, including humans (and even if free will actually exists for those humans)!
There will always be people, empowered through the tyranny of government or other means, that will abuse others. Their violence must be countered or thwarted with opposing force or the threat of defensive force. This is why the founding fathers of the U.S.A. believed the right to keep and bear arms to be an “inalienable right” and enumerated it for protection in the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution (though ink on paper fails to actually protect “rights,” of course.) Having an armed society is of the utmost importance in realizing liberty. No–everyone does not need to be armed, but it is important that a good number of people be armed to impose a deterrent to the initiation of violence, and it is important that it not be evident who all those people might be.
Naturally, members of the society must also have the wherewithal and inclination to use arms, when attacked. You can’t get the necessary skills and mindset by just going to a gun store and buying a gun. It’s rooted in taking responsibility for one’s own welfare, prosperity, and safety.
Ned, Have your encounters with state jackboots turned you into an anarchist yet? Quote:
“My own experience with forcible people since I became an in-your-face libertarian has all been at the hands of the state.”
A friend of mine and I always say that anarchists are made when “the state happens to people!” We’ll read a story online and comment to each other, “yup–the state happened to him!”
Ned Netterville May 21, 2015 , 7:45 pm Vote0
Calin: “Ned, Have your encounters with state jackboots turned you into an anarchist yet?”
Long ago, Calin, but I’ve preferred the term voluntaryist to anarchist because the latter word has been successfully hijacked on many occasions by some violent people whose angst seems to be directed at the state and anyone else they may disagree with or simply run into while demonstrating.
Calin Brabandt May 21, 2015 , 8:01 pm Vote0
I understand your point, Ned. The type of stateless society that we have in mind requires anarchy, but it is not sufficient. Somalia has anarchy but it’s hardly an example of people embracing the NAP!
Ned Netterville May 21, 2015 , 9:14 pm Vote0
Callin Brabandt: “Somalia has anarchy but it’s hardly an example of people embracing the NAP!”
Because I’m not at all familiar with the situation on the ground in Somalia, I can’t dispute the assessment of many that it “has anarchy.” However, from what little I do know, it seems to me what Somalia has is various quasi-governmental, violent groups–warlords’ fiefdoms, Islamists’ fiefdoms, pseudo-anarchists’ fiefdoms, neighboring-nations’ fiefdoms–all vying to become the dominant government. My own sense is that the first successful, truly-voluntary society operating without government will come about among a people accustomed to a fairly high degree of personal liberty, which I doubt was ever the case in Somalia.
Calin Brabandt May 21, 2015 , 10:07 pm Vote0
I think the validity of applying the term anarchy to Somalia depends on one’s definition of the word, but #2 here seems applicable and #4 is perhaps more what we desire for ourselves, but even definition #4 is spun in a negative light. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy):
anarchy
noun
.
.
.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:
The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
,
,
.
4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination:
the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
#1 might apply to Somalia too. (“a state of society without government or law.”) Is there a government or only the vestiges of government in the form of those who were previously empowered by it? I’m sure Somalia still has plenty of laws on the books that were never repealed. I’m sure it still has people that claim to be Somalia’s legitimate masters and rulers. Are tribes a state? Perhaps–tribes might be considered to be many small states.
I don’t know. I’ve never visited Somalia. Perhaps it is more likely correct to call it “stateless” but again, is it still a state?
Despite a few gray areas in its application, the NAP is simple, compared to the different definitions of words like state or anarchy. Maybe we should call ourselves “NAPsters!” 😉
Ned Netterville May 22, 2015 , 1:47 pm Vote0
Calin, I like NAPsters, but I love Voluntaryist because it is quite descriptive of the prevailing philosophy of acting without compulsion. Certainly volunteers are most often respected and even admired for their selfless activities, so if there be any confusion between volunteering and acting voluntarily it wont do any harm.
Calin Brabandt May 22, 2015 , 6:05 pm Vote0
Ned, I agree with your point about acting without compulsion, but the thing I like about the NAP is it addresses the root cause of the denial of liberty and voluntary action. One can’t act without compulsion when others are initiating aggression against them.
It’s amazing how many people don’t even understand the concept of “voluntary,” though. I’ve had many discussions with people where they argued that they voluntarily act in some manner (like claiming that they pay taxes voluntarily). I tell them that it’s impossible to pay taxes voluntarily by the very definition of taxes! Just because one might wish to do something anyway doesn’t make an action voluntary. If there exists a possible known negative consequence imposed by others (punishment or repercussion) for taking an action, then that action cannot be a voluntary action.
