Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Happy Birthday to the Bill of Rights

Here's to another 225 years.

Two hundred and twenty-five years ago this month, Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby enshrining its 10 Amendments in the Constitution. The official anniversary, 10 days ago, was noted here and there, but it did not get the sort of celebration it deserved: something like the Fourth of July and Mardi Gras and Christmas all rolled into one.

Virginia ought to celebrate the loudest, and not just because the votes of Virginians put the Bill of Rights over the top. The document was drafted by one Virginian (James Madison), and it was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which had been written by another (George Mason). The latter declaration—with some judicious editing—remains a part of Virginia's Constitution to this day.

Patriotic celebrations have fallen out of favor of late. There is a gawdawful lot that is wrong with our country, as everyone will tell you—probably at greater length than you would prefer. Last month's presidential election has soured the national mood even further. One side is bitter about the Electoral College and the other side is bitter about the first side's bitterness. Congress has the approval ratings of a gangrenous wart, the president-elect is about equally well-liked and the general consensus seems to be that everything stinks.

Except the Bill of Rights. It is not merely the general consensus but the unanimous view of the entire country that the Bill of Rights is a keeper.

Granted, some people like certain parts of it more than others. The Second Amendment has plenty of enemies. The Third Amendment doesn't have any friends. Some conservatives think the Fourth Amendment is an irksome technicality that gets in the way of locking up criminals and hunting down terrorists, and some liberals think the Fifth Amendment's protections for private property get in the way of their grand economic designs. Both sides sometimes act as if the First Amendment applies to them but not the other guy (see: flag-burning, hate speech).

You hear a lot of fiery argument over those particulars. What you don't ever hear is somebody suggesting that we ditch the Bill of Rights altogether.

And that is a marvelous thing, because the Bill of Rights embodies two notions that, in world-historical terms, are almost unheard of. The first notion is that government simply cannot do certain things. At the time—and, sadly, even today—that is a profoundly radical notion.

Yet to some Founders, the Bill of Rights was not radical enough. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argues that "bills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

As Hamilton saw it—and as the Tenth Amendment makes plain—Congress had no power to do anything not specifically enumerated in Article I. (The claim that the general-welfare clause grants the power to do whatever Congress considers good is a dodge; as Hamilton pointed out in Federalist No. 83, "The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress ... shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.")

The other radical notion embodied in the Bill of Rights is the principle of live-and-let-live. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Your inalienable rights trump every competing consideration—law and order, national security, economic equality, aesthetic preference, religious belief—except one: the inalienable rights of somebody else. And even when someone tries to subordinate individual rights to lesser values, they pretend that's not what they're doing.

Nobody (or at least almost nobody) ever says, "We should deny freedom of speech to flag-burners (or Nazis or whomever)." What they say is: "That kind of speech isn't protected by the First Amendment." In other words, they are leaving people's rights alone, and simply trying to limit something else—something that isn't really a right.

Today much of the country celebrates the birth of the Christian Messiah. For another portion of the country, it's just a day off. But Christian and non-Christian alike can still celebrate the Bill of Rights together—and they should.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Photo Credit: Serfs UP/Roger Sayles

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.

  • ||

    You hear a lot of fiery argument over those particulars. What you don't ever hear is somebody suggesting that we ditch the Bill of Rights altogether

    You haven't been listening to the Progressives. "Constitutional rights are subject to regulation." That was the polite phrase used by Clinton. "Constitutional rights need to be eliminated if they interfere with equality " is the phraseology used by Progressive activists. The meaning is of course the same.

  • ||

    Fucking tags don't work on my phone, sorry.

  • Quixote||

    The Bill of Rights is a clever little tool that we can use from time to time to help keep the populace calm, but it is also a nuisance, and everyone should be aware that we know how to get around it when we need to. Who here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Pat (PM)||

    That's jsut crazy dude!

    anon.tk

  • Quixote||

    I've often been accused of folly, but I would be careful to show some reverence, particularly towards our national leader, and respect all the rules of polite discourse, lest ye fall afoul of the laws and regulations of the land pertaining to lèse-majesté and scandalum magnatum. Surely you are not defending the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge? Forsooth, I know not the meaning and intendimento of your mysterious signs.

