Constitution

Revisiting the U.S. Constitution

Why should libertarians celebrate the blueprint that made powerful government possible?

|

waly g/Flickr

I am mystified that so many libertarians still see the U.S. Constitution as a landmark achievement in the struggle for liberty. On principle alone, they should have become wary in time. A document that is adored at virtually every position in the political firmament should arouse suspicion among libertarians.

Moreover a smattering of historical knowledge should have been enough to turn suspicion into outright skepticism. The Constitution was not the first constitution of the United States. Under the Articles of Confederation (for all its faults) the central quasi-government had no power to tax or regulate trade. Under the second constitution the new government assumed those powers with a vengeance and more, including the express power to grant patents and copyrights and unspecified powers, such as the power of eminent domain. You'll not find this power to steal property enumerated in the document proper, but thanks to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment (part of the "Bill of Rights"), which feebly limited the assumed power, we know it is there. Considering this historical context alone, how could a libertarian be in love with such a document?

The push for a new constitution came from men who openly complained that America's problem lay in too little, not too much, government. "The evils suffered and feared from weakness in Government have turned the attention more toward the means of strengthening the [government] than of narrowing [it]," James Madison, father of the  second constitution, wrote to Thomas Jefferson. "It has never been a complaint agst. Congs. that they governed overmuch. The complaint has been that they have governed too little," James Wilson added.

Further historical investigation reveals that the handiwork of Madison and Alexander Hamilton (not a promising parentage for a libertarian) was put over on the American people by dubious means. The federal convention in Philadelphia was called for the express purpose of amending the Articles. Under the prevailing rules, any amendment would have to be approved unanimously by the states. But once assembled, the convention tossed out the Articles and started from scratch, working from Madison's centralizing scheme. Moreover the rules for ratification were changed: only nine states would be needed to ratify. And if that were not bad enough, the misnamed Federalists handicapped the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates with their control of the mail and newspapers.

Little wonder Albert Jay Nock, in Our Enemy the State, called the Philadelphia convention a coup d'etat.

Speaking of the ratification debate, isn't it strange that libertarian constitutionalists ignore the most libertarian activists and writers of the day—the Anti-Federalists—to keep their narrative intact? That alone should make one suspicious. (No, the Bill of Rights did not fully address the Anti-Federalists' objections.) Lysander Spooner, author of "The Constitution of No Authority," is ignored as well. (Randy Barnett is an exception, though I think his attempt to give the Constitution a Spoonerian defense fails.)

The eminent historian Gordon S. Wood shed even more unflattering light on the Constitution in his in his magisterial The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Wood shows that as the 1780s wore on, the revolutionary leaders, Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian alike, were unhappy with how things were turning out. Both sides had hoped that the people would embody classical republican values and put the general welfare over their particular financial interests. To their dismay, people were more interested in improving their economic well-being than it contributing to the new nation's good.

The Hamiltonians were especially upset that the public was taking its egalitarian, anti-aristocratic attitudes to such great lengths. The Hamiltonians did not expect the common people to govern themselves. Rather, they (that is, white males) were supposed to elect as their representatives detached wise men who were immune to the vicissitudes of the marketplace.

Democratic participation by common people was more acceptable to the Jeffersonians, but like the Hamiltonians, they lamented the preoccupation with commercial self-interest and the use of state legislatures to secure it. "By the 1780s," Wood wrote, quoting Yale College President Ezra Stiles, "it was obvious that 'a spirit oflocality' was destroying 'the aggregate interests of the community.'" Government had been envisioned as an above-the-fray enlightened referee that balanced competing particular interests and served the general welfare. Instead it had become an auction house.

What to do? Convene a federal convention and try again. And that's what they did.

Those who wanted a new constitution reconciled themselves to the fact that people would inevitably put their own "narrow" interests first. "Madison and others were now willing to allow these diverse competing interests free play in the continent-sized national republic created by the new Constitution of 1787," Wood wrote.

But Madison and the Federalists … were not modern-day pluralists. They still clung to the republican ideal of an autonomous public authority that was different from the many private interests of the society…. They now knew that [quoting Madison's Federalist 10] 'the regulation of these various interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation,' but they also hoped that by shifting this regulation to the national level these private local interests would not be able to dominate legislation as they had in the states and become judges in their own causes.

The advocates of the new constitution believed that a central government could play the umpire's role, Wood added, "because the men holding office … would by their fewness of numbers be more apt to be disinterested gentry who were supported by proprietary wealth and not involved in the interest-mongering of the marketplace."

This point was critical. Common people were preoccupied with making a living. But those who were suited to govern did not have to work and therefore only they could be counted on, first, to ascertain the general interest and, second, to work unfailingly to achieve it. Hamilton made this argument even though he had to earn his living as a lawyer. When this was pointed out, he replied that lawyers were different from self-interested merchants, mechanics, artisans, and farmers. According to Hamilton, Wood wrote, "being a lawyer was not an occupation and was different from other profit-making activities." Lawyers and other professionals, Hamilton said, "truly form no distinct interest in society" and thus can be "an impartial arbiter" of the everyone else's claims. Anti-Federalists scoffed at this claim, understanding that no ruling class could be expected to be disinterested.

This should be enough to make libertarians wary about the second constitution. But there's more. Madison and the other centralizers believed that what was missing in American government was amonarchical element. The revolutionary leaders were happy to be rid of the British monarchy, but they came to believe, in light of what I've described above, that perhaps they had thrown the baby out with the bathwater. "Madison," Wood wrote, "expected the new national government to play the same suprapolitical neutral role that the British king had been supposed to play in the empire. In fact, Madison hoped that the new federal government might restore some aspect of monarchy that had been lost in the Revolution…. That someone as moderate and as committed to republicanism as Madison should speak even privately of the benefits of monarchy adhering in the Constitution of 1787 is a measure of how disillusioned many of the revolutionary gentry had become with the democratic consequences of the Revolution." (Later, the Madisonians saw the judiciary as playing this neutral role.)

Thus, Wood writes, "In place of the impotent confederation of separate states that had existed in the 1780s, the Federalists aimed to build a strong, consolidated, and prosperous 'fiscal-military' state in emulation of eighteenth-century England, united 'for the accomplishment of great purposes' by an energetic government composed of the best men in the society."

Let this all sink in: the prime movers of the second constitution sought to reintroduce hierarchy, aristocracy, and even elements of monarchy in order to rein in the radical social and political egalitarianism that had made the American Revolution unique in world history. We libertarians of course would have rejected the patricians without fully embracing the plebeians. After all, aristocratic rule versus government as egalitarian dispenser of economic favors is a false alternative.

Wood emphasizes that things could have turned out worse. "The Anti-Federalists lost the battle over the Constitution," Wood wrote. "But they did not lose the war over the kind of national government the United States would have for a good part, at least, of the next century. Their popular understanding of American society and politics in the early Republic was too accurate and too powerful to be put down— as the Federalists themselves soon came to appreciate. Even the elections for the First Congress in 1788 revealed the practical realities of American democratic life that contradicted the Federalists' classical republican dreams of establishing a government led by disinterested educated gentlemen."

But in time, despite setbacks here and there, the Federalists and their successors prevailed. In many respects the second constitution fulfilled its illiberal purpose. Should libertarians celebrate the blueprint that made powerful government possible?

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

NEXT: DC Prepares for Epic Snowball Fight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In the fantasy world of Sheldonia, only anarchy is libertarian enough!

    What a pile of crap. Sure the constitution itself isn’t perfect libertarianism, but have you read those first ten amendments to it? They happen to be the most libertarian stuff enshrined into government in all of history.

    Again Sheldon rails against all of us who just don’t get that being libertarian means being a sniveling weasel like him.

    1. All hail the mighty Constitution! Perfect except for its interpretation by mortal men!

      As James Madison said, but apparently didn’t believe,

      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.

      The Constitution is full of flaws, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to find them. Your bootlicking obeasance is embarrassing.

      There are many things that can be done to improve the damned thing, such as allowing states to directly repeal federal laws, and allowing individual citizens to sue about unconstitutional laws, with their trials heard by juries alone. But the basic flaw is that it is interpreted by government judges, and if you can’t understand that, you are not trying very hard.

      1. I do understand that. I praised the Bill of Rights, not the constitution.

        And I agree with you about the flaw of judicial interpretation.

        That doesn’t change that Sheldon always goes for the perfect over the good.

        Were we to scrap the constitution now and start over, what we’d end up with would look a lot more like a statist nightmare than what we currently have.

        1. I’m not disagreeing that Richman is an idealist, but I’m not seeing him call for scrapping the Constitution here so much as calling for a less romanticized view of it.

          1. On balance he does seem to see it in a negative light. I don’t think that is remotely fair from a libertarian perspective if you are willing to ignore the tacit support of slavery in the document. Outside of that I think most libertarians would be reasonably satisfied with a federal government that actually stuck to the very narrow powers the constitution seemed to confer. Yeah it might not be precisely what many of us want but there comes a point where if you are 90% there you have more pressing concerns and windmills to tilt at.

            1. Fuck. You. Sheldon.

      2. “Perfect except for its interpretation by mortal men!”

        Quite unlike the British constitution, yes? Howabout the Somali constitution? Is that a libertarian paradise?

      3. I become very wary when I see/hear the word interpret except in relation to language translation. It’s a code word for “‘you’re about to get some twisted thinking…”. BTW how much for two scarecrows?

  2. Most libertarians do seem to agree with The Bill of Rights. Its biggest failure in my view was to push Freedom of Religion rather than Freedom of Belief followed perhaps by the failure to push Freedom of Communication over Freedom of Press/Speech.

    1. The legality of government laws is judged by government employees, and it should have been obvious what a conflict of interest that is. No words can ever overcome that basic flaw. Even if the Constitution had forbidden police powers, or explicitly called out the natural right to control yourself and your property regardless of harm to self or the distaste of others, it would all be for naught as long as the government defined its own limits with government employees defining what those words meant.

      1. Although, as bad as judicial review can be, free speech has fared well (see Citizens United) and even the right to bear arms has (Heller). Of course it only takes one more progressive on the court replacing a conservative for the erasing of these rights to gain momentum.

        At that point libertarians will be resigned to civil disobedience of the state to get our point across. Notably that’s a step closer to the anarchy Sheldon would seem to prefer.

        1. Free speech has fared well? We have obscenity laws, copyrights, free speech zones, FCC censorship, and some areas have laws against using ‘swear words’ in public places.

          As for progressives erasing rights, that definitely happens. However, many conservatives (social conservatives, really) still want to erase rights, but the rights they want to erase are different from the rights the progressives want to erase. Conservatives seem more receptive to limiting freedom of speech if it’s done in the name of stopping flag burning, obscenity, etc.

          1. I’ve never understood why many Libertarians scoff at copyright. Patents sure, they are a gov’t granted monopoly, but a copyright is a simple common law extension of property rights over the products of your labor, or the labor of someone you contracted labor from.

            1. I’ve never understood why many Libertarians scoff at copyright

              It’s the anti-gummint mentality, which has crippled our movement.

              30-40 years ago, there was an internal conflict. We electoral libertarians said, “Always be pro-liberty, never be anti-government.” In your example, pro-liberty defends what you properly depict a property rights. In the broader sense, it focuses on solutions and policies, showing how expanding liberty will enhance and enrich lives of you and your family. (Sell liberty instead of attacking gummint)

              Anfi-gummint — mostly goobers — are content to find and expose government stupidity … but NEVER describe an alternative. We often hear, “Get government out is the only solution we need.” (No shit!)

              This., the movement has not a single policy solution to anything … has nothing to offer voters (because we don’t need nothin’!) … so the most visible libertarians are “libertarianish” extreme social conservative statists who lie about the constitution.

              Pro-liberty libertarians — 91% of them reject the libertarians label — are thus banished to local politics, where thousands of us have been elected to form broader coalitions and advance pro-liberty reforms. Culturally, we have been among the leaders in expanding social tolerance, school choice, etc. … as Reason reports our advances to the 5.3% of Americans who are movement libertarians.

              Like most political efforts, we combine both a movement and a cult.

      2. This is true but the simple fact is that many libertarians are not opposed to the state. If you want to label them as not libertarians , ok. But I won’t go that far.

        1. A perfect example of the anti-gummint mentality, aka goobers.

          This is true but the simple fact is that many libertarians are not opposed to the state. If you want to label them as not libertarians , ok. But I won’t go that far.

          In their slim intellects, one is not opposed to gummint unless they snarls and screech anti-gumint slogans and soundbites.