David Montgomery May 26, 2015 , 7:14 am Vote0
Thank you again, guys, for all the insightful comments!
Calin Brabandt May 18, 2015 , 5:41 am Vote0
Marsha,
I am assaulted by government thugs every single day. At the very least, I must pay them money when they shake me down (again–EVERY DAY, but it is most evident when I look at my pay stub or labor for days to complete their petty forms and calculations they way they want them done, jump through their hoops, and hand them over on April 15th every year).
But I must also obey the rule of these thugs and masters, because they will kidnap and cage me, if I elect to do otherwise. If I resist their cage, they will kill me! At least with an unlawful gang, I stand a chance of defending myself. Against government? It is a sure death wish every time!
Marsha Familaro Enright May 18, 2015 , 3:17 pm Vote0
@calinb Yes, we all know about government employees and agencies which egregiously violate rights and curtail freedom . The point is that there are also other individuals and groups you must defend yourself against and, in a society without an overarching defense force, they can form themselves into quite a large gang who can become your masters. What we’re arguing about is *what is the best way to defend against any of these.*
David Montgomery May 22, 2015 , 2:09 am Vote0
The best way to defend against any assault on your person or property is a matter of situation and tactics. Here you want competition since anything is possible. Bad people will do literally anything to achieve their ends, including invading countries, running torture camps, and dropping nukes on civilian populations.
The bigger issue is who you’re *allowed* to defend against. The moral authority government assumes is where we’re unresolved. Nobody would tell you you’re not allowed to defend against the mafia.
The mafia has grown through lack of competition in an enabling government environment in which there is logrolling and (big surprise) corruption. In the US there’s a military-industrial complex; in Italy it’s a mafia-industrial complex. Both are completely predictable in how they operate.
Since the government presumes to be the judge of any dispute when it wrongs you, “the governed” are screwed out of the gate. Whereas the government can legally do anything to you (including kill you), if you feel its actions are unwarranted or an outrageous violation, the best you can do is take it to government court with government judges, government lawyers, a defense budget funded by you and everyone else, a government legal code which can be modified at any time, and a government agent (the president) who can pardon anyone regardless.
We’re all just human. There’s no way a setup like this won’t end up in domination over “the governed.” This isn’t about adding more legal clauses to a document. It’s about the fundamental relationship being flawed. A mafia can’t hide behind a pretend cloak of moral authority. If you defend yourself against the mafia, nobody presumes you’re a traitor or lunatic or domestic terrorist.
Calin Brabandt May 11, 2015 , 11:17 pm Vote0
>Have you any suggestions regarding how the present constitutional
>government–gang–might be reformed so as to eliminate its reliance
>on force and violence? I believe such reform will reduce all governments
>to zero., nada, zilch, gone. A regimen of nonviolence will fill the void.
>but if you demand to know exactly how that will work, you’ll have to
>remain suck with the present violent system.
Well said, Ned! I think we have given the founding fathers “great experiment” enough of a run and it done anything but prove itself. Unless one has eyes wide shut, the trend of nearly the last 2-1/2 centuries and the consequences of the American Revolution are very sadly clear. (Doug Casey has called the American revolution a coup, because the more distributed power and authority of the thirteen colonies would have been better for liberty–certainly in the long run, I think.)
I find it surprising that “patriots,” who probably genuinely wish to further the cause of liberty, keep beating the “we just have to follow the Constitution” drum when Lysander Spooner figured out what an impossible sham it is by the early 1800s.
Like the abolitionists of the past, voluntaryists today don’t really know what alternative and better solutions lie ahead in a stateless society. We just know that change (ending the state) is a moral imperative!
Ned Netterville May 12, 2015 , 2:02 am Vote0
MEF: “And, in reference to Ned’s comments that he knows what his rights are: perhaps, but does Man X and Woman Y agree that those are your rights? If they don’t, conflict ensues. This is where a system of law is important, so we have an open, agreed-upon acknowledgement of rights, a system of implementing them, a system by which to change the law when necessary (e.g, for example, we’d like a plethora of laws restricting our actions taken off the books), and a system of resolving conflict – all by argument and open process, not force.”
