Why You Should Never Believe any Aspiring,Unelected, or Elected Politician
To continue with the theme of the previous post, below is a link to an overlong but illuminating article [if you have the time/patience], exposing the naivete of those who seek so-called " limited government".
To cut a long story short, all he really needed to point out is the fact that all governments are criminal enterprises, funded as they are by direct theft [taxation] , and counterfeiting [so called monetizing of the governments debt via a government -run centralized banking system.
He does eventually make that point [governments are criminal], but then only really applies it to "The Myth of Checks and Balances", when it it has far broader implications which demolish not only the arguments of all "limited government" proponents [whether they call them selves libertarian, conservative or liberal], but also the world-changing aspirations of advocates of _every_ political party everywhere, and of _anyone_ who runs for office, regardless of whether we are talking about a Hillary Clinton, an Obama, a McCain, John Edwards or Ron Paul.
Here are my 3 easy to understand reasons:
Point [1] [The most important point]
As I previously stated, [and as he does] all governments are criminal enterprises, funded as they are, and it is impossible to change that core nature as long as they are funded in the manner they are. Once a criminal organization, always a criminal organization.
Point [2] [Regarding outsiders seeking to join government to produce change via their election etc.]
Fact: Anyone outside of government who joins it/gets elected, is becoming a part of a criminal organization whose only collective motive is to continue doing what it already does [ i.e. direct theft, counterfeiting]. They [the outsiders] or their party are not going to ever change that collective motive or even limit it to areas they and their supporters are in favor of it being limited to. [It should be fairly obvious that theft cannot be "legally" limited by the organization "legally" carrying out the theft in the first place!].
They [outsiders who join] will become absorbed/ assimilated by the criminal organization they have joined, and that organization will [must] continue its operations as before regardless. This is imperative for its survival ; theft is its highest priority, to be achieved BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. And what it cannot steal, it MUST counterfeit.
Incentives For Those Newly Joining
And don't forget ,the incentive to lie by those who wish to join/get elected is possibly even greater than for those already inside, simply because, up to a point, the bigger the lie, the more chance there is of getting elected, and then being on the free lunch gravy train of stolen/"legally" counterfeited "money".
Lesson: Believing the promises of those seeking to join governments "to change them/ make them work better", "change society" etc. is a mugs game, exceeded in naivete only by those who believe the promises of those already on the inside and "working" for that organization:
Point [3] [Regarding Insiders - i .e those already elected and benefitting from stolen money/counterfeiting].
My question : If a politician/bureaucrat/ employee [i.e. a member of a well established criminal organization] tells you/ promises you something, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU BELIEVE HIM/HER? Are you in the habit of believing the word of other, non-governmental criminals?
Lesson: Anyone who believes the word of an established criminal or group of criminals is an even bigger mug that those who believe the word of those seeking to join said criminal organization to supposedly " make it work more efficiently", or for any other reason ["change society" etc. etc.], as described in point [2] above.
This [point[3]] is a point the author does not even get into. Instead he refuses to follow through on his observation that we are dealing with a criminal organization, run by necessarily habitual liars, which leads him to make the fatal error in logic at the end of his article of demanding that "aspiring nation builders" draft "constitutions predicated on a system that truly separates the powers – free market anarchism.", when in reality, his "free market anarchism" already exists in all of its glory, everywhere, [you just have to look for it- but really , its staring us all right in the face], and already existing without any so-called help from "aspiring nation builders" whatsoever, outside, indeed , _despite_ , and _because_ of, all of them.
Oh my. He just don't git it, do he? And I suspect, he's far from alone
.
Main article: "The Myth of Checks and Balances"
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Monday, January 1, 2007
The Inherent Criminality of All Governments
The Inherent Criminality of All Governments, Everywhere
[This 1939 essay by AJ nock is as relevant today, if not more so, than when it was written. I can identify particularly well with his statement:"I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment."