          Here’s how stupid they are. You cannot “oppose” government by “merely” replacing and/or reducing government … unless you also screech and shout tribal slogans … which scares the shit out of voters .. and, for many, seeking to be elected is itself a surrender to government power.

          Simple version. Reducing or replacing government is NOT opposing it. Did I mention stupid? Remember the “box of rocks” analogy?

          So they march around with their heads up their asses … waiting for somebody else to overthrow the gummint … and it mist be somebody else, because, as reported by Cato, 91% of even libertarians think they’re bat-shit crazy. (Cato used gentler language, to avoid annoying any donors).

      3. That was the purpose of “separation of powers”. I think one problem is there is not more of it.

    2. I think I’m more inclined to call the Bill of Rights a failure. Back when having one was initially being debated, the side against it basically said, “If we start enumerating specific rights, then inevitably someone is going to come along and claim that rights not specifically enumerated aren’t guaranteed.” The side that wanted it responded, “Don’t be stupid, this is clearly a document about a government of limited and specifically enumerated powers, nobody could read it that way.”

      OOPS

      1. If there were no Bill of Rights, the government would interpret this as all rights belonging to the government. We’re fortunate to have a BoR.

      2. I think I’m more inclined to call the Bill of Rights a failure.

        I think I;m inclined to conclude you’ve been BLATANTLY lied to. Follow the bullshit here:

        Back when having one was initially being debated, the side against it basically said, “If we start enumerating specific rights, then inevitably someone is going to come along and claim that rights not specifically enumerated aren’t guaranteed.”

        Umm, that was the argument for adding the 9th Amendment, ahead of the 10th Amendment, to forbid ALL levels of government from violating what the Declaration calls “unalienable rights” … Life, Liberty.the Pursuit of Happiness, and all the others

        One major denier of this individual liberty is the Cult of Ron and Rand Paul.

  3. It’s funny, as a kid when I first learned about the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist deal I would’ve punched Hamilton right in the face given the opportunity. Might not be popular with some folks, but Richman’s on to something pretty important here. Right from the beginning there were people who saw the revolution as an opportunity not to remove an oppressive state but to replace it with one in which they’d be in charge. The Constitution, rather than being some sort of holy document of our own little nightwatchman Camelot, isn’t even really a compromise between the Fed/Anti-Fed camps so much as the biggest, most powerful state that the authors thought they could sneak through.

    It’s important, because a lot of people seem to conflate libertarianism in this country with Constitutionalism (for lack of a better term) and rightly accuse libertarians who argue for rights on the basis of their inclusion in the Constitution of simply preferring that the government conform to their preferences. Yes, getting our government to adhere to its own founding document would be a good start as to limiting state power and restoring and protecting individual liberty, but it’s vital to remember (and to vocally assert) that these aren’t rights given to us by an old piece of parchment. I have a right to speak not because of the 1st Amendment, but because I’m a human being.

    1. ‘Libertarianism is just the slippery slope to constitutionalist tyranny’ would rank about #5000 on the list of biggest problems that libertarians have in selling their ideas to the public.

    2. Well said, sir/madam. Especially the second paragraph.

    3. I like what you wrote but would like to add that that right to speak as a human eing must be protected oor backed up with the power to retain it.

      It is the power, not the right, that allows one that freedom as we all here know that there is always someone willing to take that right away if the power to resist did not exist

    4. it’s vital to remember (and to vocally assert) that these aren’t rights given to us by an old piece of parchment.

      It may be worth pointing out that the addenda parchment and supporting parchment of the same time period, written by the same group of people who wrote the constitution, does, in fact, vigorously assert exactly this. Given the zeitgeist of the day and the structural composition of the document, it was probably taken for granted that the constitution would be understood as a rights-securing document and restraint upon national government. On the off chance that it wasn’t, that’s why the 9A was added to the bill of rights.

  4. The gospel according to L. Neil Smith — a better novelist than political philosopher. The Articles of Confederation were fine if you didn’t mind paying a tariff to ship goods from New Jersey to New York, and wanted the united states in congress assembled stuck on the eastern seaboard, at the mercy of every power in the area — and with half the country holding slaves (unless foreign conquerors got rid of it).

  5. Oh dear.

    Someone needs to explain to poor Sheldon that our problems grow as our leaders depart from the text of the constitution, despite any insincere admiration they may express for it. And we could likely solve many of those problems by simply following it more closely.

    As a document written by men, it is of course imperfect, but it is nonetheless the most perfect set of organizing principles that anyone has yet devised.

    Of course poor Sheldon thinks he could have done a better job had he just been around in 1787 to set those old aristocrats straight. Sure. Sure.

    1. “And we could likely solve many of those problems by simply following it more closely.”

      Following it more closely isn’t happening, nor even realistic. The state continually engages in extortion, theft, and violence. Everything you purchase, sell, and even resell, and many cases use (like property) has an extortion rate attached to it, even one’s income. Any desire to peacibly refuse will be met with violence.

      1. Don’t blame the constitution for our inability to follow it.

        No other foundational document could be written any better — especially not today — so our focus should be a return to constitutional governance, not disparagement of the constitution as somehow inadequate or misguided.

  6. Adored? Wasn’t my impression all through college. I hear college is even worse now.

  7. Anarchism is just simplism. The framers of the Constitution did their best to create a representative government that was a watchdog on itself, by creating three branches with each branch having as its self-interest the containment of the other two.

    Did it/does it work? Has it withstood the test of time? Has it completely succeeded, completely failed? Has it succeeded most of the time?

    All worthy questions, but the anarchist notion that the constitution “just made the government bigger” and “government employees get to interpret the Constitution’s meaning” miss the point of balance of power.

    Anarchism always gives way to statism, because anarchists are incapable of constructing an even flawed protection against statism; they have abandoned the art of statecraft.

    The extent to which we have liberty in this country at all is the extent to which the Constitution’s framers took up the challenge of statecraft, and to which many people after them tried to clean up the oversights and compromises in that initial effort.

    1. When was the last time there was anarchy? Must have been before the Egyptian Pharos. Maybe the closest was the Native American tribes, who also had ‘leaders’…generally elders. I believe it was Jefferson who used much of the Iroquois’ style of governing to formulate his concept’s.

      1. Look at Somalia. Or Syria. Libya.

        That’s what anarchism brings.

        1. Libya and Syria were getting along with far less ‘chaos’ prior to NATO going in to fix them and bring them democracy. Somalia I don’t know enough about to comment.

          1. Libya and Syria were getting along with far less ‘chaos’ prior to NATO going in to fix them and bring them democracy.

            …when they were under autocracy. Bad example if you’re trying to vindicate “anarchy”, to the extent that Libya and Syria represent it. But Libya and Syria also aren’t anarchist states in the present time either. So, also bad examples.

            1. No Pat, the implication bacchys made was that those countries were in anarchy. My rebuttal was that it was far saner in those countries prior to NATO intervention. It is not NATO business to remove governments we don’t like if they are not about to invade us, is it? Or do you believe the USA and NATO should make all countries do as they are told by us?

              1. Yes but the argument is over whether anarchy is a valid way to secure Liberty. He probably agrees that toppling stable governments does not help. But bringing in the nato intervention is irrelevant in this discussion, due to the fact that the previous “better” governments were not anarchies. Idt I get the point you’re trying to make.

              2. Maybe so, but NATO didn’t create the rebellions in Libya and Syria, it aided them after they had begun. When Obama believed that democracy would organically grown on the ground without any guiding hand, he ended up with Islamic radicals hijacking the revolutions.

        2. Straight up bullshit, and a favortite argument the liberals bring up when they attempt to tie the conditions of Somalia to freedom.

          This while, like you, ignoring the governments that created those conditions in the first place.

          1. Exactly. People forget the whole Black Hawk Down incident occured during the Clinton administration!

            1. They also ignore that Somalia was a fucking failed Socialist State shithole. Fuck anyone in the ass with a rusty dildo who tries to use Somalia as an argument against Anarchists.

  8. What’s wrong with anarchy? Seems right now, world wide, we live in a sort of managed, legalized anarchy. The laws of countries give certain people the right to rule over others ie Federal Reserve Act.. For example, it is very difficult to earn a living in this country unless you pay for a license or permit or certification. There are a few exceptions, writers for example. But some Democrat has suggested ‘journalists’ be licensed by the government now too. The same sort of ‘strong men’ who would rule with an iron fist in days gone by, now do so by the ‘legal’ ascension to great wealth which provides access to great power.

    Really, when a government department selects who will build the railroad from St Louis to San Fran making a handful of ‘chosen people’ very wealthy, it’s really more than ‘crony capitalism’ it seems to me. It looks a lot like the King setting his brother in law up with a great gig. If the author of this piece is an idealist, he and I are on the same wave length.

    1. Oh yeesh. Anarchism has the same delusions about human nature as Marxism. Any philosophy that has to spend time ‘reeducating’ the lumpens while not in power is not one that should ever be in a position where it can win an election to implement its ideas. Because if it does then Year Zero and gulags and concentration camps will soon follow. If anarchist libertarians are content to instead yap about NeverNeverLand, well, what on Earth is the point of that?

      And as long as modern presumed-to-be-practical libertarians derive ANY thinking from anarchism, then the only result is that they will EASILY be painted into the irrelevance of being forced to defend Somalia as an exemplar. Seems a bit more presumed-to-be-practical to be able to point to other semi-exemplars like Switzerland or Estonia or Taiwan or Hong Kong or Dubai or Botswana or Chile or Costa Rica or even Canada.

      1. Well, I’d ask you if utilizing the Constitution to benefit yourself is an example of human nature? Of course it is. Only, if you get Congress to pass your self benefiting bill (think Monsanto for example) it’s all legal and nice and the citizens have no recourse, so the law is used to develop monopolies. Can’t sue the government either, which sadly I discovered when an illegal immigrant killed my wife. The government is not responsible for not enforcing the laws. The EPA sends heavy metals into the river which meanders through 3 states, and there is no recourse for the ranchers who rely upon it.

        My point is, you have controlled, legalized anarchy now, but you have to be government or a wealthy corporation to benefit from it. These people then philosophically and essentially become Lords and Masters of the ‘serfs’.

        Anarchy would be roughly as perfect as the current situation, save one major difference, the individual would have an equal opportunity to engage the market.

        1. Wow.

          My sincere condolences.

          I have many years tried to make the poin to friends that Mexico is much more democratic than the us. They laugh at me and refuse to entertain my point.

          If a us citizen has a paperwork problem in which the government is involved they have a problem. say there is a typo on your car title. In the US you must go through a fairly extensice and a little costly government approved process.

          In Mexico you give the clerk a couple of bucks and the problem goes away.

          The point is that government is always for sale. In Mexico everyone has access to that marketplace. in the US if you offer a title clerk 10 bucks to make a typo go away you might end up in jail.

          If however, you offer the government a million dollars in campaign contributions or some other big ticket legal bribe your problems go away.

        2. The intent of the Constitution was to create a system of competition for power (including some explicit protections/space for individual self-empowerment). Not to ask philosophical questions about power or its exercise.

          I totally agree with you that, in practice, we have gotten away from that. In the name of ‘efficiency’, we undermined that competition – and in so doing tilted the playing field towards monopoly/centralization of power (and not just in governmental power but in market power too). And once that happens then yeah the worst sorts will be attracted to controlling it. The solution however is not to try to recreate something new from scratch. It’s much simpler. Point to what we once had – and to countries which still do have elements of internal governmental competition (Switzerland and Canada and even postwar Germany now). They directly emulated us – and we need to return to what they emulated. Maybe then we can progress towards a different philosophical vision of power/exercise – but not until then.

          Also – My condolences to you. I can’t even imagine how much that situation hurts.

        3. Only, if you get Congress to pass your self benefiting bill (think Monsanto for example) it’s all legal and nice and the citizens have no recourse, so the law is used to develop monopolies.

          Monsanto is not a monopoly, although actual monopolies (think public utilities) can rarely be created and never sustained without government.

  9. When I saw the article preview, I knew right away who the author was.

    1. BINGO!!

  10. The first amendment alone immediately puts the Constitution head and shoulders above every other founding document in the world. The clear, unconditional and absolute language used in the first amendment remains radically libertarian. No way would today’s Congress (or even the people in a referendum) would declare absolute freedom of speech to be a natural right that no government shall be permitted to infringe, period. Instead, before the period would be some caveat about the common good or public safety or emergencies like foreigners using Twitter to preach non-Judeo-Christian extremism. And would we today prohibit the government from passing laws establishing religion or restricting is free exercise? LOLyeahno. The caveat would probably come first: “Unless necessary to prevent the spread of radicalism, Congress shall pass no law…”. Look at the piece of shit the French passed as a declaration of rights. The exceptions swallow it. The Bill of Rights is generally free of exceptions (“without due process” is actually a protection of rights in more contexts than it is an exception to one), even if the language could be clearer in some amendments. The rest of the Constitution obviously could be improved a hell of a lot but for a product of compromise written 225 years ago with no examples to copy from, it is a remarkable libertarian accomplishment.

