A Question for Libertarians and other Radical Constitutional Conservatives

I believe we already are a de facto direct democracy. Our government has basically conferred unlimited power upon itself and the people are the ones who vote the government in. I suppose it's like an indirect direct democracy, if that makes any sense...

Probably.

 

He is just confused.

 

Shoulda stuck with that constitution thingy. Mob rule with power over an unrestrained government won't end well.

 

Indeed. Things are already heading towards disaster. The final nail in the coffin will be the currency crisis.

 

Of course not. If the government determined that the Second Amendment had no meaning, would you be obligated - morally or lawfully - to abide by such a blatant usurpation of your individual rights?

 

The checks and balances have been long since abolished...all branches of government have been bought and sold to special interest groups and corporations.

 

If that's true, then what do you propose?

 

“The extremists are in charge, they’ve been in charge for the last 40 years since they’ve been allowed to print money at will….this year our entitlements in debt has obligated our people to $5 trillion dollars, and they think I’m extreme?" -Ron Paul

"Radicals" got us into this mess. Libertarians and constitutional conservatives haven't been in charge. So first, republicons should take a closer look at the cronies, RINOs, and warmongers pitched their way. Then, they should stop voting for them. Then, when we veer away from the establishment radicals who have thrown America off a debt cliff, we can discuss who to trust.

 

Ugh...here watch this for me please.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhSsIpjtzY"]Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians! - YouTube[/ame]

 

Not a bad question, how about pvsi.net? I'm sure you can trust that.

 

as a former libertarian to answer the OP they would probably deliberate any arbitration internally regarding their own business but if the dispute is between mutliple business they would most likely organize an association of business owners in the market to deliberate those fairly

 

Many libertarians need to get over their Constitution fetish. The principles of liberty are not entirely compatible with the Constitution nor can one really rely on a document to protect a principle. On the other hand, simply because they do not accept what the SCOTUS declares to be constitution does not mean that they are picking and choosing what to follow.

 

Anarchy isn't the absence of law, anyway. It's not even the absence of government. It's the absence of *rulers*, or, more specifically, any person or entity with a legal monopoly on the use of force. Contract law does not require rulers. Commercial codes do not require rulers. What requires rulers are statutes meant to control, carve out benefits for some at the expense of others, slavery, warfare, and the like.

 

No. The ultimate power to determine what is constitutional rests with the sovereign individual and his power as a juror. If, as you suggest, the Constitution makes it clear that the government can do anything it wants so long as the government declares it to be Constitutional, then it it's incompatible with libertarian thought. I'm fine with that. It's obviously been abused to the point of uselessness. Throw it in the junk heap of history, and we can argue over what is right or wrong, not what is within the parameters of a dusty old document as if that document is an addendum to the Bible.

 

What part of "supreme law of the land" do you people not understand?

The constitution didn't just set up a government and let it go at that. It emumerates the powers that are delegated to the government. It's not a just a dusty old document, it's THE LAW. It has not been repealed in any legal way. Merely usurped by criminals.

The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter. That is not written in the constitution. The states created it, they are the final arbiters.

BTW, anarchy by definition is the absense of government. Go look at a dictionary.

 

You know, I was in the National Archives this past summer and looking at the Constitution and it has faded to almost nothing. Just a faded, almost blank parchment. I think it is an apt metaphor for our nation.

As the document itself fades with the ravages of time, the system that it set up is fading as well, in the minds of the people if nothing else.

Some of the responses on this thread prove it. Cynicism and nihilism and a basic "Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)?" attitude. As if they don't care if the USA exists or not. As if what the Founding Fathers achieved was just a momentary blip in the passage of time and is not relevant at all in the daily life of America. I find it truly disturbing.

 

Our Constitution provides for a method of resolving that problem. Which liberals conveniently forget/ignore.

Don't like or trust the Executive fine. Vote someone else in.

Don't like or trust the Congress fine. Vote someone else in.

Don't like or trust the judiciary fine. Demand your Congress impeach them.

 

Upholding the constitution is not a radical position.

 

If the actions of those branches are unconstitutional, of course they should be rejected.

 

But that is the problem Lotor, Who determines what is Constitutional if you refuse to accept the word from the very authorities who were put in power by the Founding Fathers to decide what is and isn't Constitutional?

There are only 3 branches of Government, if you refuse to accept the final word of all of them as to what is "Constitutional" then who the hell decides what is Constitutional?

You can't say "the individual" because then that is NOT Constitutional Governance but Anarchy.

You and I may not agree about what is Constitutional and therefore we need an arbitrating authority to decide for us and impose that decision on one party or the other.

So who is going to be that party Lotor if not one of the 3 branches of our Government?

 

Actually there are 2 other "branches" that are checks on the official 3 branches: No. 4 is the Free Press, and no.5 is WE THE PEOPLE (which are an armed people also, thanks to the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment).

 

Well #4 is out because they have their own political agendas and will push whatever vision they happen to agree with even to the point of lying.

#5 means destruction of the Republic, as this nation is now so diverse in its political/social ideology that we could never ever agree on a common constitution which means America would break up into a group of worthless Rump States that would swiftly be gobbled up by Canada or Mexico.

Good job..

 

what does he mean there is no government..... just the initiation of force?

 

Your entire position is predicated upon a false premise. The founders did not confer such an authority upon the government but upon the people themselves. The language of the DOI and the Constitution bear this out, and the philosophy of natural law necessarily implies it.

Ultimately, all legitimate power resides with the individual and the people collectively. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the executive, the legislature, or the judiciary having the power to decide what is and isn't Constitutional.

The people.

You do not need an arbitrating authority to tell you what is Constitutional and what is not. You only need to acknowledge the self-evident truth that all individuals are endowed with the inalienable rights to life and liberty. Once you recognize this simple fact, all Constitutional questions are easily resolved because the Constitution is nothing more than the legal manifestation of a transcendent moral philosophy that maintains the primacy of the individual over the state.

 

No wonder so many people are considered loons.

That view of the Constitution and our Government is simply not taught anywhere in our society. That view I don't think has even been considered valid since the Civil War and even then that wasn't an agreed consensus except in the radical South and we know where that went.

The beliefs that you espouse are not compatible with American society since at least the mid 19th century. The Constitution has been amended and changed to reflect this. The Original Founding Document when taken with its amendments has been radically altered. That view is simply not valid anymore when all the amendments after the Bill of Rights are taken into consideration. Particularly the Reconstruction Amendments.