Like Nock, I'm more amazed by the naivete and ignorance of those who ignore the historical record of governments worldwide, and continue to expect governments to do "good things" in areas such as "justice", the environment, the monetary system, "equality", taxation, invasion of other countries, or whatever else tickles the naive proletariat[s] fancy, regardless of whether they call themselves democrats, republicans, libertarians, or of any other nit-picking, meaningless, imaginary subclassification of the pro-state persuasion.
As Nock says:"what would you expect? – look at the record! "
THE BIG QUESTION [?] :
If you agree with Nock and myself, your question would be: "Given the inherent criminality of all governments, what can I as an individual do about it?" As a problem solver, that is where I might help, so contact me via this blog's comment facility if interested. ]
[Excerpt] : " As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally expressed attitude.
All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of CzechoSlovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.
I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.
Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put every time a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would you expect? – look at the record! ...."
Click here for complete essay
[This 1939 essay by AJ nock is as relevant today, if not more so, than when it was written. I can identify particularly well with his statement:"I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment."
Like Nock, I'm more amazed by the naivete and ignorance of those who ignore the historical record of governments worldwide, and continue to expect governments to do "good things" in areas such as "justice", the environment, the monetary system, "equality", taxation, invasion of other countries, or whatever else tickles the naive proletariat[s] fancy, regardless of whether they call themselves democrats, republicans, libertarians, or of any other nit-picking, meaningless, imaginary subclassification of the pro-state persuasion.
As Nock says:"what would you expect? – look at the record! "
THE BIG QUESTION [?] :
If you agree with Nock and myself, your question would be: "Given the inherent criminality of all governments, what can I as an individual do about it?" As a problem solver, that is where I might help, so contact me via this blog's comment facility if interested. ]
[Excerpt] : " As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally expressed attitude.
All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of CzechoSlovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.
I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.
Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put every time a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would you expect? – look at the record! ...."
Click here for complete essay
Sunday, November 5, 2006
CNN's "The New Rules For Real Estate", Versus Reality, A.K.A. Investment Rule Number 1
CNN's "The New Rules For Real Estate", Versus Reality, A.K.A. Investment Rule Number 1
Recently brought to my attention : CNN's investment/real estate "experts" claim to be able to predict future nationwide areas of growth,no growth etc. etc. in the real estate markets:
CNN article here:
My comments: It is a myth that the future performance of ANY market can be accurately predicted. Investment rule number 1[which applies to all investing, in all areas] is that the future is unknowable- so any free CNN article by "experts", like the one linked to [or even one written by the author of say, a $1000 per year financial newsletter], and that claims to know in advance which areas of the country will be growth and which no growth for real -estate [ it might just as easily be about stocks, bonds, or commodities etc.] is completely out of touch with the reality of rule number one. Simply put, its garbage.
Sensible real-world saving and investing for the future _must_ start with an admission of the reality of rule number 1 and an allowance for the consequences of that reality, otherwise, you are speculating with your money[ie gambling], not investing.
It is easy to set up a simple, balanced plan for long-term savings that is is immune to unpredictable future economic events such as inflation, deflation and recession, while managing to average gains of between 7-9% over the rate of inflation, and which needs no monitoring on your part , apart from a once per year re-adjustment of percentage allocations per investment catagory. This plan has been used successfully for 20 years. If you would like more information and a chart of the plans 20 year plus results, please go here:
http://www.onebornfree.com/longtermsavingsplan.htm
Recently brought to my attention : CNN's investment/real estate "experts" claim to be able to predict future nationwide areas of growth,no growth etc. etc. in the real estate markets:
CNN article here:
My comments: It is a myth that the future performance of ANY market can be accurately predicted. Investment rule number 1[which applies to all investing, in all areas] is that the future is unknowable- so any free CNN article by "experts", like the one linked to [or even one written by the author of say, a $1000 per year financial newsletter], and that claims to know in advance which areas of the country will be growth and which no growth for real -estate [ it might just as easily be about stocks, bonds, or commodities etc.] is completely out of touch with the reality of rule number one. Simply put, its garbage.
Sensible real-world saving and investing for the future _must_ start with an admission of the reality of rule number 1 and an allowance for the consequences of that reality, otherwise, you are speculating with your money[ie gambling], not investing.