    1. The First Amendment has been scoring victory after victory lately. These kinds of articles are just pathetic and thinly veiled attempts to restrict it (while denying doing any such thing). They must be crying.

  11. I am a very avid reader. My areas of most interest is the Age of Sail and the Age of exploration. I have read hundreds of narrative non fiction titles on both subjects.

    One thing I have learned in my reading is that the founders of the US were fanatical about the idea of free trade. It was at the core of their beliefs and it was the defining principle behind their actions to break from King George and set up their own ruling body in which those principles were to be inshrined.

    Reality took over once they were free from George and the first test of their convictions were the powers that held sway over the Mediterranean. They at first resisted the tribute demanded of them but then also secretely paid tribute to the pashas. They had not much of a navy to resist and it cost less to pay tribute than equip a navy to resist. Eventually that cost factor switched poles and they fought and won . Soon after none of the European powers paid tribute nor had their peoples captured into slavery by the Moslem Pashas. ( Yes horror of horrors WHITE PEOPLE WERE ONCE SLAVES TOO)

  12. My point is this. The founders were truely fanatical about their free trade principle but even they faced reality and didn’t strictly follow their own beliefs that wwere written down in the Constitution that many of them helped write.

    That same willingness to skirt the Constitution when deemed necessary by those in power existed from day one. While I don’t think the Constitution says exactly that the US should never pay tribute to be allowed to trade in a certain area it was the guiding principle of the document.

    That willingness to skirt the Rule Of Law ( I know I’m using license here but it’s OK because I’m pretty hungover and trying to wait until noon to have a beer for apperances sake) has always been there but has been used for less than stellar purposes as the years have gone buy.

    Saying that it is far from perfect yet still the best there is is trite I know, but it is also a fact.

    The faults of the document lie not in the document itself as there will never be a perfect document to rule man. The faults lie with those who interpret it for their own purposes and we who allow them to do so.

    Penal Tax anyone ?

    1. Also… I have no dogs in the hunt but I predict:

      Pats 19
      Broncs 9

      Zona 19
      Cats 35

      1. Thanks buddy, you have convinced me. Today is my beautiful ballerina ( literally) wife’s 30th birthday and we had a pre celebration last night. I’m 59 but thanks to the miracles of modern medical science she is stiil abed and probably somewhat tender but I am up and running.

        Pats Broncs based upon Manning playing the entire game. If manning gets “hurt” early then:

        Pats 24
        Broncs 20

        Manning going out changes the dynamics measureabley. Manning has had a great run but he is done and is a shadow of himself. it is embarrassing to watch him play. His dad Archie should make him face reality. It will be a shame if he insists on playing next year. All the greats hate to hang it up but he is 2 years past the point where he could leave gracefully like some did.

        AIkman began to trip over his own feet in the pocket while he still had a rocket arm and left while the memory of his superior play was still foremost in people’s mind when they thought of Troy Aikman. It’s sad to watch someone like Manning try to hang on.

        1. …beautiful ballerina ( literally) wife’s…

          That comment is worthless without pictures!

      2. Patriots lost. No Super Bowl this year for that dirty cheater brady.

    2. 5 o’clock somewhere, my friend.

  13. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  14. I saw the headline and I thought, “Richman. It has to be.”

  15. The US Constitution is without question themost important document for protecting individual liberty ever written, Sheldon the Slaver’s pathetic whinging aside. Anybody who denigrates that this (admittedly imperfect) document is in any philisophical sense non-libertarian is at best ignorant of history and at worst looking to take your rights away.

    Shut the fuck up Sheldon, you’re out of your element!

    1. That wasn’t even an argument. It was just a statement followed by ad hominem attacks.

  16. Sheldon has really outdone himself this time.

    Almost all of the issues we have with the federal govt infringing upon liberty is not due to the Constitution being screwed up, but due to obvious misintepretations of the plain text of the document.
    Here a few:
    Commerce Clause; Obviously everyone here understands the fucked up nature of SCOTUS interpretation (famously in Wickard v. Fillburn, but not beginning with this). Of course, this clause came about because states were trying to put tariffs on other states under the AoC.
    Free speech: The 1A is pretty fucking clear.
    Guns:

    1. (Sorry accidentally submitted)
      Guns: the 2A is very clear, particularly in context of the language used at the time. In addition, most of the founders have speeches or letters on the record which clearly indicate that every citizen should be armed.
      Eminant Domain: Again blame the SCOTUS for saying a city could take from one private citizen to give to another.
      Civil Asset Forfeiture: Nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that the govt should have the power to do that.
      Slavery: The founders included the 3/5 compromise to keep the southern states in the intial union, while trying to reduce their power. In addition, there is the amendment process which was used to correct this.

      I guess if one is an anarchist, then any government is bad. But ours is the best example of the attempt to limit government to a few important functions. I am sure with hindsight we can think of ways to improve it. But comparing the real document to some fictional “perfect” ideal is just bullshit.

      1. It’s amazing how many people insist on remaining obtuse about the 1A and 2A. Imagine if those amendments did not exist at all.

  17. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  18. The problem with anarchism is that libertarians have chosen to attack the state – a coercive monopoly – as government which leaves no real choice left other than the concept on anarchism.

    This is totally wrong, They should attack the the state/coercivive monopoly and leave the concept of government for their own view of how society should be ruled.

    This makes far more sense to me.

    1. Government doesn’t have to be coercive. In fact coercive government is tyrannical. The proper function of government is to defend individual negative liberty with the retaliatory use of force. That form of government is not tyrannical.

      1. I like it, but Rothbard (and many others) no longer call it “government” at that point. If there are no taxes and no initiations of force, it’s not government anymore.

  19. Wow. My first Sheldon article I’ve clicked on. And my last. So many inaccuracies in this article. How the hell did he get a gig at Reason writing steaming piles of shit like this?? He’s an 8th grader isn’t he??

    1. I play drinking games with his articles.

      1. I’m just shocked that he avoided somehow blaming Israel!

        JOOoOoOoOooozzzz!

        /Sheldon derp

        1. Yes, in Sheldon’s pathetic mind, Israel is somehow behind any deficiencies in the constitution. Maybe he thinks they eventually use a time machine or something.

        2. Next Week on the Sheldon Comedy Hour: Sheldon explains how the Elders of Zion brainwashed the Founding Fathers into writing a Constitution with a strong executive so that, two hundred years later, the strong executive could be used to prop up the state of Israel!

          Also: Listen to Sheldon explain how the U.S. and Iraeli governments invented the Monroe Doctrine as an excuse to murder Palestinians!

          All on next week’s Sheldon Comedy Hour! Don’t miss it!

      2. Dear God, man! Do you want to die?

        1. I will die by the rules of my own stupid law, damnit.

  20. The Bill of Rights was a deliberate fraud [for political gain].

    “….The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law on Sept.24th. 1789, while the Bill of Rights did not leave congress until the next day,Sept 25th 1789.

    Keep in mind that the same people who passed the Judiciary Act into immediate law of the land status, were, at the exact same time busy putting the final touches on a document [the Bill of Rights] which they knew had to be ratified by the individual states before it ever [if ever!]became law . That ratification of the Bill of Rights took almost 2 years.

    That means that for almost two years before the Bill of Rights ever went into effect, a Federal law was in operation that already, pre-emptively, granted “supreme” power to the Supreme court to ultimately decide what both it and the constitution actually “meant”….”

    See: “The Bill of Rights Scam – [aka The 1789 Judiciary Act Scam] ”
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters…..-scam.html

    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. Fuck off spammer.

    2. We haven’t had a new wacky conspiracy in a while, but ?

      Federal law was in operation that already, pre-emptively, granted “supreme” power to the Supreme court to ultimately decide what both it and the constitution actually “meant”….”

      Umm, later confirmed in the 9th amendment. which both houses had ALREADY passed (the dates here are a lie) This conspiracy smells like the phony federalism of Ron Paul and southern racists ? who deny the 9th Amendment, thus defending the supremacy of government over the people.

      The 9th addressed a fear that rights be FALSELY limited to only those enumerated in the Constitution. So unenumerated rights (Jeffersons’s unalienabe rights) were reserved to the people ? which exposes Ron Paul ‘s claim that government power is superior to unalienable rights!!

      Both houses had passed the amendments. But submitting WITHOUT the 9th would pose a threat to all unenumerated rights. They had no idea if and when the states would ratify. (States ratified only 10 of 13 submitted.) So they passed the Judiciary Act, THEN submitted to states. .duh

      Liberty deniers also bitch that Marbury v Madison, establishing judicial review, was an abuse of power by the Judiciary. But the founders had already established judicial review BEFORE submitting the Bill of Rights, as onebornfree tells us while shooting Ron Paul in the foot!

      1. You simply cannot post any kind of lengthy comment without attacking one of the Pauls, can you? Did someone named Paul kill your dog when you were young?

        1. Did someone named Paul kill your dog when you were young?

          No offense, but you may not understand the issue. How does denying the 9th Amendment NOT place government power above individual rights?.

          It’s more appropriate here than almost anywhere, since the context is why the 9th Amendment is more important than the 10th. Only the 9th was critical enough to delay submission. By comparison the 10th is mere bookkeeping. If the 9th is maintained, the 10th has very little relevance. No powers can exist, at ANY level, which have never been delegated, which Paulists don’t know (as you confirm here).

          Then again, I oppose Obama which, of course, makes me a racist.

          1. No, you’re right. Correcting identifying what the 9th amendment says would actually completely abolish any government as all governments are made up only out of the rights of the people. Any claim that the rights of the people could remain complete and government could still exist is laughable.

            Do the Pauls understand that? IDK, but they don’t talk about it, and neither does anyone else in Washington. Hence, the amount of people who agree with me in politics is precisely zero, if they claim that government does anything except trample upon the rights of its people.

            1. Any claim that the rights of the people could remain complete and government could still exist is laughable.

              Hardly the issue.

              Do the Pauls understand that?

              A Mantra

              IDK, but they don’t talk about it,

              Many times here alone http://www.ontheissues.org/201…..Rights.htm

              Even as psycho as this:

              This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right.

              (LOL) In a Constitution ratified by those same states. Crazy as a loom.

              When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.”

              Ron Paul defends slavery (again)..

              and neither does anyone else in Washington.

              You’re kidding, right.? Hundreds spew some versions of these.

              1) All powers not expressly enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states.
              2) States can do whatever they want/

              … if they claim that government does anything except trample upon the rights of its people.

              Never studied US History?

              In 1957, Gov. Orval Faubus used armed force to stop 9 black kids from enrolling at Little Rock’s Central High School. Eisenhower sent in federal troops, ordered to use force if necessary.

              Ron stands with Faubus. Do you?

              1. In order:

                It’s precisely the issue. If the 9th means anything, it’s that the people retain their rights, and the government cannot exist without them.

                Interestingly enough, Paul doesn’t reference the 9th anywhere in that link. Good try though. But again, if the 9th means anything, it means that the people, or an association of people (such as a state), could leave the Union. And no, that doesn’t defend slavery, anymore than you do by defending muslims (quite often).

                Next, no-one in Washington talks about the 9th. Go re-read what I’d wrote.

                Lastly, even when government looks like it may be defending rights, it only first does so through taxation, which is a massive attack on rights. Ergo, even when it looks to be doing good, it’s still doing evil, though perhaps less evil than it could be doing.

                I’m an An-Cap. I stand against government and all other aggression.

  21. The problem with your whole “the constitution sucks” bullshit, is that I just can’t think of anything better than the constitution.

    So, there. Neener neener.

  22. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    Click This Link inYour Browser……._+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Paybucket40.com

  23. One more whining pessimist, with no sense of history. For this to have any meaning at all, we must compare our Constitution with the state of liberty at the time, not a 21st century purity list.

    Unless Richman wants an emperor, as so many purists do, we celebrate the progress we make, however small, in persuading a governing majority in the right direction. Or go live on a deserted island. More liberty, but a better life? Our choice, If we want the benefits of living in a dynamic society, then you must accept some form of consensus. Use persuasion instead of whining. And accept the consequences of our own decisions.

    This is the same mentality which says we must condemn America for slavery … even though we ended slavery in less than 100 years, after 2000 years as a human institution. Shame on us for not doing it in 25 years.