  • ImanAzol||

    We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

    When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly ... [Now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it.

    If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.

    You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.

    There is no reason for anyone in this country-anyone except a police officer or military person-to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.

    The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.

    I think the definition [of an impeachable offense] should include any criminal acts, plus a willful failure of the President to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. The third factor that I think constitutes an impeachable offense would be willful, reckless behavior in office, just totally incompetent conduct in the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands.

    "If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign."

  • JayWye||

    the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
    it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
    the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
    The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
    the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

    Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

    ..."The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people - to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. "

    If you disagree with or don't like this,you live in the wrong country. you need to move somewhere else.
    This is a basic tenet of America. a core concept.

  • The Grinch||

    Somewhat off topic-the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act apparently was signed into law as part of the defense appropriations bill on Friday. Not good for us or the BOR.

  • Threedoor||

    A government is supposed to counter propoganda, while simultaneously funding NPR?

  • The Grinch||

    No shit. On the plus side, we can look at whatever schlock the supposedly antipropaganda hacks put out and just assume the opposite is true. Saves a lot of trouble.

  • Threedoor||

    Yep.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Read the title of the bill, dammit. It's the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act".

    Obviously that means its purpose is to expand the government's distribution of disinformation and propaganda.

    Just like the PATRIOT Act was explicitly unpatriotic, various Tax Simplification acts furthered the complexity of the tax code, the Paperwork Reduction Act creates paperwork, the Privacy Act expanded government encroachments upon individual privacy, etc., etc.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I grew up listening to otherwise intelligent people blather about the necessity of having NPR and PBS to provide 'unbiased' news.

    *snerk*

    In a way, what we get is wonderfully American; a government funded broadcast that is simultaneously pro-Statist and often anti-government. It's hysterical!

  • ||

    Don't we already have that? I thought it was called CNN?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    CNN is providing a pro bono service to the republic. NPR/PBS is the government owned outfit for that sort of thing.

  • SIV||

    Patriotic celebrations have fallen out of favor of late.

    Some Millennial cuck at Cato has described such things as patriotic correctness. A thing just as bad as the so-called "political correctness" of the progressive left.

  • BigT||

    Read that. The difference is that patriotic correctness doesn't as clearly support a particular political philosophy/party.

  • SIV||

    No one has to apologize or attend sensitivity training for ordering "French fries".

  • BigT||

    There is a fair amount of shaming for not standing for the natl anthem or wearing a flag pin, however.

  • Rhywun||

    When those become hate crimes, then we can start taking this analogy seriously.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    +1 Stolen Valor Act of 2005

  • Steve Foerster||

    Apparently you don't remember "freedom fries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

  • gaoxiaen||

    "Canadian fries" on the other hand...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    While, as a term, "patriotic correctness" is cute, there is really no need to re-term the phenomenon known as "American civil religion".

  • SIV||

    Saint César Chávez !

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Rhywun||

    TL;DR but how is what is described in that article not just "nationalism"? I don't see any practices unique to America in there.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Civil/political religion is integral to nationalism. The practices aren't unique to America, but the way they manifest themselves in American political culture is unique to its context.

  • ||

    And those Founders would be right. It wasn't radical enough; especially when we apply it to how it's being used and abused today. The natural impulse of humanity is tyranny and we're clearly seeing it creep in. In this way, I reckon, in can be argued that indeed they were too timid.

  • JFree||

    The problem is exactly as Hamilton saw. The second you put in the Bill of Rights and enshrine it, then it becomes easier to ignore the structural limitation on government itself. But the problem isn't because the 'natural human impulse' is towards tyranny. That is only the natural impulse of those who seek/acquire power. Complacency is the natural human impulse of everyone else and unfortunately that is an impulse that fatally weakens the constitution and (probably) any republic. We are the source of all accountability - and we choose not to exercise it.

  • searchingmind||

    BRAVO, Sir or Madam as the case may be. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

  • ||

    Happy Birthday, BofR.

    /Mr. Burns pops out of cake.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Virginia ought to celebrate the loudest

    Virginian and proud!

    The document was drafted by one Virginian (James Madison)

    Winning.

    based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which had been written by another (George Mason)

    Winning.