It is easy to set up a simple, balanced plan for long-term savings that is is immune to unpredictable future economic events such as inflation, deflation and recession, while managing to average gains of between 7-9% over the rate of inflation, and which needs no monitoring on your part , apart from a once per year re-adjustment of percentage allocations per investment catagory. This plan has been used successfully for 20 years. If you would like more information and a chart of the plans 20 year plus results, please go here:
http://www.onebornfree.com/longtermsavingsplan.htm
Saturday, October 28, 2006
"What's a good homeschooling family to do?"
What's a good homeschooling family to do?
Question:
"As our individual liberties continue to erode and the ever growing central government continues to dominate more and more facets of our daily life, with an upcoming election my family has to look at where each party stands with regard to homeschooling.
I know the libertarians support homeschooling but they have no chance to win and their base in state politics is centered in Atlanta.
I know the Republicans SAY they support homeschooling but they lie so often who can trust them?
I know the Democrats are so cozy with the NEA and GAE that they are loath to offend them...and both groups vehemently oppose anything but state run education/indoctrination camps.
So what to do?
Frankly the Dems seem to be my worst choice as they are predisposed to being hostile to homeschooling- because of their relationship with NEA/GAE and also their predilection with the nanny/welfare state.
Of the two major parties the Dems seem most likely to make homeschooling difficult or illegal....all in the name of the "children's welfare" of course.....which is the same reason Hitler's Germany outlawed home education in 1938.
Hard call to make....both major parties seem to favor making our current socialist republic empire into an ever growing totalitarian state. However, the Repubs do talk a good game....even if they clearly are the best bait and switchers in the 2 party biz.
Hmm.
What's a good homeschooling family to do?"
My reply:
The first thing to do is to erase all thoughts about voting, and who to vote for- its a complete waste of your valuable time. Its far safer and more immediately practical to assume that nothings going to change- ever; regardless of which gang of crooks gets elected [that's "the system" after all], and proceed accordingly from there.
You must instead focus ALL of your time and attentions on your own individual situation vis a vis the issue at hand- this is crucial,if you do not do this you are most likely doomed to failure in any attempts you might make to solve your problem.
The only way out of doing this[focusing] is if you hire someone else to focus all _their_ attentions on your particular problem instead [ as a "problem solver" I can perhaps do this, perhaps not].
Once you have focused- or hired someone else to do so, your or their basic choices are:
[1] look for legal ways to get around the laws - usually not as hard as it would first appear _if_ you focus 100%, adopt an open mind and use your imagination [now hopefully newly uncluttered by ridiculous thoughts/fantasies about which gang of criminals to vote for] and start to "read between the lines" of laws, or,
[2] disregard the laws if and where you feel comfortable in so doing, keep your mouth shut and don't attract attention [ including not joining any homeschooling freedom groups or such like] and generally try to keep a low profile in this area of your life. [Another hint: being a member of a pro-homeschooling political party such as the Libertarian party is a bad idea attention wise- like a dope smoker having a subscription to "High Times" or similar and expecting to not get busted.]
Most important with either approach- stop complaining about the system, or fantasizing about "change", keep your damn mouth shut- then, "Just Do It!"!
Question:
"As our individual liberties continue to erode and the ever growing central government continues to dominate more and more facets of our daily life, with an upcoming election my family has to look at where each party stands with regard to homeschooling.
I know the libertarians support homeschooling but they have no chance to win and their base in state politics is centered in Atlanta.
I know the Republicans SAY they support homeschooling but they lie so often who can trust them?
I know the Democrats are so cozy with the NEA and GAE that they are loath to offend them...and both groups vehemently oppose anything but state run education/indoctrination camps.
So what to do?
Frankly the Dems seem to be my worst choice as they are predisposed to being hostile to homeschooling- because of their relationship with NEA/GAE and also their predilection with the nanny/welfare state.
Of the two major parties the Dems seem most likely to make homeschooling difficult or illegal....all in the name of the "children's welfare" of course.....which is the same reason Hitler's Germany outlawed home education in 1938.