    One fundamental tenet of individual liberty is … I don’t have to please some grouchy scold. Shall we also compare the original Roanoke with Galt’s Gulch?. Somehow we evolved beyond Roanoke’s communism (as revealed by Rothbard).

    Yet more evidence of why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

    1. Fascinatingly enough, you’re mostly right here. The Constitution was better than every other ruling document/government at the time, save perhaps the Articles it replaced.

      That being said, what I think Sheldon is talking about here is more along the lines of thus:

      You praise the Constitution because it’s fairly libertarian. What you don’t see is that it was already slipping down the slope towards tyranny, however imperceptibly to us, and that stopping tyranny while trying to stand firm on the slippery slope is an impossible ask.

      1. You think libertarians aren’t aware of that? Is it not a bigger threat when many libertarians deny the 9th Amendment, our only bulwark against overall tyranny? THOSE libertarians are not merely neglectful, they are an explicit enemy.

        1. The best bulwark against tyranny is not mere words on paper, but on arms and our will to use them to protect our right(s).

          The 9th helps, but as we’ve seen with any “protection” of mere words, governmental actors can redefine or ignore those words at will. Hence, you need force of arms to protect yourself against those who would use force of arms against you.

          1. You think libertarians aren’t aware of your original comment?
            “Mere words” have served quite well compared with the rest of the world.
            And without them, an entire police force would kick your ass into next week.
            You’d could need a bunker to defend your home.
            And how many would agree with you about releasing all the felons from prison?

            1. “And without them, an entire police force would kick your ass into next week.”

              Molon Labe

              “You’d could need a bunker to defend your home.”

              I’d just need to kill enough of those attacking it to convince the remainder that it was no longer worth their lives.

              “And how many would agree with you about releasing all the felons from prison?”

              Justice = repayment. Ergo, make the aggressor pay back for what they’ve done, to the victim, and there is nothing else to hold them for. Either way, that is much better than the current system of “justice”

  24. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    ???????========[] http://www.Jobstribune.com

  25. Largely, yes, Sheldon.
    As you stated prior, their intent was not for a ruling aristocracy, but for a stable central view. One neither necessitates nor causes the other–Though abuses of the latter for the former exist, the likelihood of the latter from the former are slim.
    They were imperfect men, spawned of very imperfect cultural and political histories; and struck compromises miraculously sufficient for their day, and from their day’s resources and experience. To wit: lawful protections and defense for all. Without some federal strength, and ignoring the slave phase, God knows what a few states might have tried to pull-off.
    I submit that adherence to the subject document would result in the greatest possible protection of personal liberty possible.
    Democracy is mob force. Libertarians should avoid its voluntary use a descriptor for anything else.

  26. It’s sad how folks call anarchy chaos, and that it is a pipe dream, or even simplistic. All while saying 535 plus “Top Men” surrounded by standing armies will somehow limit their power, and work to ensure all are free.

    Chaos is government, not anarchy. Because where there is no substantial (or none at all) political involvement, free people provide products and services effectively, efficiently, all without the chaos and violence of the state.

    Shoes, watches, computers, jewelry, clothing, electronics, the UL, many building materials, computer desks, furniture, snow shovelling, photography, weddings, televisions, private security, the internet, driveway and parking lot paving, private arbitration………..when has there been a shoe shortage or crisis, or a TV crisis, or a wedding hall shortage and crisis, and so on for what was previously mentioned? How long did these crisis last?

    Meanwhile, everything the government tries to control or intervene in, winds up in crisis, or chaos followed by violence. The view that these top men are capable of securing and protecting liberty, or that they someday will follow that piece of paper, and give up the powers they grant themselves while ignoring that document is the real pipe dream.

    1. It’s sad how folks call anarchy chaos, and that it is a pipe dream, or even simplistic. All while saying 535 plus “Top Men” surrounded by standing armies will somehow limit their power, and work to ensure all are free.

      Of the two, anarchy may not be a pipe dream. It just makes no sense at all.
      America would be a sitting duck for invasion by even a small force, My property could be seized by any thug who could overpower me, and best of all … how would the anarchy be implemented without the will of the people?

      1. Nonsense. Your belief that there would be no protection is without any historical basis for an argument in favor of a violent coercive monopoly “providing protection”. The confidcate more than they protect, and are really terrible at their job.

        What if “the will of the people” decided you should no longer own your property, and that it belongs to the state. When you can’t pay your property taxes, armed thugs will be there to take it away from you. How is that any different?

        Private security in Detroit is a prime example of protection provided, even to individuals that cannot afford it. That is without the extortion, and violence that the state uses.

        Because you can’t fathom other individuals being free, you wish to impose the state upon everyone. That is until it comes down on you, and it’s too late for you.

        It would be very difficult to invade a place where individuals are well defended. The private production of defense can be handled through insurance companies, and security companies that already exist, and have shown tgeir effectiveness and efficiency time and time again.

        1. without any historical basis for an argument in favor of a violent coercive monopoly “providing protection”.

          Several thousand years.

          The confidcate more than they protect?

          Evasive

          What if “the will of the people” decided you should no longer own your property,..

          Evasive. How would the amendment be ratified?

          When you can’t pay your property taxes, armed thugs will be there to take it away from you.

          Evasive. Irrelevant.

          Private security in Detroit is a prime example of protection ?.

          Evasion. And they suck off the police.

          you can’t fathom other individuals being free,

          Insults confirm being incapable of supporting a position.

          you wish to impose the state upon everyone.

          Bullshit. Intimidation .

          and it’s too late for you.

          The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

          It would be very difficult to invade a place where individuals are well defended.

          By whom? I’ve been asking for almost 50 years.

          The private production of defense can be handled through insurance companies

          Like car insurance eliminates traffic accidents?

          , and security companies that already exist, and have shown their effectiveness and efficiency time and time again.

          When? Ever?

        2. Private security in Detroit is a prime example of protection provided, even to individuals that cannot afford it.

          You are obviously a paid shill of OCP.

        3. Yes, there is no historical basis for Anarchial Studies. I wonder why that is…. You should, too.

    2. That’s why Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every 20 years or so.

  27. Government is a fiction, where individuals can advocate extortion, and violence, while being shielded from consequenses by their benevolent politicians and standing armies as they convince enough individuals to vote for them, thereby being able to steal the liberty and property of others with their “votes”. Any refusal to obey, or revoke any consent to be governed will be met with violence.

    1. Just restrict it’s authority to the the retaliatory use of force. Problem solved.

      1. Problem solved

        Everyone is a millionaire. Poverty solved.
        No more cancer. It’s gone.
        No more war. Hey, this is fun.

        1. Non sequiters.

          1. You reciting words did not solve the problem as you claim.
            It’s hardly that easy.

      2. That is a terrible idea, and it is shown now how they can’t handle the ise of force as it is. There have been over 70+ interventions/invasions into other places since WW2 alone. And most of thise had nothing to do with protecting and defending liberty.

        For you to want top men, who can’t handle foreign policy, or even get a handle on the defense budget, which has been ongoing since the USS Constitution, to have the power to do as they please, is bo solution. If tgey wrote on a piece of paper, that these top men were limited in what they can do, they will not, as they haven’t been with the Constitution, obey such restrictions or limitations. They care not for what the individual says, nor care for any restrictions, else most of the interventions would never have happened.

        How you would want inefficiency, waste and abuse, instead of efficiency and effectiveness through free voices and choices of individuals in the market just doesn’t coincide with liberty at all.

        1. You do understand all that requires the INITIATORY use of force? You do understand the difference between the two?

        2. How you would want inefficiency, waste and abuse, instead of efficiency and effectiveness through free voices and choices of individuals in the market just doesn’t coincide with liberty at all.

          How you would equate a security guard at warehouse with defending an entire nation from invasion hardly values liberty at all.

    2. Government is a fiction,

      Does our military know this? Do you pay taxes to a fiction?

      where individuals can advocate extortion, and violence, while being shielded from consequenses by their benevolent politicians and standing armies as they convince enough individuals to vote for them, thereby being able to steal the liberty and property of others with their “votes”. Any refusal to obey, or revoke any consent to be governed will be met with violence.

      1) Corruption has existed since well before government.
      2) You have yet to support a credible alternative.

      1. First, there is a credible alternative with the free market. Again, free individuals engaging in markets free from the coercive state do very well, and don’t miraculously suffer crisis and chaos. So, when was the last watch, shoe, clothing, computer, or internet crisis…..and how long dis it last?

        As for the military, did you ever bother serving, and witness first hand how horrid contracting, procurement, and equipment acceptance policy is?

        So any claim of yours that somehow such an institution can be more efficient and effective than the private production of defense, is baseless and bot supported by history either (note private shipbuilding and the privateers). Why don’t you read “the myth of national defense” and (revisit if you served) spend some time in the military to see for yourself.

        So, why not extort your neighbor. Tell them you are defending them, and they must pay or else you’ll take their home. You wouldnt do it because you’d probably face dire consequenses. Yet you have no problem advocating the state engage in the same, because others will use force, coercion and violence on your behalf.

        As for a look into anarchy, and how long these societies lasted, you can look to ancient Ireland, and Medieval Iceland.

        1. First, there is a credible alternative with the free market.

          That;’s funny, but You evaded the issues here. https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_5853796

          Again, free individuals engaging in markets free from the coercive state do very well, and don’t miraculously suffer crisis and chaos.

          Already told you why it would fail and you failed to respond/

          So, when was the last watch, shoe, clothing, computer, or internet crisis…..and how long dis it last?

          How often does ISIL attack shoe stores on your planet?

          As for the military, did you ever bother serving, and witness first hand how horrid contracting, procurement, and equipment acceptance policy is?

          Still evading.

          So any claim of yours that somehow such an institution can be more efficient and effective than the private production of defense,

          If I was crazy enough to do so.

          So, why not extort your neighbor. Tell them you are defending them, and they must pay or else you’ll take their home.

          Relevance?

          Yet you have no problem advocating the state engage in the same, because others will use force, coercion and violence on your behalf.

          Cut the bullshit. Go back and address my original fact. PLEASE more than memorized soundbites,

          1. What facts have you provided? “I already told you it would fail”, without providing anything of significance is not a fact. Maybe they can be addressed if you provide them. You brought up ISIL, which has been a result of an interventionist foreign policy. What are you trying to get at?

            You extorting your neighbors is very relevant to this discussion. It is taking your beliefs of the state, and how it should be imposed upon others through violence if necessary, and attempting to engage in that behavior by your lonesome. You find it very difficult to engage in those acts if an individual was capable of defending themselves. Just because you don’t want to learn self defense yourself, or believe that agents of the state, that are funded through extortion, and that in many cases follow “law” that contradicts liberty, doesn’t mean it should be forced upon those wgo wish to be free, and choose services that are more efficient, and far less violent.

            Liberals that call themselves compassionate, should be called out for what they really support, that being confiscating the property of others, taking their liberty and ultimately violence against others through the state.

            1. If someone says they support freedom and liberty, but advocate various things that are antithetical to it, the same should be said no? I do believe it’s easier to strengthen one’s support for real deal freedom and liberty with someone like yourself, than it is a liberal who’s makeup is mostly that of violence.

              It’s too bad Reason doesn’t have a forum, where we can get more in depth with our discussions.

              1. If someone says they support freedom and liberty, but advocate various things that are antithetical to it, the same should be said no?

                Evasion.

                I do believe it’s easier to strengthen one’s support for real deal freedom and liberty with someone like yourself, than it is a liberal who’s makeup is mostly that of violence.

                But you apparently believe you can evade the issues.

                It’s too bad Reason doesn’t have a forum, where we can get more in depth with our discussions.

                Like dealing with the fucking issues?

            2. What facts have you provided?

              I just gave you a link. And you responded by evading the issues.

              “I already told you it would fail”, without providing anything of significance is not a fact.

              “Already” means previously. The link. Stop stalling.

              Maybe they can be addressed if you provide them.

              The link. Still evading.

              What are you trying to get at?

              The issues you’re evading.

              You extorting your neighbors is very relevant to this discussion.

              It’s kinda wacky. And I’ve been hearing it for 40 years. And you’re evading.

              (Ignored: A barrage of new memorized soundbites, all as evasions)

              Or… since you say our military defense can be provided by private security guards.
              1) Who employs them?
              2) How are they paid?.
              3) If we each hire our own, they’d be scattered all over America. ……
              4) So ….

            3. You brought up ISIL, which has been a result of an interventionist foreign policy

              I know the cause. The ISIL reference was in response to yet another irrelevant analogy … that you refuse to answer One mote time:

              Vampiee: So, when was the last watch, shoe, clothing, computer, or internet crisis…..and how long did it last?

              How often does ISIL attack shoe stores on your planet?