    As Hamilton saw it—and as the Tenth Amendment makes plain—Congress had no power to do anything not specifically enumerated in Article I

    But they do it anyway. 90+% of the alphabet soup of federal departments, by any objective measure, are defineably unconstitutional.

  • creech||

    Is this the same Hamilton lauded in the hip-hop musical that's playing on Broadway in NYC?

  • ||

    Same name, but one was real, one is a fictional construct created to popularize leftist authoritarianism.

  • BigT||

    The real one wanted Presidents and Senators elected for life, among other stupidities.

  • Rhywun||

    one is a fictional construct created to popularize leftist authoritarianism

    Help me out here?

  • BigT||

    Broadway's musical "Hamilton"

  • Rhywun||

    Whew, thanks.

  • jack sprat||

    Thank you George Mason and James Madison. I read a biography of Madison by Lynne Cheney (yes, Dick's wife but don't hold it against her). It was quite enjoyable.

  • BigT||

    Just in the middle of "Becoming Madison" by Michael Signer. Other than his attempt to establish a forced tax of 5% on the states, he is my fav FF.

  • jack sprat||

    Agreed. I love TJ but it seems like he was real douche on a regular basis (maybe rightfully so but still).

  • Playa Manhattan.||

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    If you put the Bill of Rights up for election in November 2018, how many of them would survive? 4th-8th are surely dead for starters. 1st might survive, 2nd might but would be close.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Wait til the Eliminate the Third campaign ramps up. Who wouldn't want manly men sailors and sexy slut soldiers quartering with them?

  • Threedoor||

    I lived in the barracks for two and a half years. No thanks.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I lived in the barracks for two and a half years.

    *unzips*

    Please continue.

  • BigT||

    Jesse?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I don't think there's a chance in heck that the First Amendment would survive in that scenario.

  • Swiss Servator||

    "Hate Speech is not Free Speech"

  • Rat||

    Hate speech is speech I hate.

  • SIV||

    Enough with Hinkle's rabid jingoism and his lauding of dead heterosexual Christian white male slaveholders Let us instead celebrate the strides made by young women in STEM.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    dead heterosexual Christian white male slaveholders

    You're sure about that as a universal claim?

  • SIV||

    Which homo contributed to the Constitution?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The point is, I don't claim to decisively know the sexual orientations of all members of the Constitutional Convention.

    Though, I will say John "Confirmed Bachelor" Blair, Jr. of ol' Virginny, does give one pause.

  • SIV||

    I guess I should have gone with the identity of "straight" over the more behavioral "homosexual". I'm not at all sure about the universality of "slaveholder" either.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm sorry. It wasn't Blair, I was thinking of, it was Thomas Fitzsimons.

  • The Fusionist||

    And his "friend," Simmons Fitzthomas?

  • thrakkorzog||

    I'm pretty sure Franklin was straight. He might have experimented a bit, but he probably would have made fun of Trump's pussy grabbing remarks for not being bold enough.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Since none of the Founders were killed by the rest for being gay, as was a style at the time (though maybe we should look more closely at Burr-Hamilton duel), we can conclude, yes.

    Unless they were all gay and that is ridiculous. Isn't it? I mean, look at the wigs, the stockings, the shoes with big buckle...

    Fuck, someone get Alex Jones on this!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Since none of the Founders were killed by the rest for being gay, as was a style at the time

    The Founders didn't seem to have a problem with Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben sharing his tent with 2 twinks aides-de-camp during the entire time he was at Valley Forge.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Which is part of the larger point. As the example of his fellow and contemporary Prussian, Fredrick the Great, shows, it's was "ok" (i.e., escape punishment) if, you were a.) in a tent or on a boat, and b.) a gentleman of a certain status.

    That a few of the individuals we are discussing left no issue should cause one to be more cautious in one claims.

    Jus' sayin'

  • The Fusionist||

    "in a tent or on a boat"

    Not with a goat? Or in the dark? Or in the rain?

  • Trigger Hippie||

    And a Dr. Seuss themed subthread goes unrealized. Sigh.

    /thread-corpse fucker

  • Crusty Juggler||

    More like alley engorge.