This makes no sense to me. Where conflict ensues, a system of law may be the worst way of resolving it. Laws are enacted and then enFORCED forcibly. That is how the rule of law works. Argument and open process are all well and good, but in the end the system you endorse will and must resort to force to implement its laws. Think violence versus nonviolence. Are you willing to renounce the use of force and violence in all of your dealings with other humans? If so, you can no longer rely on government for whatever it is you want government to do for you. You’ll have to take your chances in a world where nonviolence is enshrined, and you’ll probably have to start by saying, let it begin with me. That is the best thing about voluntaryism, we know we won’t get there unless we begin by reforming ourselves, but that is a hell of a lot easier than reforming everyone else.
Marsha Familaro Enright May 18, 2015 , 3:10 pm Vote0
@nednetterville About the drunks that stopped you – I’m glad that worked out for you and you are okay. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to a fellow freedom-lover!
Marsha Familaro Enright May 18, 2015 , 3:57 pm Vote0
@davemontegomery The way I’m looking at it is that there are multiple ways to organize and defend yourself and/or your group. In a voluntarist society, people can form whatever arrangement of defense they want. Historically, that’s what they’ve done — because the world, as a whole, is anarchic. What we have now, essentially, is a result of the market in force.
Most of the time, you can’t live your life defending yourself BY yourself, so you join a like-minded group. Groups only work if you have a division of labor; some leading, some organizing, some enforcing decisions most have agreed to (no group is going to have unanimous agreement all the time), some adjudicating. As long as you accede to this division, these people become your representatives for certain activities in the group.
It is always going to be the case that you a. go along with the majority or active minority around you, b. work to change the social organization, or c. leave that group.
There are always going to be costs associated with defense and adjudication of rights, fairly high costs, because there always will be criminals and gangs, and also, disagreements among reasonable men. The costs include monetary payments and trade-offs of freedom to do and choose as you wish against enough peace and security to be able to function and live well. History shows over and over and over that you cannot live and function well in a low-security life. The problem has always been: balancing security and freedom.
One form of organization is a defense agency that has an arbitration and defense system that covers a given territory; if you’re in that territory, the majority of people have decided to go along with this system, so you can either do that, or leave, whatever the cost. That’s just the fact of it, because the majority in that area is going along with that system.
For most of history, people have chosen to live in a social organization using agencies that have control over a given territory because 1. there are always criminals, individuals and gangs, that peaceful and productive people need to defend against; 2. it is difficult to defend property, to even *define* it and know whose is whose, if there are multiple, competing defensive force groups in the same territory. If you look at history, that’s how feudalism emerged from the anarchy following the collapse of the Roman Empire.
So, the ultimate question for those advocating a voluntarist society is: how are you going to deal with these endemic structural problems of human societies? How do you prevent group fighting group within the same territory? How do you prevent criminal gangs from forming and forcing their “defense” on you?
The Constitution was an attempt to organize in such a way as to give individuals the most freedom while maintaining a reasonable amount of security. As I’ve said before, it has its flaws, it needs more chains on those working in it, on its purview and processes. But I think its deterioration is largely due to a dramatic change in philosophy and culture, away from the Enlightenment ideas of individual liberty and reason. These changes enabled people to use its flaws to give too much power to those working in the government – and to those outside the government who want to impose things by force.
The same kind of problem will doubtless occur in a voluntarist society, if some defense agencies get a lot of money because they can buy more force – and, as everyone here endlessly talks about, if someone has power and money, they are so often tempted to use it on others – and many will. What will be the checks and balances against that? What peaceful process will allow factions to fight with each other, with words and arguments, not guns? The market? How will peace and reason be enforced so that the market can operate freely?
Leanne Baker May 18, 2015 , 5:13 pm Vote2
Once again, this has been a great discussion. Humans being humans, and libertarians being libertarians, there is no need to think we could ever agree ahead of time how to deal with an issue like defense / security. There will be those who take a top-down approach — what is the right structure, how is it determined, who pays — and those who start from the bottom up. I am in the latter camp. I look at the Constitution, I look at the military and the city, county, state and federal law enforcement apparatus that is paid by tax dollars and money-printing, and the thousands (millions?) of laws that have been passed, just in this country, and it doesn’t make me safe and secure. In every country with a strong State, there are Mafias and organized crime syndicates — and it seems that they end up intertwined with the State. So just the reality of it all means that the answers, and the solutions, have to start with the individual.