              Boldface on what you keep evading and misrepresenting I understand completely why you keep running away from national defense, evading, changing the topic … but all the insults are uncalled for.

              1. Who’s running away from national defense? You failed to even realize that the private production of security is more effective than what the gov’t provides. This was also shown by a GOVT study priv. security was more effective than the TSA.

                Aside from that, private security in detroit, and many other places show the same results.

                I also brought up the privateers, which you just ignored, as it doesnt fit your narrative. These privately build ships were more efficient, and effective than gov’t ships, by capturing more prizes, and doing it less violently. They didn’t face the cost overruns, and procurement issues that the USS Constitution faced. And by the way, the current DOD still faces the PHENOMENOM of cost overruns, CPF contracting, horrid equipment acceptance policy, etc.

                1. Ships would pay premiums for protection, or provide it themselves which they currently are unable to do because of government restrictions. The whole MV Maersk Alabama taken hostage by Somali pirates showed how creating gun free zones on ships leads to disaster. Inefficient navies through a task force were set up to combat them, but this could have been handled through the market instead. Why should individuals be extorted to provide the protection of private ships that should do so on their own. Armed private security was finally allowed on private ships. The job of protection could have been done by privateers hired to protect them, who had a stellar record prior to being banned by the Paris Declaration.

                  1. And just to address “shoe stores” and other free areas of the economy, they arent going overseas and destabilizing regions through their interventions, or forcing their ideas on how to make shoes through violence.

                  2. Ships would pay premiums for protection,

                    First we see TOTAL confusion between air passenger inspections and military defense.

                    Now we see confusion between being reimbursed for the loss of a ship (insurance) with preventing the fucking loss.

                    The rest is more of the same.
                    ———–
                    Wave a magic wand. chanting “private markets are already are always better.
                    Why
                    Just because they are. silly one. YOU would enslave Americans to a coercive government.
                    What would you do?
                    Introduce free markets and competition!!!
                    ———-
                    You decide. Is this even wackier than Medicare Vouchers?

                    (Boldface to expose and defend from aggression and insults by)

                2. Who’s running away from national defense?

                  Ummmm. you. Four times. Now we see why you’re afraid to answer..

                  You failed to even realize

                  Wait for it …..

                  that the private production of security is more effective than what the gov’t provides. This was also shown by a GOVT study priv. security was more effective than the TSA.

                  Now you’ve equated the TSA wiith … America’s military forces.
                  We can defend America from incoming invasion …. with body scans of OUTGOING passengers!

                  I’ve been trying to extract the massive logical flaw by SOME anarchists. We all saw it.
                  Private security is more effective than TSA (yawn)
                  Which proves a private military is better than a government military!
                  We finally get a response. FAIL!

                  Following all the sneering and insults.

                  “Private sector is superior … I have no idea why … but I BELIEVE!

                  Moving on …

                  1. Vampire, called out on military defense, “responds”:

                    “So, when was the last watch, shoe, clothing, computer, or internet crisis…..and how long did it last?”

                    Makes NO sense, so I challenge and restate DEFENSE:
                    “How many shore stores has ISIL attacked…?”

                    Still doesn’t get it!

                    And just to address “shoe stores” and other free areas of the economy, they arent going overseas and destabilizing regions through their interventions, or forcing their ideas on how to make shoes through violence.

                    After six evasive responses, we FINALLY extract FAILS
                    1) Confuses military defense and air passenger inspections
                    2) Confuses reimbursing a loss (insurance) and preventing a loss
                    3) Confuses military defense with military aggression.

                    Total fail on military defense.
                    Total fail on who defends my home from attack by anyone who can overpower me.

                    (I defended anarchists and minarchists having a voice in the early Libertarian Party.
                    But they, like all libertarians, must swallow the goddamn arrogance. in a free society, they/we will be just one of MANY voluntary communities ? defended by the same central government they bitch about the founders. failing to create DUH)

                    (Tone and boldface responding to repeated aggression and insults)

                  2. The only person ignoring the effectiveness of private defense, and private security is you. I provided historical, as well as current examples. No one is trying to misconstrue private security, nor defense. Just you. That is why separate examples in both areas were given by me.

                    If you wish to ignore history, and the effectiveness of free individuals engaging in free markets that’s fine.

                    “”Private sector is superior … I have no idea why … but I BELIEVE”. ” is a prime example of your deflections and nonsense. You never addressed or countered the information provided. No wonder no one here takes you seriously.

                    1. Birthers ain’t the only ones suffering severe denial

                      You never addressed or countered the information provided.

                      (sigh) THIS is why I use boldface …. all so many of those times.!!!

                      Get a life. Stop stalking me..

                    2. You telling people to get a life? You seem to hate yours, and yourself by the way you post.

                    3. You telling people to get a life?

                      Instead of all the blatant lies, denials and insults/

                      You seem to hate yours, and yourself by the way you post.

                      More personal insults?

                      My goodwill has expired. I’m calling you out. The comment software does not allow me to document all your falsehoods and denials in one comment.. One at a time, which of your blunders do you now deny saying?

                      1) You equated the military defense of America with … airline passenger searches.
                      2) You first equated shoe stores to national defense. Then, when challenged. with defense AGAIN stipulated, you somehow equated a shoe store committing foreign INTERVENTION with military DEFENSE.
                      3) You equated insurance reimbursement for a sunken ship with preventing the attack

                      You have now, in TEN postings, REFUSED to provide a credible description of a national defense with no military .. and REFUSED to even address the safety of my house. You cannot defend my house. Cannot defend our country. Can only recite soundbites that have no bearing.

                      TWELFTH REQUEST HOW WOULD YOU PROVIDE A MILITARY DEFENSE?
                      Repeated babbling that a private army would be better, without NO example or explanation..
                      HOW WOULD I DEFEND MY HOME FROM ANYONE WHO CAN OVERPOWER ME?..

                      (tone and boldface in defense of repeated aggression.)

                    4. Not sure why I bother, but here you go Hihn.

                      1) No I didn’t, airline security, falls under airline security. That would be funded and provided by the airlines. Is your reading comprehension that bad?

                      2) Shoe stores, and other things basically free from gov’t involvement are examples of areas of the market that perform well without crisis, shortages and so on. It shows how the market is able to handle complex things without “top men”.

                      3) Wow, what nonsense. Were you unable to comprehend what Privateers were, and their stellar performance in their jobs, and also the ability of private merchants to build ships more efficiently than what the ships of the gov’t could do? This is well documented, something you refuse to see as again, it doesnt fit your narrative. So looking at the already successful private production of defense through privateers, corsairs, it’s not gard to deduce how the private production of defense would work. There are far more detailed writings available if you bothered to step out of your comfort zone.

                      4). Someone supposedly so liberty minded shouldn’t even be asking how they would defend their home. Fists, feet, and other means of defense are available. If you can’t handle that, then you would pay for private security that could be rolled into your homeowners insurance, or through a security company where you would receive a bill, just like any other service. Do you seriously not know how the market functions?

                    5. Part 1 of 2 Why would he replace national defense with TSA passenger searches?

                      1) No I didn’t, airline security, falls under airline security. That would be funded and provided by the airlines. Is your reading comprehension that bad?

                      (lol) At this link ( emphasis added):

                      http://bitly.com/20ssjoV
                      Who’s running away from national defense? You failed to even realize that the private production of security is more effective than what the gov’t provides. This was also shown by a GOVT study priv. security was more effective than the TSA

                      He continues ?

                      2) Shoe stores, and other things basically free from gov’t involvement are examples of areas of the market that perform well without crisis, shortages and so on. It shows how the market is able to handle complex things without “top men”.

                      “Even privately-owned shoes stores can better defend America, you coercion-loving statist” (gasp)

                      looking at the already successful private production of defense through privateers, corsairs, it’s not hard to deduce how the private production of defense would work.

                      “I don’t need no steeeenking explanation

                      There are far more detailed writings available if you bothered to step out of your comfort zone

                      This is why we’re ridiculed.

                      See Part 2

                    6. Part Two. How Vampire would defend private property, like our homes, and against violence.

                      4). Someone supposedly so liberty minded shouldn’t even be asking how they would defend their home.

                      The liberty-minded just KNOW!
                      Repeats (4th time) that private insurance reimbursement better protects theft and violence:.

                      Fists, feet, and other means of defense are available. If you can’t handle that, then you would pay for private security that could be rolled into your homeowners insurance, or through a security company where you would receive a bill, just like any other service. Do you seriously not know how the market functions?

                      SEE!
                      VAMPIRE WOULD PROTECT OUR WIVES AND MOTHERS FROM RAPE WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE, dummies!

                      STILL unanswered.
                      What if we’d insured Pearl Harbor from attack?
                      Who would we buy the insurance from?
                      Who would HIRE and PAY TSA to provide national defense?

                      Only a liberty-hating traitor would DARE question private ownership. so he don’t need no answers, No, this is not an isolated puppet. Look closely and much liberty’s defense now comes from free market slogans and soundbites …. to voters

                      (My self-defense against non-stop aggression, lies, denial and stalking, now 14 occasions)

                    7. Vampire,
                      How much would it cost to buy a private insurance policy against foreign invasion? (Instead of a military defense?)
                      What if we’d insured Peal Harbor from attack?
                      Who would we buy the insurance from/
                      Who would hire and train a private army?
                      How would they be paid?
                      (Still waiting…..)

                    8. I provided historical, as well as current examples.

                      Not on this page, that made a lick of sense/

  28. A Sheldon article and no mention about Israel? I’m shocked!

    “But they did not lose the war over the kind of national government the United States would have for a good part, at least, of the next century.

    So the Constitution managed to hold government in check for almost a century and you see it as somehow anti-liberty? Maybe if little Sheldon would read more history he would realize what an accomplishment this is. Someone please remind Sheldon what number republic France is up to now.

    1. Oui oui: Fifth Republic plus more than a half dozen non-numbered iterations. C’est bon, non?

      *twirls mustache and resumes condescending expression

  29. The solution is simple.

    Amendment 28

    Articale 1
    No person may initiate the use of force, threats of force or fraud against any other person’s self or property.

    Article 2
    Force may be used against those who violate Article 1.

    1. IceTrey|
      The solution is simple.

      Amendment 28

      Wow! And I see you made it effective immediately!!
      And to think it’s been there in the Quran for two thousand years (headslap)

      1. And to think it’s been there in the Quran for two thousand years (headslap)

        That’s amazing!! Particularly when you know that the Quran didn’t exist 2000 years ago!!!

        D’oh!(facepalm)

        1. hahaha Thanks, Azathoth! Typo. But we can’t edit here.
          Apologies for my screwup.

      2. Well, it’s also said in Luke 22:36-38 approx 1985 years ago.

        1. You’ll have to explain what taking a purse, a bag and buying a sword has anything to do with my post.

          1. I was responding to Hihn concerning self-defense.

            1. I was responding to Hihn concerning self-defense

              But you were wrong. And Ice Trey’s question showed you why.

              1. No, I wasn’t. You simply cannot see Scripture that violates your hateful worldview. Ergo, you are a “blind guide” and will lead your followers into a pit (Matthew 15:14).

                1. Too fucking stupid to know that ice trey quoted the scripture verse you cited.
                  to show if is the wrong verse!!!
                  As Christ weeps in silent shame

                  1. I know what it says. It says you’ll have to defend yourselves (with swords). I’m sorry you cannot comprehend that which defies your preconceptions.

                    1. Like so many phony Christians, he refuses to accept his ignorance of holy scripture. This is the fourth time I’ve cited Scripture …. while the anti-Christ REFUSES to go beyond insults..
                      Proven: Jesus explicitly rejects self-defense … including “an eye for an eye

                      Matthew 5:38 (emphasis added)
                      8″You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39″But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40″If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

                      Here’s an actual link to confirm the stalker’s claim as a lie.

                      http://bitly.com/1lMbZ2I

                      For his part, the anti-Christ REFUSES to post his false claim with a link ,,, instead resorting to personal insults … What would Jesus say?

                    2. If you want, you can keep on rattling off Matthew 5:38-42 ad nauseam, literally until you vomit; it will not change that Luke 22:36-38 exists. This proves that Christ wanted his followers to defend themselves against deadly attacks. On top of that, the parable of the tenants shows that Christ will defend justice, aka repayment, for deadly attacks as well.

                      And yes, I refuse to link to my Scripture, because everyone here has access to Google.

                      Keep on making the Christian look smarter and the atheist look more stupid. No skin off my nose.

                    3. More aggression by the vicar of Lucifer. (ace_m82)
                      With insufferable arrogance STILL refuses to post his verse OR a link, and disgrace himself further)

                      And yes, I refuse to link to my Scripture, because everyone here has access to Google.