  • Pompeius the Quant Retard||

    Hey get a load of Mike M. here!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It was a hard winter.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Hey get a load of Mike M. here!

    You've created an enemy for life, Pap Smear Pop Tart.

  • Brian||

    The Bill of Rights was written by white male slave owners.

    Now let's romance with Alexander Hamilton, The Fedralist Papers, and the Emoluments Clause.

  • Brian||

    You're welcome, AddictionMyth.

  • BigT||

    It's spelled adicklessman.

  • thrakkorzog||

    But it's pronounced Azz-Whehpey.

  • ||

    Didn't you use your other handle for that retarded portmanteau?

  • ||

    It often forgets whether it's AddictionMyth, dajjal, or Butthead. They all post the same old crap over and over again.

    /Jill Stein, mumble mumble bloop boink derp

  • ||

    It forgets as well, the mark of an unskilled troll.

  • Jimbo||

    But does it put the lotion on its skin?

  • John Titor||

    Christmas politics story at the Titor house:

    One of my relatives leans pretty damn cosmopolitan socialist, he's a government employee in the capital and was complaining about how Trump isn't a good businessman because of his numerous bankruptcies.

    But then the conversation drifted to this story about the so-called 'racist' Queen's University party, and suddenly he says:

    "And see, this is where the Trump supporters have a point. These petty little fascists just want to control everyone and don't even know what racism is."

    *John Titor falls back in his chair from shock*

    He then proceeded to lament the death of the manufacturing sector and hopes Trump does something about it.

    When you've lost the cosmopolitan socialists...

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    When you've lost the cosmopolitan socialists...

    Eventually "cosmopolitan" runs into "socialist" and they have to decide which is more important.

  • ||

    "Eventually "cosmopolitan" runs into "socialist" and they have to decide which is more important."

    Cocktali parties.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    For primary cosmos, yes.
    For primary socialists, it's beer & liquor down at the pub, preferably one working men go to.

  • John Titor||

    One of these days I need to take the ol' time machine down to 1917 and bring Lenin back to show him what he has created. He might just have an early stroke.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    "These people run your culture and government? HOW COULD OUR IDIOTS LOSE?!"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    cosmopolitan socialists

    What does "cosmopolitan" mean in this context?

  • ||

    "What does "cosmopolitan" mean in this context?"

    Sometimes pretends to be libertarian.

  • BigT||

    Global virtue signaler?

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    I'd guess non-Marxist? Oppsite of kind of people whose solidarity with workers abroad means improving their lot by unionization/agitation/socialist revolution over there, rather than moving means of production or bringing them over as competition for local labor force?

  • John Titor||

    "Look at how inclusive and tolerant of other cultures I am because I eat at an Ethiopian restaurant monthly."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Gotcha. I was debating whether you mean that or Pan Z.'s guess.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Midori Sours and honey from your local rooftop beekeeper.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I thought gay hipsters were all about the "alt-right" these days.

  • thrakkorzog||

    I figure it's the people who think that when the revolution comes, they will be seen as true believers in the cause, and will maybe get extra rations. As opposed to the more likely scenario, they will probably be seen as a bunch of Bourgeoisie intellectuals who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

  • juris imprudent||

    They didn't realize they were useful because they were idiots.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Some conservatives think the Fourth Amendment is an irksome technicality that gets in the way of locking up criminals and hunting down terrorists...

    Yeah, I don't see a whole lot of clamoring for the sanctity of that one from the left inside the beltway or in major cities, either. The GOP establishment seems continually wobbly on Second Amendment protections, as though they'd abandon them in a second if not for those tasty deep red votes.

    And the voting public barely understands the fragility of their own liberty as the bulwark of the rights crumbles before them. In fact, with their votes they kick that down themselves. When was the last time anyone honestly argued for the First Amendment rights of their ideological enemy? People are idiots.

  • ||

    "Some conservatives think the Fourth Amendment is an irksome technicality that gets in the way of locking up criminals and hunting down terrorists..."

    Terrorists and dopers, Fist, it's just terrorists and dopers all the way down. The moment you get one out from under your bed, the other shows up.