Jorge Trucco May 21, 2015 , 9:21 pm Vote2
I agree, this has been a great discussion, Leanne, and I’m in the latter camp too.
David Montgomery August 29, 2015 , 11:47 pm Vote1
More phony Constitution hand-wringing: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/federal-court-overturns-ruling-against-nsa-mass-surveillance-program-20150828
Calin Brabandt August 30, 2015 , 4:26 am Vote2
Yeah–what a surprise!
Irregardless, a preponderance of evidence indicates that it doesn’t actually matter which way any particular band of blacked-robbed Mullahs rule; government tyrants repeatedly persist in their crimes, because no one is taking action to physically stop them. The rulings are simply one of many examples of how ink on paper doesn’t matter whatsoever. A belief that ink on paper matters is a belief in the myth of the state.
People are going to get the 1984 and Brave New Word that they deserve!
David Montgomery October 24, 2015 , 8:45 pm Vote0
Typical example of the irreconcilable conflict of interest when the government is the adjudicator of cases against itself: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/23/aclu-nsa-surveillance-lawsuit-dismissed
Any centralized monopoly on law creation, adjudication, and enforcement that purports to promote liberty always will be a sham.
Clark Lind December 7, 2015 , 12:41 pm Vote0
I will try to provide a more thoughtful comment after I read it more thoroughly 🙂 Just skimmed it now for the gist .. sampled the flavor as a cook in a kitchen is wont to do, if you will. I will dine on the main course when I get the chance lol
Clark Lind December 7, 2015 , 12:44 pm Vote0
It does though, beg the question.. Since the US Constitution was ratified by the 13 states (originally), and each state has its own constitution (prior to ratifying the US constitution)… And I don’t think Counties have constitutions.. so maybe the real issue should be focused at the state level.. another “Federalism” corruption and usurpation of state power? lol
Martin Brock December 7, 2015 , 1:03 pm Vote1
I vote for sham, but voting is a sham too.
Kym Robinson February 5, 2016 , 10:02 pm Vote1
Excellent piece.
Though it is US related. I fear that much in essence rings true here in Australia as well.
Calin Brabandt February 5, 2016 , 11:21 pm Vote0
Kym, Of course it does. Member states of the western world (“First World”) have more in common than they have differences–“New World Order” and all!
David Montgomery February 5, 2016 , 11:42 pm Vote0
Thank you Kym!
PersephoneK March 15, 2016 , 3:40 pm Vote1
Obviously, the Constitution is flawed and it has been abused horrifically. But to throw it away or say its worthless? I just don’t see what the alternative is? I think in any self-governing society, there needs to be a foundation document that forms the basis of law. So, we need to reform the Constitution, educate people about it and hold those in power to it. A daunting, perhaps impossible task for sure, but I don’t see there being a reasonable alternative.
Calin Brabandt March 15, 2016 , 7:49 pm Vote0
There is no such thing as a “self-governing society.” The term is mythical double-speak! In theory, there can be self-governing individuals, and even the history of humankind’s civilizations provides a couple of candidates for examples of near total true self-rule–certainly in comparison to most people’s exercise or even notions of liberty today. By definition, anything other than self-governance is achieved through the use of person-to-person force, which renders the actions and behaviors of those parties inflicted by the violence of governance as involuntary.
Ned Netterville March 16, 2016 , 2:35 am Vote0
PersehoneK, There definitely is a reasonable alternative. Perhaps the most comprehensive book I’ve yet read that lays out the path and reasonable alternatives to all of the services people need or desire that are currently provided by the state, and to the great advantage of all mankind. The book is THE ROAD TO FREEDOM AND THE DEMISE OF THE NATION STATE, by Peter Bos. It is very hopeful.
Marsha Familaro Enright March 18, 2016 , 4:05 pm Vote0
Hear, hear PersephoneK. Good luck arguing with the others about this fundamental issue. Even the most reasonable and peaceful people need a codified, accepted system of law *protecting individual rights* in order to peacefully live with each other *within the same geographical territory.* Otherwise, you end up with rival systems which, if a dispute between them is unresolvable, can only be settled by force. The anarchist vision rests on the idea that that men can be angels, i.e. that people can become so rational and peaceful most won’t ever get to that point. So far, their vision of how to deal with “the few” who would is to ostracize them. Exile would be more effective, but how do you do that if you don’t have a defined geographical territory? Bottom line is: 1. there are always men who will resort to force; how do the peaceful people deal with them? 2. even rational men disagree (look at us arguing here!); when important values are involved in the dispute, there have to be strong incentives of all types NOT to resort to force. The bigger issue is: by what means do we organize society so that peace is the easiest and most rewarding path? Where people have the least incentives for increasing their power through force and control?