                      “I HAVE THE HOLINESS OF CHRIST,” SAYS THE BLASPHEMER. “LOOK IT UP YOURSELF, SWINE

                      The anti-Christ says Jesus NEVER opposed self-defense. Christ did so here:

                      Matthew 5:38 (emphasis added)
                      “I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40″If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

                      Lucifer’s lie proven here:

                      http://bitly.com/1lMbZ2I

                      “Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
                      -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers”

                      Throughout human history, the biggest lies and the worst abuses have been committed by those who believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.

                      Shaming Christ in the name of Christ
                      What would Jesus say?

                      (posted in defense of repeated aggressions, now over 20, by a bullying stalker)

                    4. Calling me Satan? Classy. Yes, any reader, even you Hihn, can look up Luke 22:36-38 yourself. Any reader, even you Hihn, can look up the 3 gospels that contain the parable of the tenants. And no, it’s not “aggression” to show you that you’re wrong.

                      Lie, I told you the 2 versions of “self-defense” that were possible. If you mean the version against insults and slaps, then yes, Christ told his followers not to exercise their right to defend themselves. In Luke 22:36-38 he told them to carry swords, because they’d need them (to defend themselves). This is not hard to understand unless one is so blind he cannot see.

                      Please, keep calling what I do “aggression”. It proves even more that you are wrong and that I am right, and therefore Christ is LORD.

                    5. ace’s lies and denials trace to the beginning:

                      http://bitly.com/1OQFJ94

                      Key elements;

                      *ace_m82: Well, it’s also said in Luke 22:36-38 approx 1985 years ago.

                      Ice-trey calls out ace:

                      *IceTrey You’ll have to explain what taking a purse, a bag and buying a sword has anything to do with my post

                      lies and evasion begins

                      *ace_m82 “I was responding to Hihn concerning self-defense.

                      (lol) I responded to ice-trey’s comment on …. SELF-DEFENSE.
                      ace has now repeated his lies and denials 26 times!

                      He REFUSES to explain his scripture, so I will (gasp)
                      The Last Supper and includes this:

                      He approached Jesus to kiss him,48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
                      49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
                      51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!”

                      HELLO? Jesus forbade them defending even Him!
                      Like the lying televangelists (a minority), ace extracts a segment, lies about context, and REFUSES to explain. Manipulated by his faith

                      This atheist knows the Bible better than ace because: I can’t be suckered for my faith, so ?. Wait for it ??.
                      I read the Bible myself (gasp)

                      STOP STALKING ME
                      The thug will continue stalking me

                      (posted in defense of repeated aggression)

                    6. Yes, you are capable of deep linking to this line of comments. It proves only what you don’t want it to prove.

                      Ice-trey responded to a comment of mine, one he (apparently) incorrectly thought was in response to him. If I thought you capable of it, I’d say you’re purposely obfuscating to make yourself look less wrong by confusing the reader.

                      What does Luke 22:36-38 say? Do you have any idea? Have you ignored it this long? Or (more likely) have you looked it up, realized that it blew your idea out of the water, and have been whining and stomping your feet like a spoiled toddler?

                      I have explained the Scripture several times. You apparently cannot see what you don’t want to.

                      Yes, you quoted Scripture. What you miss, either through ignorance or through malice, is the Matthew version of this account where this quote is found:

                      Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

                      You see, Christ did prevent his disciples from defending him. Why? Because he came to die! In fact, Christ told them that he could defend himself, but had chosen not to!

                      So, Luke 22:36-38 still applies. Also, the parable of the tenants still applies. There is the right to self-defense, though like my Savior, I can choose not to exercise my right to it (Luke 22:36-38).

                      Calling me a “thug”, “stalker”, and “liar” simply helps prove my point. Thank you!

                      Keep up the good work of helping me spread God’s truth!

                    7. Hihn, you may try the bit of advice given to the man who was trying to get out of the hole in the ground:

                      “Stop digging!”

                    8. You’re a documented liar, six times on this page.
                      And showing how wacky are the extreme socons.
                      (snicker)

                    9. A “liar” by your definition is someone who has more information than you do and uses it to prove you wrong. So yes, I’m a “liar”.

                      Still digging…

                    10. Also, I’m an An-Cap, not a So-Con. I do “A” because “A” is right, according to my Lord Jesus Christ. The only thing I ask of the unbeliever is to refrain from aggressing. And yes, if you aggress against others or against me (at least, more than a slap), I may enact my right to self-defense or justice.

                      Veritas Liberabit Vos.

        2. Well, it’s also said in Luke 22:36-38 approx 1985 years ago.

          There’s no self defense there. Christ condemns self defense, demands worse than capitulation, and denies Islamic Law.

          Matthew 5:38 (emphasis added)
          8″You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39″But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40″If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.?

          Does ANY element of that exist in ANY western legal/judicial system?

          1. Again, I’ve already proven you wrong here, and you simply quit posting last time I did.

            A slap on the cheek is an insult, similar to the traditional way one started a duel (clap with a glove). He told them not to slap back.

            But in Luke 22:36-38 (summarizing) he says that he was with them and protecting them last time he sent them out. But now, he leaves this world, and not only will you have to take provisions, you’ll also have to provide for your own defense (the swords).

            Don’t act like you can lecture me what my Lord says. I know it better than you do as I’ve been studying it my entire life in love and devotion and you’ve been skimming it as you like to try to find out just why you hate it so much. Love wins.

            Now, in the words of the great CS Lewis, “Don’t talk damned* nonsense.”

            *Meaning, literally, damned.

            1. I’ve already proven you wrong here,

              (lol)

              A slap on the cheek is an insult,

              Like a kick in the nuts?

              He told them not to slap back.

              I’ll put it in boldface. Again.

              YOU CALL THIS SELF-DEFENSE.
              1) do not resist an evil person?
              2) If he takes your shirt, give him your robe?

              (Plus the very next verse, below)

              But in Luke 22:36-38

              I proved you wrong. Exact words. No summary. Boldface. Now a link for all to see::
              http://bitly.com/1lMbZ2I

              In the very next verse, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” Ooops!

              Don’t act like you can lecture me what my Lord says.

              An atheist knows the Bible better than you!!!

              I know it better than you do

              Boldface. Link,

              as I’ve been studying it my entire life in love and devotion

              Christ told you not to make a public spectacle of your faith.

              and you’ve been skimming it as you like

              Skimming is better than your lifetime?

              to try to find out just why you hate it so much. Love wins

              Love includes insulting me and lying? As Christ weeps in shame

              “Don’t talk damned* nonsense.”

              When you sunk to lies and insults. I rewrote some of this. Response to your aggression.
              Enough?

              1. You’ve chosen your doom, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

                “YOU CALL THIS SELF-DEFENSE.
                1) do not resist an evil person?
                2) If he takes your shirt, give him your robe?”

                You, not realizing that Christianity is not a system of government, have no idea what you’re reading. He is telling his followers that it is better to wronged and insulted than to ruin your witness, a hard thing to do, to be sure. This is not instruction to unbelievers.

                On the other hand, to deadly attacks, Luke 22:36-38 applies, which is said by the same man, a command to defend yourself. You have no idea how to marry these statements together because you are led by hatred of him and everything he said. Ergo, no-one should ever listen to you. Your hatred has blinded you to obvious truth.

                (Interestingly enough, Christ also talks about repayment justice in the parable of the wicked tenants, found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and we know that repayment justice is just an extension of self-defense…)

                And lastly, you’ve once again fallen into calling a person telling you that you’re wrong, when it’s quite obvious that you are, “aggression”. Which, of course, shows that you don’t know what the word means and you aren’t a libertarian by definition.

                Please, keep responding so I have an excuse to proclaim to any reader more Biblical truth!

                1. ace_m82 defends the Christian Taliban.
                  He claims Christ allowed self-defense, citing the wrog Scripture.
                  I cite the correct verse, and EXPLAIN it:

                  “YOU CALL THIS SELF-DEFENSE.
                  1) do not resist an evil person?
                  2) If he takes your shirt, give him your robe?”

                  Ayatollah cites my ridicule, proving his literacy. Anyone else so confused?
                  1) Ordering AGAINST self defense is NOT self-defense
                  2)Giving a thief MORE than her takes is NOT self-defense
                  But the Ayatollah says:

                  You, not realizing that Christianity is not a system of government,

                  Oh.

                  have no idea whatet you’re reading.

                  If punches ace_m82 in the puss —- self-defense means turning so his ass to get kicked!! …. or YOU don’t know what you’re reading.

                  He is telling his followers that it is better to wronged and insulted than to ruin your witness, a hard thing to do, to be sure.

                  That’s how the Christian Taliban “interprets” Holy Scripture. .

                  This is not instruction to unbelievers.

                  Ahhh, NOW I see. Jesus allows ONLY non-believers to defend themselves from physical assault and theft. Why?
                  Because Christianity is not a form of government.

                  (This is posted in defense of MORE aggression — from a Bible-thumping bully who says we have no self-defense from ?. HIS aggression! ?. As Christ weeps in helpless shame

                  1. As it is now apparent you cannot read, on top of being unable to reason, I don’t precisely know why I am answering the fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26:5).

                    Slapping on the face is more insult than assault. It is something Christians ought not do in return. It is not an order to unbelievers nor is it a ban on actual self-defense for Christians (as evidenced by Luke 22:36-38 as well as the parable of the tenants). Why you would call me “Taliban” for recognizing that Christ holds me to a higher standard than he holds you is further proof of your irrational hatred for the Perfect Man and all he said and did!

                    Christianity is not a form of government. That is evident. If his Kingdom were of this world then his followers would have defended him (John 18:36).

                    Aggression is not defined as “telling Hihn he is wrong when he is”. I know that’s hard for a complete narcissist to understand, but please try.

                    But now the reader knows even more Biblical truth! Please, continue responding!

                    1. ace_m82 defends the Christian Taliban.
                      He claims Christ allowed self-defense, citing the wrong Scripture.
                      I cite the correct verse, and EXPLAIN it:

                      “YOU CALL THIS SELF-DEFENSE.
                      1) do not resist an evil person
                      2) If he takes your shirt, give him your robe?”

                      This link documents the pathetic lie about the Holy Bible

                      Matthew 5:38 (emphasis added)
                      8″You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39″But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40″If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.?

                      http://bitly.com/1lMbZ2I

                      Does ANY element of that exist in ANY western legal/judicial system?

                      (This is posted in defense of MORE aggression — from a Bible-thumping bully who says we have no self-defense from ?. HIS aggression! ?. As Christ weeps in helpless shame)

                      IN THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY GOD, I BEG YOU TO STOP STALKING ME

                    2. Once again, Hihn calls me names for daring to tell the truth. It’s like arguing with a fatherless 8 year old.

                      What he doesn’t understand, or cannot see, is that Christianity is not a system of governance, but a relationship with the Creator. He cannot comprehend, therefore, that Matthew 5:38-42 applies only to followers of Christ and not to unbelievers. And, because it doesn’t fit within his worldview of hate, he doesn’t understand that Christ telling his followers to arm themselves with swords means that they still can defend themselves, but are to simply take insults and small persecutions.

                      Then he proves his lack of understanding by claiming that my defense of mere Christianity is an “aggression” on him and consists “stalking him”; this is one of the most narcissistic things I’ve ever read and that’s quite an accomplishment. So, after showing that he’s unable to take in any information violating his worldview, he is showing that he’s not only intellectually incapable of discussing Scripture, he’s also incapable is comprehending libertarianism, let alone preaching on it.

                      “Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!” Matthew 23:24

                      Please, Hihn, continue your illogical diatribe so I may proclaim more Scripture!

                    3. Hey genius, adding more verses does not negate your shameful lies on the two verses in question. …. beware the militant self-righteous

                      The fallen Christian sinks deeper into the arms of Lucifer … and deceit keeps getting WACKIER. See the sheer desperation here

                      slapping on the face is more insult than assault.

                      FAIL (lol) An atheist STILL knows the Bible better than the anti-Christ. Watch:

                      1) The Bible was translated into English, chump. Why does every single translation pick “slap.” That was pathetic, even from you

                      2) If we accept THAT lame excuse …….. wait for it, Sparky …….. Jesus STILL denies self-defense!! (OMG) “If a man insults you, turn your cheek so he can insult you again.”:

                      3) Is THIS an insult too “do not resist an evil person?” SELF-DEFENSE MEANS NOT RESISTING?? (11th repeat)

                      4) This: If he takes your shirt, give him your robe?” HE CALLS THAT SELF-DEFENSE *7* TIMES!