  • jack sprat||

    "People are idiots"
    My obligatory:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvT2r828QY

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Now, a word about the dearth of posts over this so-called holiday weekend. Notice how they lavish you with content while they beg for your hard earned cash to keep them awash in new trappings and caviar, but once their drapes are hung and their bellies are fat, they forget about you. I say we make our own posts. I say we seize the means of blog production and give it to the commenting class.

    Who's with me?

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

  • Rhywun||

    Nice touch, adding the Soviet Russian anthem to the greeting card.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Ha, I didn't notice they used the wrong version of the anthem! Well spotted, Rhywun.

  • Rhywun||

    What I heard was Putin no-kidding repurposed the Soviet anthem for Russia - and hence they are the same but with different lyrics - but there was some other anthem in use during the nineties and oughts.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Yes, the one in the video is Putin version (it start with "Russia, sacred"), and Wiki says that during the 90s, Russia used Patriotic Song by Glinka, but never got official words for it.

  • Rhywun||

    (it start with "Russia, sacred")

    Oh, duh. I didn't notice there were words in the video. Not that I Russian anyway. So yeah I wasn't half as clever as you thought I was :)

  • BigT||

    Fist is Spartacus - I saw him start the revolt.

  • ||

    He's just starting this coup so that he can then make himself Supreme Blog Overlord and ensure he posts first on every thread, not just links.

  • ||

    How many orphans can you dedicate to keeping this chatroom running?

  • Pompeius the Quant Retard||

    You misspelled fruit sushi.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I STAND WITH FIST!

  • Jimbo||

    I'll be right behind you...just out of rifle range.

  • Raven Nation||

    As Hamilton saw it—and as the Tenth Amendment makes plain—Congress had no power to do anything not specifically enumerated in Article I

    Hamilton would carry more weight if he hadn't argued the exact opposite just a few years later in successfully petitioning Washington to not veto the National Bank bill.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There are 100s of Youtube channels devoted to videos of stupid shit you did when you were 13 years old.

  • John Titor||

    It needs to be used for wholesome things, like Hatsune Miku, twerking and horrible Dutch pornography scenes?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    3 minutes watching some Russian dude cut open a Galaxy 7 with a knife, could have been 3 minutes watching memes instead.

  • JayWye||

    the Russian RPG-7 U-Tube vids are pretty cool. I saw one where two guys tested an RPG against 16 1 inch thick armorglass panes in a metal frame,with a wall of boxes behind it and a manniquin seated behind the wall.

    (an RPG will penetrate 16" of armor steel.)
    the behind-armor effects were interesting,too.
    it's amazing two guys could obtain an RPG and a couple of rockets,and they went to a lot of trouble to fabricate the metal frame.

    another one was two guys shooting an old car with the RPG, they fired 3 rockets,but only hit the car once.

  • The Fusionist||

    Ask me about the Incorporation Doctrine.

  • The Fusionist||

    Or, rather, ask the Reason staff which bits of the Bill of Rights the states can exempt themselves from.

  • thrakkorzog||

    Just an FYI, it's also the anniversary of the coronations of Charlemagne, and William the Conqueror. Well, within a day or two, there have been numerous revisions to the calendars since then.

    Since I have the day off, and most of my friend or family are out of town, I plan to use this opportunity play some CK2 and try to eliminate all Karlings.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Based on the calendar of churches that still more or less use a Julian calendar, anniversary is somewhere around January 7th. But this

    I plan to use this opportunity play some CK2 and try to eliminate all Karlings.

    God speed, good sir. I now understand the Karling hate, and Europe has even gotten to the point where their dynasty only rules one Kingdom (East Francia), so theoretically it's not bad. But once you look at Dukal level - UGH! Also, my Karling Strong wife never passed any good traits. Only double chin. So go forth like an angel of vengeance!

  • John Titor||

    Again, in my Rome playthrough, the Karlings were actually really helpful once I conquered France (Gaul, whatever) with the Imperial CB. I had all these Karling dukes that had claims on German territory in the HRE that I would have had to fabricate for decades for. So I permitted them to live.

    "Whoever fights Karlings should see to it that in the process he does not become a Karling."