David Montgomery March 18, 2016 , 5:10 pm Vote0
Marsha, what is it about codified, acceptable rules that requires a political monopoly? There are codified, acceptable rules everywhere that people follow and that are privately enforced.
There are 196 political jurisdictions around the world, so it’s not like some universal code has been handed down from on high anyway. Why should one of those jurisdictions corral 1,300,000,000 people into its monopoly (China), while another like Monserrat have a mere 5,000?
And how do you defend the abysmal track record of politics at “protecting individual rights”? Are you claiming that it is literally impossible for humanity to devise a better way? I realize it may be difficult (the Wright brothers had all of human history and experience against them), but to dismiss it as impossible seems needlessly defeatist.
Marsha Familaro Enright March 18, 2016 , 7:13 pm Vote0
Needless to say, the current Constitution needs improvement and the current culture is not representative of what is possible. But human nature and reason have their limits, as history and experience teaches us. James Madison and the others who shaped the Constitution were avid and deep students of history and human nature. Hence “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. “
Calin Brabandt March 18, 2016 , 8:33 pm Vote0
Rather, I believe:
“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one. ”
― Robert LeFevre
Apart from what one might dare or dare not do, people empowered by government violate the non-aggression principle and abide by inconsistent moral rules, which are, in truth, not moral rules then.
Ned Netterville March 18, 2016 , 7:25 pm Vote0
Hear! Hear! David Montgomery. I wish I’d said that.
David Montgomery March 18, 2016 , 8:05 pm Vote0
Oh, thanks Ned!
Marsha, it sounds like your notion of the limits of humanity are as insurmountable as gravity before the dawn of flight. I believe our species will prove you wrong.
The Constitution doesn’t need improvement. Anybody can modify, ignore, or tear up a piece of paper. Our systems for relating to each other are what need improvement, and fortunately major progress on that front is happening every day. It’s a primary subject of my next article, which I hope will be as unsettling to you as this one. 😉
Ned Netterville March 18, 2016 , 8:24 pm Vote0
Marsha, you said:
“The bigger issue is: by what means do we organize society so that peace is the easiest and most rewarding path? Where people have the least incentives for increasing their power through force and control?”
Marsha, the means by which all governments organize that portion of society over which governments claim sovereignty is by force, coercion and violence. With power centralized in government bodies, a profound incentive to grasp the reins of government and use that power to obtain one’s desires–violently when and as necessary–is thereby created. This facts, I believe, explains why so many strong states have been ruled by some of the most despicable creatures history has ever known, and used by those rulers to murder more people than all the non-government criminals combined by a factor of 100,000:1, or so. Organizing society by violent means is conducive to war not peace. Violence begets violence, it can hardly serve to foster peaceful human relations.
Marsha: “If men were angels…” Before I became a voluntaryist, I was a constitutionalist like you, and my copy of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS was far and away the most worn book in my library. I must have read it a dozen times and some compelling sections more often, including the famous passage from #51, which you cite. There is much wisdom about government in those pages, but flaws in the authors’ arguments are apparent to me today. One crucial problem: their view of anarchy was shallow and knee jerk, to wit: it is bad. In the intervening years and as a result of the failures of democracies and republican forms of government, anarchy is much better understood and the concerns of those who without much thought questioned its viability have been answered.
Btw, have you read THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS? I confess that I haven’t, although I presume today I would buy their arguments against adopting the Constitution.
Calin Brabandt March 18, 2016 , 5:39 pm Vote0
>The anarchist vision rests on the idea that that men can be angels, i.e.
> that people can become so rational and peaceful most won’t ever get to that point.
No–the anarchist vision is motivated by the fact that men empowered by the state cause immense harm, to degrees that cannot possibly be achieved any other way. For most people, the state makes life incredibly miserable, but they are blind from birth and, as with sight blindness, most of them cannot even begin to conceive of what life would be like without their disability.
Jimmy Riedelsperger March 15, 2016 , 4:01 pm Vote1
@persephonek The Constitution as a document is no different than the rulers and bankers money. It is just a tool used to enslave the people.