                      (posted in self-defense of repeated aggression by a stalking bully,
                      To the continuing shame of Jesus Christ)

                    4. I do not lie, period. Matthew 5:38-42 do exist, they do mean things, and they are hard to follow. They do not prevent anyone from self-defense. That’s why Like 22:36-38 and the parable of the tenants exist. You don’t like this, so you whine.

                      Why does every single translation pick “slap.”

                      Because that’s what the Greek best translates to? I have not negated that this literally means “slap”, but your insistence that it means “punch”, “rape”, or “attempt murder”. Should a Christian retaliate against a slap? No. Should they defend themselves from an actual attack with the sword? Apparently yes.

                      Does Christ deny you defense against a slap or an insult? No, because this teaching is to Christians alone. In fact, all of Christ’s teachings, at least of how they should act, are to Christians alone (did that blow your mind, that just happened!).

                      If and only if (iff) by “self-defense” you mean by an insult or a slap, then yes, Christ told his followers not to assert their right. If by “self-defense” you mean an actual attack, then no, he didn’t. No amount of repeating yourself or ignoring Luke 22:36-38 will change that fact.

                      And now, one top of all the other misuses of the English language, he calls my defense of mere Christianity “bullying” because it involves explaining, in excruciating detail, why he’s wrong. It’s really sad.

                      Remember, Hihn, that every time you respond you make the atheist position look more stupid and the Christian look smarter.

  30. While I’m not an anarchist, there is some tragic truth to this. That said, the first constitution was far from perfect either. Thanks to the Bill of Rights, the second affirmed more rights albeit at the cost of allowing taxation. What the Bill of Rights really got right was the Tenth Amendment, which was an attempt to make it clear that just because a right was not specified didn’t mean it didn’t exist and that, at best it was in the people’s hands, and at worst would be a state issue– and not a federal issue. Of course, we’ve failed to apply this. There have been written more amendments despite the Tenth making any further just a recursive exercise in writing what need not be written. There have been increases in the power of the Federal government even beyond those which the second, more controlling constitution, would have wanted or permitted. Perhaps a better constitution can be envisioned which denotes a clearer set of powers and limitations.

    1. You’ve confused the 10th Amendment with the Ninth Amendment.
      And why do you believe the Constitution was never allowed to be amended, even though it says it can?
      “Envisioning” a constitution does not ratify it, thus it has no effect at all unless it’s acceptable to the people. You do understand that a constitution imposed without the consent of the governed would be tyranny? I hope.
      So how do we develop a constitution that will have the consent of the people?

    2. But the tax allowed was a head tax that was the same for everybody.

  31. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  32. I can see valid points on both sides of the argument.
    Even if you’re not a Sheldon Richman fan you have to agree good points were brought up in his article.

    1. There are nuggets of insight in every one of Richman’s articles. However, they are completely obscured by the over-the-top assertions he continually makes, often as throwaway lines, that are so preposterous that it is impossible to take what he says seriously. He has become a standing joke, which is regrettable when, as you say, he touches on good points that would warrant more serious and thoughtful treatment.

    2. Actually, this may be Richman’s craziest ever, but it does express the delusions of libertarian purists.
      The notion that we can somehow will a constitution into existence, with no need to have it accepted by the people.
      Richman, like the purists, defends a totalitarian government, SOMEHOW created without the support of its “subjects.”
      Just click our heels together like Dorothy did, and say “Austrian economics” in a soprano voice.

  33. What a low-quality article. I’m a hard-core libertarian myself. Richman’s distorted interpretation of the Founding is as wrong as any “Progressive” perversion of history. Note that he continually goes back to Hamilton quotes to make his points, whereas we all know it was Madison who was the architect of the Constitution. And Madison was heartily supported by Franklin, the archetype of the “working man”.

    I’m fine with Reason providing a forum for diverse ideas, but it would help if the editors set a minimum standard of intellectual honesty and accurate scholarship for articles.

    1. How about an actual argument instead of name calling ? The core principle of the constitution is unlawful ..Men have no right to legislate the freedom sof other men..No do they have the ability to give the,selves power to take the labor of other men …I would hope Reason had a better standard for commentors

      1. The core principle of the constitution is unlawful

        How can a ratified, agreed upon, Constitution be unlawful?

        Men have no right to legislate the freedoms of other men..

        Constitution is not legislation. On what authority do you deny voluntary association?

        No do they have the ability to give the,selves power to take the labor of other me

        The power was granted, not seized. BIG difference.

        .I would hope Reason had a better standard for commentors

        I’ll add this to your rejection of voluntary association.

        Lesson: when SOME anarchists reject government, they do it in a way which tolerates unprotected bullying. Theirs. Thus refuting their own argument.

    2. but it would help if the editors set a minimum standard of intellectual honesty and accurate scholarship for articles

      Reason has a recent history of publishing bullshit, as long as it’s anti-gummint. A few years back, an on cutting government spending was like a carrening clowncar.

      First, our postwar boom which Reason (mostly Gillespie) calls PROOF that even major slashes in spending does not hurt the economy. Progressives say the boom was despite 91% tax breaks. They can’t both be right. So which of the two is bat-shit crazy?

      They both are! There was no postwar boom!!! We had five recessions in only 16 years, 1945-1961, and fell from the only industrial base not bombed into rubble to “among the lowest” in economic growth (JFK SOTU)

      Then praising Canada’s courage in passing major spending cuts in the late 1990s. One problem. That’s when all the long waiting lists began, and the deaths.

      Their federal level launched a 10 year plan to increase spending by our GDP equivalent of $100 billion, under threat of a court order. Did the statists outfox taxpayers? Nope, Three years later, their Supreme Court ruled their “Medicare” an unconstitutional threat to human life (!), citing all the Canadians dying on waiting lists of a year or more.

      a minimum standard of intellectual honesty and accurate scholarship

      From the same folks who invented a Libertarian Moment?

  34. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  35. As an Anarchist I believe all governments eventually become corrupt. That said the original Constitution was suppose to limit the power of the Federal Government and leave it in the hands of the States. The problem with any government no matter how noble is that it architects eventually die and the new group always believe they have a better idea. The problem with people is that they think if everyone just agreed with them the world would be better off. The problem with any government is like with nature it’s first prime directive is to grow. This will always happen so get over it or drop out

    1. limit the power of the Federal Government and leave it in the hands of the States

      Umm, the states were limited just as tightly, without which it would have never been ratified.
      Don’t believe Ron Paul, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, the KKK. and others of their ilk.
      And you SEEM to believe government powers are superior to the individual rights you ignore, somewhat curious for an Anarchist,

    2. It wasn’t to limit Federal power it was to give the Feds limited power. In other words the Feds didn’t have all the power and the States took some back, the States gave a small portion of their sovereignty to the Feds to make the country workable.

      1. It wasn’t to limit Federal power it was to give the Feds limited power

        Government powers, plural. I perhaps should have specified the 9th Amendment, which restricts the powers of government referenced in the 10th on ALL levels of government, both state and federal,which is clearly stated, and was quite intentional. . The states were no longer sovereign.

        1. The states are soveriegn in all ways except the 17 powers they gave to Congress.

          1. THE FOUNDERS LIED IN THE NINTH AMENDMENT? omg THE DIABOLICAL STATIST BASTARDS.

            State sovereignty was one of the failures of the original Confederacy, which led to the perceived need for a new Constitution. The new structure of Federalism may have been the most hotly debated issue, and for good reason. Feel free to disagree with the outcome — drafted and ratified by the same states who agreed to abandon their own sovereignty — but don’t deny it happened.

            (The anti-federalists were soundly tromped by what we often call a … vote.)

            It was further confirmed by our early history … as the only ones demanding state sovereignty of the original Confederacy seceded into a new Confederacy … largely to retain the enslavement of human beings … the same dumbfucks who attacked Fort Sumter, thereby sealing their own doom.

            Today, and since the 1950s, state sovereignty is promoted mostly by.,… in general, not necessarily by you … bigots as a bullshit justification to deny equal rights and impose a theocracy … a cowardly form of secession to avoid getting their asses whupped again. Ron Paul, among others, provides moral cover for them, a plausible sounding excuse. .

  36. Yes the constitution is flawed. I’d like to see the writers of reason gather and create a constitution then present it to the readers for comments and I guarantee the readers will find the flaws and even if it was perfect anybody under its control would find a way to use it against anyone they want control over. We have the best constitution and its up the people to maintain but since not everyone is a libertarian out side of this forum there are others who would like to see it differently.

    1. “anybody under its control would find a way to use it against anyone they want control over. ”

      Not if it limited government authority to the retaliatory use of force.

      1. The present government is already constitutionally limited yet people still found a way around that didn’t they

        1. But it’s not limited to the retaliatory use of force. In other words the Constitution allows for the government to initiate force. That’s the flaw in it.

          1. In other words the Constitution allows for the government to initiate force.

            Where?

            1. In any part that allows it to tax. So Article 1, sections 6 through 9.

              1. Mmmmm, no. The power to tax already existed at the state level. The expansion of taxation to the federal level was
                1) ratified by the Congress,
                2) which was appointed by state legislatures,
                3) who in turn were elected by the people.

                Which is how a free society operates, when no hall is large enough for a nationwide town meeting. Storing all the horses was, alone, considered impossible.

                All had agreed the existing federal funding was an obstacle to … we were at war.
                The most respected leaders in our nation … with “boots on the ground” so to speak … were convinced we could not win our Revolution without it.

                Second-guessing them over 200 years later, seems rather silly … by those few who totally incapable of getting their preferred government adopted … when their last attempt resulted in a humiliating military defeat … and they have no support for another Civil War.
                Poor losers for over a century.

                1. Congressional Representatives were never appointed by state legislatures. Besides taxation was always in the Constitution. It was just an indirect tax or head tax.

                  1. There was no head tax, per se, as many use the term now,. The restriction on capitation (flat taxes) applied only to direct taxes on individuals, not on transactions, property etc.
                    The first year saw a Tariff and Whiskey Tax
                    In 1797 a progressive estate tax had progressive rates,
                    None of those were head taxes, or the same on all individuals.

                2. “Mmmmm, no. The power to tax already existed at the state level.”

                  Also an initiation of force.

                  “Which is how a free society operates”

                  Wrong, that’s how modern government operates. Government =/= society.

                  Then the next few paragraphs you basically say “it was necessary” and “majority/might makes right”. Neither of these “arguments” are even worth my time as they are so obviously morally reprehensible.

  37. I make $82h while I’m traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris?This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out,

    —————– http://www.richi8.com

  38. A rather superficial review of the intentions of a few Founders, without a word of comparison between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. There are several aspects of the Constitution which warrant libertarian disdain, but none of them are mentioned here.

    1. Very few of us are willing to re-fight the Civil War, as is expected by those libertarians who have no concept of governing, thus no credible alternative.

  39. Richman’s thesis is sound: the Constitution supplanted a federation of sovereign states with a national government. Whether this was a good thing is debatable. Whether it is consistent with libertarian ideology is even debatable. Richman obviously thinks a national government of continental scale is a bad thing, a line of thinking that runs counter to the indoctrination that everybody gets in school. Some of the comments above suggest that the government schools are doing their job quite well.

    Personally, I think Richman failed to mention the Constitution’s most contemptible feature: Article IV Section 2 Paragraph 3. This provision legally recognized and enforced the oppression of slaves at the national level whereas the Articles of Confederation were silent on this matter. The fact that there was no feasible way that this provision could have been amended coupled with the fact that the Constitution made no provision for secession made the bloodletting seven decades later inevitable. Though better than most, the Constitution, in fact, was originally a deeply flawed document. Of course, Amendment XIII rendered Article IV Section 2 Paragraph 3 moot.

    1. The states and the Feds are both sovereign. For instance the Feds can’t force Colorado to make cannabis illegal. The slave provision was actually a compromise by the North. They didn’t want the slaves to count at all.

      1. .

        The states and the Feds are both sovereign.

        Clearly impossible, since the Supreme Court, at the federal level is the final arbiter of government abuse, at all levels, regarding fundamental human rights … Jefferson’s unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and the others/

        . The 9th Amendment hammers the states. The 14rh even more.

        For instance the Feds can’t force Colorado to make cannabis illegal.

        They don’t have to. They need only enforce the federal prohibition. (For now)

        The slave provision was actually a compromise by the North. They didn’t want the slaves to count at all.

        Obviously unstable, thus later resolved by war

        1. The Feds enforcing prohibition has nothing to do with the sovereignty of Colorado.

          1. The Feds enforcing prohibition has nothing to do with the sovereignty of Colorado.

            I never said it did, but it obviously does. Colorado is hardly sovereign over its citizens, since the feds can overrule..