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    I just hate how their women are far more expensive than any other women, and they always take the most coaxing to marry. Fucking "political concerns". And Jesus, your daughter of a count costs more than Basileus's sister, just because you have more holdings and vassals as a dynasty. Also, now there's double chins everywhere - it's almost as bad as Hapsburg inbreeding.

    Patrician Republics - We Do Real Sexism, everyone else in middle ages is a piker!

  • John Titor||

    And this is why it's better to just play a Germanic pagan and 'liberate' Karling women from castles. Efficient, and cost effective.

    By the way, if you want a fun Germanic pagan playthrough, try to start in Scandinavia and get establish a Germanic pagan presence in India. I did it by conquering most of the north, reforming, island-hopping to Sinai, conquering from the Muslims, then island hopping to India. Once you're there and have enough troops to defend yourself give all your other lands away to various relatives or grant independence (don't form an empire obviously).

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Ah, my German pagan playthrough...

    First gen, build Kingdom of Norway.
    Second gen, restore it from gavelkind, pick up Denmark, expand.
    Third gen, Fylkirate, Venice, terror of Europe, feudalism.
    Fourth gen - fight a war with single Finn county by preemptively marching in my retinue, they spawn 2000 troops and kill me. Ok, raise levies, get mercs, march back in, start battle, it's iffy but quality of troops will tell - nope, spawn another 2000 troops with full morale right in the middle of battle, lose because commander triggered Hesitant Charge.
    Surrender, now I have -150gp treasury and no levies. Ragequit but lesson is learned - Fuck Finns, never go in again.

  • Swiss Servator||

    The Ghost of Marshal Mannerheim smiles.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    As I said when I was describing this to a friend, "And now I have to give Stalin credit, for he managed to grind out a win when I couldn't under even more favorable conditions."
    I even waited for the spring, FFS!

  • John Titor||

    You're fighting tribals with more than 500 prestige, which means they have the option to instantly spend it and spawn a 2500 stack at their capital. And they will if you outnumber them in any way. Best way to fight it? Make sure you have 500 prestige before attacking and spawn your own stack.

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Piety! It was Piety! Because fucking pagan mechanics are religion-dependent, I was looking at the wrong stat!
    Also, apparently 80% defense bonus in their own land, even when they are attackers in a battle.
    I'd be OK with everything except "spawn in battle at 100% morale" - that's outright cheating (even mercs spawn at 0%).
    I was Reformed Norse, so no free troops - just was counting on Heavy Inf smashing light. And it almost worked (hey, kinda like 122mm and 152mm guns and swarms of T-26s and T-28s were supposed to smash Finnish infantry).

  • John Titor||

    Germanic pagans are 'offensive' pagans, which means they have the early naval tech and coastal CBs to expand, while the other European pagans are 'defensive' pagans, which means they get the insane attrition and defensive bonuses in their own territory, effectively to prevent the Christians from overwhelming them until they get the technology to counter their effects. I don't think there's anything to counter the defensive bonus, just military organization level 4 which completely negates pagan attrition. Best way to fight other pagans as Germanics is to always let them come into your territory to siege and completely stomp them without their bonuses.

  • thrakkorzog||

    I went ahead and made a steam group for us. http://steamcommunity.com/grou.....Crusaders/

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    I love you guys, but I'm not uncloseting myself for CK2. I've learned to pass as Mostly Normal Canadian, I don't need people figuring out my views.

  • thrakkorzog||

    Fair enough,I don't judge. You can run in screaming that you're a crazy motherfucker, and I'll just chalk that up to being a Zoroastrian.

  • Rhywun||

    There is already a Steam group called "Reason Magazine Commenters" :P

  • thrakkorzog||

    You got me. Gullible isn't a real word.

  • Rhywun||

    Germany's new MiniTru seems relevant - as an example of what you inevitably wind up with when your country has no notion of free speech.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "general consensus seems to be that everything stinks."

    And, once again, I prove why I'm a Crank; I think everything looks great! Yes, Trump is almost certainly going to play Crony Capitalist, but his cronies are a damn sight likelier to benefit the economy than Obama's electric car flimflammers. In fact, I think you can go right down the line with Trump's ideas and say, "Well, that isn't the right answer, but it's better than we were getting out of Obama and it will make the Liberal squeal like stuck pigs". I have high hopes of a rising economy and lots of Liberal assclownery over the next four to eight years. The Mainstream media will continue to commit slow-motion seppuku right before our eyes, liberal academia will put on its rubber nose and clown shoes and dance for us.