Hard call to make....both major parties seem to favor making our current socialist republic empire into an ever growing totalitarian state. However, the Repubs do talk a good game....even if they clearly are the best bait and switchers in the 2 party biz.
Hmm.
What's a good homeschooling family to do?"
My reply:
The first thing to do is to erase all thoughts about voting, and who to vote for- its a complete waste of your valuable time. Its far safer and more immediately practical to assume that nothings going to change- ever; regardless of which gang of crooks gets elected [that's "the system" after all], and proceed accordingly from there.
You must instead focus ALL of your time and attentions on your own individual situation vis a vis the issue at hand- this is crucial,if you do not do this you are most likely doomed to failure in any attempts you might make to solve your problem.
The only way out of doing this[focusing] is if you hire someone else to focus all _their_ attentions on your particular problem instead [ as a "problem solver" I can perhaps do this, perhaps not].
Once you have focused- or hired someone else to do so, your or their basic choices are:
[1] look for legal ways to get around the laws - usually not as hard as it would first appear _if_ you focus 100%, adopt an open mind and use your imagination [now hopefully newly uncluttered by ridiculous thoughts/fantasies about which gang of criminals to vote for] and start to "read between the lines" of laws, or,
[2] disregard the laws if and where you feel comfortable in so doing, keep your mouth shut and don't attract attention [ including not joining any homeschooling freedom groups or such like] and generally try to keep a low profile in this area of your life. [Another hint: being a member of a pro-homeschooling political party such as the Libertarian party is a bad idea attention wise- like a dope smoker having a subscription to "High Times" or similar and expecting to not get busted.]
Most important with either approach- stop complaining about the system, or fantasizing about "change", keep your damn mouth shut- then, "Just Do It!"!
Saturday, September 23, 2006
You've Never Had Any Rights: Three Good Reasons Why The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are Not Worth the Paper They Were Written On
Newsflash! You've Never Had Any Rights: Three Good Reasons Why The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are Not Worth the Paper They Were Written On
(c)onebornfree.com2005
Libertarians and limited government proponents etc. generally share one similar belief, or assumption - that is, broadly stated : that the government should only do the things they believe it should - based on a particular idea of what the constitution and bill of rights actually "means", and was "originally supposed to mean".
And in actuality, even many outside of the limited government movement , such as modern "liberals" or "conservatives" , often seem to have fairly fixed ideas about what " it" all means.
I see two big problems with this idea [i.e. that it meant one thing, and one thing only]. The first is philosophical, the second, historically factual.
Trouble Comes in Three's
And then, no doubt because bad news and trouble traditionally comes in three's, there is a third problem which I shall briefly call attention to at the end of my article.
Problem [1]: Subjective Value [ "Human Action"] Theory
Human action theory [which many libertarians claim to believe], tells us that each of us is a unique individual, with our own tastes, values, preferences and life experiences- and, as we grow and experience new things in life, our values change - they are not set in stone. http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec4.asp
These individually subjective value interpretations are just as true of the interpretation of words we read as of actual "real life" events; meaning that any collection of words on a piece of paper, including laws and constitutions, is going to be subjectively interpreted per individual - inevitably meaning that what Jefferson may have thought the constitution "meant" was entirely different from what Madison thought it meant , and that what Hamilton Washington or Adams et al thought it "meant" was also bound to be different.
And further, that what they thought it actually meant at any one point in time was bound to change over time according to their own newer prejudices and life experiences.
As the arguments of the founders are a matter of historical record, this point is of course widely known, even in "the mainstream", although the inevitable conclusions I have drawn here via human action theory are just as widely ignored.