            Likewise, the federal level can be and is superior to state laws in specified instances. But the state level has no equivalent power over the federal. State sovereignty has not existed since ratification of the constitution, which the states voluntarily ceded.

            The federal constitution can and does forbid states from various actions, which can expand at any time. and the Federal judiciary has power over states regarding fundamental rights.

    2. the Constitution supplanted a federation of sovereign states with a national government. Whether this was a good thing is debatable.

      Only to those who reject representative government and are incapable of creating a new one/

      Whether it is consistent with libertarian ideology is even debatable.

      But a totally useless debate, by those who confuse a free society and a libertarian society.

      In a free society of any size, libertarians would be only one of several independent tribes, An insightful writer (me) has described it thusly

      “In a free society, Galt’s Gulch could exist next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies … retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans ? each community entirely voluntary (go across the river and create a new one) ….all under a motto of, “live and let live..”

      Libertarian purists have crippled our movement for decades, promoting a libertarian society for themselves, instead of a free society for everyone. We have been ridiculed because few Americans are stupid enough to not hear what they really say. “Shut up, sit down and trust us to govern you.” From an Ivory Tower,
      Or even daffier, implying that everyone MUST become a libertarian. Yes, they do. Think about it.

    3. Articles of Confederation were silent on this matter.

      They also didn’t say the earth is round. Slaves had been property for all of recorded human history. No distinctions need exist until the Constitution. And slavery was one prime reason to restore the Confederacy.

      The fact that there was no feasible way that this provision could have been amended

      Why not?

      the Constitution made no provision for secession made the bloodletting seven decades later inevitable

      How was the Confederacy’s dumbfuck assault on Fort Sumter inevitable?

      Constitution, in fact, was originally a deeply flawed document

      In what way was the constitutional convention and/or the ratification process deeply flawed?

      I could be wrong, but I sense you implying we should somehow be ashamed of slavery. It came here from Europe, had existed for all of human history, but we repealed it within our first century. Guilt or pride?

  40. That reminds me a bit of that painting made by Jon McNaughton.
    http://jonmcnaughton.com/conte…..enMan.html

    1. Thanks. I’d seen the painting, but not his awesome description of it.

  41. “The Constitution is the Adam Lanza of government.”/Sheldon Richman
    I will say this is one of the more coherent of his articles. He still sucks Hihn wiener though(and Hihny even posted some coherent babble!).

  42. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  43. The Constitution is a slave contract written by slave-raping hypocrites.

    1. Does THIS “woodchipper” glorify the feeding of people into woodchippers?

      Anyone else claim that James Madison raped slaves?
      Along with a voting majority at the Constitutional Convention.
      And those at the state level who voted to ratify
      Or is this another Donald Trump?
      Can’t be hysteria, right?

  44. Just rewriting this at the bottom Hihn.

    1) No I didn’t, airline security, falls under airline security. That would be funded and provided by the airlines. Is your reading comprehension that bad?

    2) Shoe stores, and other things basically free from gov’t involvement are examples of areas of the market that perform well without crisis, shortages and so on. It shows how the market is able to handle complex things without “top men”.

    3) Wow, what nonsense. Were you unable to comprehend what Privateers were, and their stellar performance in their jobs, and also the ability of private merchants to build ships more efficiently than what the ships of the gov’t could do? This is well documented, something you refuse to see as again, it doesnt fit your narrative. So looking at the already successful private production of defense through privateers, corsairs, it’s not gard to deduce how the private production of defense would work. There are far more detailed writings available if you bothered to step out of your comfort zone.

    4). Someone supposedly so liberty minded shouldn’t even be asking how they would defend their home. Fists, feet, and other means of defense are available. If you can’t handle that, then you would pay for private security that could be rolled into your homeowners insurance, or through a security company where you would receive a bill, just like any other service. Do you seriously not know how the market functions?

    1. As for the cost of protection from foreign invasion, there are many factors involved. There are many individuals who would join a voluntary militia to defend their property and the lives and property of others. So folks like my brothers and sisters who already volunteered for military service would help save your ass. 1) An armed society is difficult to invade. 2) Again, for protection on the seas and shores, privateers. Just as an example Geico’s 13 million customers could reactivate and put to sea four modernized Iowa’s complete with scramjet, VLS, etc. and even O&M covering one year for $69.23 per month over 1 year.

      The 313 ship fleet, including 400 million O&M per carrier x 11 and 200 million O&M per ship (which is high as those numbers differ with the class of ship) would cost those same 13 million Geico customers 415.38 dollars per month.

      How much would O&M for 10,000 M1A2 Abrams be? Maybe around $64.10 per month for those 13 mil customers.

      The market would determine the price for protection, as owners of ports and ships, or large buildings and so on would pay more than someone living in a rural farm that just pays for missile defense and private security services. Suppose there are 30 missile defense sites that service 40,000 customers. Their cost would be around $50 per month. Again, the o&m costs are very generous in these examples.

    2. Part 1 of 2 Why would Vampire replace national defense with TSA passenger searches?

      1) No I didn’t, airline security, falls under airline security. That would be funded and provided by the airlines. Is your reading comprehension that bad?

      (lol) At this link ( emphasis added):

      http://bitly.com/20ssjoV
      Who’s running away from national defense? You failed to even realize that the private production of security is more effective than what the gov’t provides. This was also shown by a GOVT study priv. security was more effective than the TSA

      He continues ?

      2) Shoe stores, and other things basically free from gov’t involvement are examples of areas of the market that perform well without crisis, shortages and so on. It shows how the market is able to handle complex things without “top men”.

      Vampire: “Even privately-owned shoe stores can better defend America, you coercion-loving statist” (gasp)

      looking at the already successful private production of defense through privateers, corsairs, it’s not hard to deduce how the private production of defense would work.

      “I don’t need no steeeenking explanation

      There are far more detailed writings available if you bothered to step out of your comfort zone

      This is why we’re ridiculed.

      See Part 2

      1. Part Two. Finally, this is how Vampire would defend private property, like our homes, and against violence.

        4). Someone supposedly so liberty minded shouldn’t even be asking how they would defend their home.

        The liberty-minded just KNOW! Repeats (4th) that private insurance reimbursement better protects theft and violence:.

        Fists, feet, and other means of defense are available. If you can’t handle that, then you would pay for private security that could be rolled into your homeowners insurance, or through a security company where you would receive a bill, just like any other service. Do you seriously not know how the market functions?

        SEE!
        VAMPIRE WOULD PROTECT WIVES AND MOTHERS FROM RAPE BY BUYING PRIVATE INSURANCE! (omg)

        STILL unanswered.
        What if we’d insured Pearl Harbor from attack?
        Who would we buy the insurance from?
        Who would HIRE and PAY TSA to provide national defense?
        Reimbursement is NOT defense.DUH

        Nuttier than most, but look. Much liberty’s defense now comes from free market slogans …. to voters. And thuggish bullying

        (My self-defense against non-stop aggression, lies, denial and stalking, now 14 occasions)

        Next, Vampire comes back with a 3-part REVISION AND RETRACTION, this confirming his original aggression was … as stupid as I said here:

        http://bitly.com/20sxllm

        1. Lol. You seriously cannot comprehend how airport security would be “airport security” provided by the airports, and shipping would be through privateering.

          Nor do you comprehend that through insurance, services are offered. When you purchase health insurance, does that mean they cure the cancer after your dead? to say an insurance company would be unable to either directly employ their own security team, or farm that work out to one or many companies shows your inability to understand how business and markets work.

          I already gave you a reference to the myth of national defense. Which goes in great detail about private defense production. You also refused to look at private security production through detroit and it’s success at proviting the security you are worried about for your home. They even provide it to those who cannot afford it.

          Until then, there is no sense in wading through your strawmen, and nonsensical attempts at rebuttal, while ignoring evidence.

          For someone so scared about how they will protect their home without top men, you shure know how to advocate violence through the state.

          1. Lol. You seriously cannot comprehend how airport security would be “airport security” provided by the airports, and shipping would be through privateering.

            His own words prove the fool, now 11 times

            http://bitly.com/20ssjoV
            Who’s running away from national defense? You failed to even realize that the private production of security is more effective than what the gov’t provides. This was also shown by a GOVT study priv. security was more effective than the TSA

            Translation: Private security is more effective at passenger inspection, which PROVES it would be better an national defense.(boing boing )

            PLUS: VAMPIRE WOULD PROTECT WIVES AND MOTHERS FROM RAPE BY BUYING PRIVATE INSURANCE! (omg)

            And still runs away from:
            What if we’d insured Pearl Harbor from attack?
            Who would we buy the insurance from?
            Who would HIRE and PAY TSA to provide national defense?
            Reimbursement is NOT defense.DUH

            This is a psycho

            For someone so scared about how they will protect their home without top men, you shure know how to advocate violence through the state.

            Bully REFUSES to explain property and personal protection. “DOUBT MY HOLY WORD SAYS THE BIBLE THUMPER” …. errr the blood-sucking anarchist .. “or you are defending government! ” (Religion ain’t the only faith-healers)

  45. Again, such a liberty minded person should be able to figure out that complex things can be and are handled by individuals in the market. Did you know most powerplants (and the associated equipment transformers and so on)are privatly owned? Do you think they would all explode without these top men and their regulations? You do know the ASME is a private non-profit organization right? Oh, and it was a government owned power plant that had an ash containment moat failure……that private companies previously warned them about. And many state’s DEP pollutes far more than the private institutions they regulate.

    1. Dnt forget the UL too

  46. Anarchists need to understand that those who either value or sympathize w/ anarcho-capitalism are their allies, and that it is counter-productive for their anarchist goals, to engage them on their seemingly necessary legal system.

    Anarchists say that the non-system will righteously regulate itself for the benefit of all. Prove your belief by furthering anarcho-capitalism with your allies. When we are all filthy rich and free because of it, we can discuss the particulars of your non-system system, and your non-ruling rules, and your non-governing governance. (I think we’d arrive at something nearly exactly like the US Constitution, after slashing words and clauses that might be twisted.)

    1. edit: “…seemingly necessary RELIANCE UPON A legal system.”

  47. Having studied and read up on the Constitution’s creation process, I can agree with Bismark’s comments on sausage and laws.

    The creation of the Big C was a vicious contest between the interests of wildly divergent factions. The current body of popular thought is that slavery was the big problem, but at least here we can address the fight between the Federalists and the anti- Federalists.

    I toss in the gross failure of the early defenders of Lady Liberty to recognize that the authoritarian Statists would be drawn to the nodes of power in the new country and begin to erode the very freedoms so newly won. Tyranny is patient and ever ready to nip just a bit more freedom. Lovers of our Lady need to be vigilant as a suburban homeowner fighting crabgrass. We seem to have taken the summer off.

    1. Ragoftag|1.27.16 @ 11:14AM|#
      Having studied and read up on the Constitution’s creation process, I can agree with Bismark’s comments on sausage and laws.

      Says somebody who doesn’t know the difference between a constitution and a law. Showing why anarchists are so thoroughly ridiculed. He’s pissed …. PISSED … that they did not ordain anarchy.
      He has no clue how to do that, or how it would work, just more purity than the peasants.

  48. “Considering this historical context alone, how could a libertarian be in love with such a document?”

    I’m not so much in love with the document as I am scarred as hell at what would have and still might fill its vacuum.

  49. Due to the first convention which was to modify and revise the ‘Articles of Confederation’ the results were exactly what should be feared today .. a Runaway Convention. It is all the more reason for why there should not be a present or latter day Con-Con .. or, as some are calling for a “Convention of States.”
    Now. .. I do not “adore” the U.S. Constitution … but, since it does exist I wholly expect those serving in the government who swear that sacred oath and make that binding covenant to fully and completely stay within the confines and 4 corners of that contracted compact. Since far too many representatives Serving Us Up do not honor their oath to the existing U.S. Constitution it is ludicrous and folly to believe that they will honor and respect their sacred oath to those who are hoping for a “New and Improved” revised constitution.

    1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ??????? http://www.netjoin10.com

    2. a Runaway Convention.

      What’s your issue with representative government, when the only alternative is a dictatorship? Why would you ban the proper, and agreed, method of amending a constitution?On what basis would your fascist state repeal the Constitution outright?

  50. When I first encountered the Libertarian Party in the 1970s, I did not hear constantly about the Constitution. When, in the ’80s, I started to hear it in both left and right (so to speak) I took it for a sort of patriotic rebranding for the Age of Reagan.

  51. Thanks. I’d seen the painting, but not his awesome description of it.

    motivation quotes

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.