    It's gonna be great!

  • Toast88||

    Happy birthday, white privilege slave owner document that doesn't matter, unless it aligns with something on my personal agenda.

  • onebornfree||

    The Bill of Rights was, unfortunately, a scam, even before it was ratified. A ploy to silence the anti-federalists, who would otherwise have continued to make trouble. Nothing more.

    Fact is, that the day _before_ the new Bill of Rights left congress to be ratified by the individual states [a nearly 2 year process], the very same people who composed it passed a little something directly into law [ no state ratification needed!], called the Judiciary Act of 1789.

    This act immediately gave the new supreme court the direct power to interpret the constitution and all subsequent amendments.

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

    The reason that the first ten amendments were so radical [to this day, for some], is precisely the fact that the persons who composed them knew that they ultimately would mean very little [or nothing], as, per the Judiciary Act they had concocted/passed into law the day before, the Supreme Court would ultimately get to "interpret" _everything_ in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

    And who elects the members of the Supreme Court, pray tell ? :-)

    Ya'll bin had, I'm afraid.

    And so it goes....

    Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

  • JayWye||

    DUH,naturally,the courts are going to be interpreting the Constitution,including the BOR amendments.
    Who else did you expect to do that?

  • Outside the Box||

    "Except the Bill of Rights. It is not merely the general consensus but the unanimous view of the entire country that the Bill of Rights is a keeper."

    I do not think "unanimous" means what you think it means... *I* certainly am no fan. As an intellectual creation, the fact that the Constitution had to be immediately modified is a blazing red flag that the Constitution itself was deeply flawed. The BOR is a poorly-designed bandaid, unclear in its language and devoid of any clarifying examples. Had a student submitted this to me for course-work, it would get a D- at best.

    More fundamentally, the idea of "rights" being granted by some sort of mystical force (creator? "society"? "Mankind"?) is intellectual and philosophical poppycock; the only sense in which a "right" can exist is in a contractual relationship in which one party explicitly defines a "right" that the other can exercise with respect to that contract. It is absurd to conclude that such a thing can have been granted by people who were not yet born.

    And that intellectual flaw has profound consequences: it leads to the conclusion that the entire idea of Statism is valid. Any libertarian who rejects minarchism for anarchism is necessarily going to reject the State's "bill of rights".

  • Michael Murray||

    The reason there was no celebration is simple. Most people have no idea what their rights are, and therefore have no idea how those rights have been systematically destroyed. We are also assaulted daily by those professing fake rights, like the "right" to an education, to health care, and the right not to have their feelings hurt. Grow up, and grow a pair.

  • Outside the Box||

    "Most people have no idea what their rights are, and therefore have no idea how those rights have been systematically destroyed."

    Well, which is it: do they have these rights, or have they been destroyed? [allowing hopefully that one cannot have something that has been destroyed.]

    Which IMHO goes to the whole concept of "rights": how can they be "destroyed" by human activity unless they were first granted by human activity?

  • Deist||

    Great article. We owe a lot to the rebels who brought about the American Revolution. I think their desire for separation of religion from government and for a small government is in agreement with their Deism which many of them shared. Deism has no dogma or clergy and is very non-intrusive. http://deism.com/deistamerica.htm

  • JayWye||

    the DemocRATs are officially against the 1st,2nd,4th,5th,and 13th Amendments. That's the significant part of the entire Bill of Rights.
    they're anti-free speech,anti free exercise of religion,anti-gun,are FOR "guilty until proven innocent",are FOR civil asset forfeiture and misuse of eminent domain,and for involuntary servitude via "public accommodation" laws.

    IOW,they're anti-American.

  • texexpatriate||

    Both Democrats and Republicans have created the Federal Tyranny under which we live, and both have limited our Bill of Rights, writing those limitations into law that the courts have found to be just fine. We'll see whether Mr. Trump will govern his own party as well as govern the country. Under Obama the Democrats ran wild.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online