PersephoneK March 15, 2016 , 4:17 pm Vote0
Anarchy without the rule of law is also a form of slavery.
Calin Brabandt March 15, 2016 , 8:02 pm Vote0
Anarchy is a necessary but insufficient condition for liberty to exist. At every opportunity, can you please try your hardest to contemplate what kind of society could be achieved if a large number of people were to embrace the non-aggression principle (NAP)? A healthy condition of anarchy would be the result. Many of us at Liberty.me believe that a stateless society, based entirely on voluntary interactions between people, is possible to achieve, though I think few of us expect to see it happen during our lifetimes. When it is achieved, it will be achieved similarly to the achievements of the abolitionists; peoples’ minds will change and they will come to realize that the initiation of force against others and owning them (controlling them) is wrong!
The rule of law is force; it is fundamentally no different than slavery! Rules do not necessarily violate the NAP, but rulers and the rule of law always does!
David Montgomery March 15, 2016 , 6:32 pm Vote0
Hi @persephonek,
This article doesn’t purport to cover lawful versus lawless anarchy. It only addresses why the U.S. Constitution is by its very construction a sham.
But your comment is interesting to me, so I’ll follow up by asking: Is it your opinion that laws (which are just rules that happen to be made up by politicians) are valid *because* they’re issued by politicians?
Put differently, do you view it as a legitimate exercise of authority (rather than slavery) the fact that there are all sorts of privately issued rules which are privately enforced? The first example that comes to mind is the terms of use of this site. But I’m also looking out the window at a bar which has various rules that it enforces with bouncers. There are countless examples.
I ask because, to me, slavery is not a function of whether the rules I choose to follow were created by a politician or not.
While we’re on the topic of slavery and rule of law, I hope you’ll take a look and share your thoughts on this too 🙂 https://bananas.liberty.me/declare-your-independence/
Thanks for reading and commenting.
PersephoneK March 15, 2016 , 7:32 pm
@davidmontgomery I don’t think your intent was to cover lawfulness vs anarchy, but I think your argument lends itself to that end.
To answer your question “s it your opinion that laws (which are just rules that happen to be made up by politicians) are valid *because* they’re issued by politicians?”… my answer is, of course not. There are countless rules/laws issued by politicians that are completely invalid from a moral perspective (and legal perspective in that they’re unconstitutional). But I do believe that a valid law needs a foundation. I believe the best way to achieve that is within a framework of a constitution (that is maleable within its own structure for change), that itself is founded on deeper principals (i.e. self ownership, liberty first, etc).
I have no problem with privately issued rules so long as they do not overstep the bounds of natural human rights, some of which have been discovered and codified in the constitution, some of which have yet to be mined, I presume.
My point RE slavery in anarchy, is that a lawless society leads to people being slaves of the powerful.
I’ll try to check out your other link when I have a chance.
PersephoneK
Ned Netterville March 16, 2016 , 2:50 am Vote0
PersephoneK, Slavery cannot exist in the absence of government and (municipal) laws. There can be no such thing as slavery or people powerful enough to enslave in a society of people who appreciate and understand the principles of liberty. You can’t enslave someone without the cooperation of your neighbors because you can’t be engaged in the actions necessary for enslavement 24/7. You’re gonna need some sleep and while you sleep your slaves are going to skeedaddle unless they prefer being slaves. A minority cannot rule except with the tacit consent of the majority. Please read Peter Bos’ books and all your fears of freedom wil be lifted.
Ned Netterville March 16, 2016 , 3:12 am Vote0
PersephoneK, This new article by Sheldon Richman may help dispel your lingering attachment to the Constitution. https://sheldon.liberty.me/conceived-in-tyranny/?utm_source=Liberty.me&utm_campaign=b865c549ac-20160315_A_Richman_Constitution&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ecad00b597-b865c549ac-109572253
I used to carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with me at all times, and my copy of THE FEDERALIST papers was more worn than that old family Bible. The book that changed me from a constitutionalist to a voluntaryist (nonviolent anarchist) was Carl Watner’s I MUST SPEAK OUT. There is a huge personal psychological advantage and satisfaction to being a voluntaryist. Try it. You’ll like it.
Jimmy Riedelsperger March 15, 2016 , 8:32 pm
@persephonek People living their lives free from rulers would not be living in a lawless society. “Free People Don’t Have Rulers, They Rule Themselves”