Then and Now
To me, the principles of applied human action theory must inevitably also apply to federal or state judges either then or now, or to any member of the government, living or dead. [ A great book on this, covering the individual economic prejudices of the founders, was written by the somewhat left-wing economic historian Charles Beard- e.g. see his "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029024803/lewrockwell/002-1812875-5295257
A Real World "Bottom Line"
The bottom line here is : even if it were possible for the constitution and Bill of Rights to be written to mean one thing and one thing only, as libertarians and others argue via "original intent" arguments e.g.: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north150.html
or,http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
the plain fact of the matter is that in the real world, they are _still_ going to be subjectively interpreted by individuals both inside or outside of the government and judiciary, who have their own, constantly changing and evolving value systems, experiences, biases, agendas etc. ,
This is inevitable, according to the very philosophy that supposedly underpins much of libertarian thought [i.e. subjective valuation and "Human Action theory"]
Problem [2] The Historical Record
Problem 2 is historically and factually a little more obscure to most libertarians I know, and starts with the anti-federalist arguments.
The anti-federalists, as you know, successfully argued that the constitution should _not_ be passed , simply _because_ it was a ridiculously open-ended document which would bring tyranny [e.g. see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451625250/002-1812875-5295257?v=glance ].
Intentionally Open -Ended
The bald truth, as Brutus and the other anti-federalists pointed out, is that the constitution was intentionally, a totally open ended document. [ Also see the Pennsylvania Minority's writings, as with Brutus, included in Ralph Ketchum's "Anti-Federalist Papers" : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451625250/002-1812875-5295257?v=glance
and : "The Secret Proceedings and Debates of The Convention To Form the US Constitution" by Yates, a convention delegate: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/marketing/Week-of-Mon-20040209/000643.html
Madison's Promise- the "Bait and Switch"
As you might know, the anti-federalist arguments at that time led to Madison's promised concession of the addition of a Bill of Rights, to further supposedly "define" constitutional limits, IF and WHEN the constitution was ratified [i.e. a political "bait and switch"].
Of course, this brilliant political move by Madison , second only to naming his side "Federalists" - when in fact the anti-federalists were the true "federalist"[!], pulled any remaining rug out from under the feet of the so-called "anti-federalists", and the constitution effectively became law when New Hampshire, the 9th colony, ratified on June 21st. 1788 , although it is not "officially" in effect until March 4th 1789.
What You Are Probably Not Aware Of - The Judiciary Act of 1789............
What few are aware of is the historical fact that the day before the new congress signed the Bill of Rights, to be returned for review and approval or rejection by individual states before becoming law, it passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was not subject to review by any of those same states.
To learn exactly how the Judiciary Act of 1789 guarantees the destruction of the rights you think you might have [or had!] under the 10 ammendments of the Bill of Rights , please ask here in the comments section and I will get back to you ASAP!
....
ARTICLE EDIT/UPDATE 01/24/11: click here to learn about the Judiciary Act of 1789
(c)onebornfree.com2005
Libertarians and limited government proponents etc. generally share one similar belief, or assumption - that is, broadly stated : that the government should only do the things they believe it should - based on a particular idea of what the constitution and bill of rights actually "means", and was "originally supposed to mean".
And in actuality, even many outside of the limited government movement , such as modern "liberals" or "conservatives" , often seem to have fairly fixed ideas about what " it" all means.
I see two big problems with this idea [i.e. that it meant one thing, and one thing only]. The first is philosophical, the second, historically factual.
Trouble Comes in Three's
And then, no doubt because bad news and trouble traditionally comes in three's, there is a third problem which I shall briefly call attention to at the end of my article.
Problem [1]: Subjective Value [ "Human Action"] Theory
Human action theory [which many libertarians claim to believe], tells us that each of us is a unique individual, with our own tastes, values, preferences and life experiences- and, as we grow and experience new things in life, our values change - they are not set in stone. http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec4.asp
These individually subjective value interpretations are just as true of the interpretation of words we read as of actual "real life" events; meaning that any collection of words on a piece of paper, including laws and constitutions, is going to be subjectively interpreted per individual - inevitably meaning that what Jefferson may have thought the constitution "meant" was entirely different from what Madison thought it meant , and that what Hamilton Washington or Adams et al thought it "meant" was also bound to be different.
And further, that what they thought it actually meant at any one point in time was bound to change over time according to their own newer prejudices and life experiences.
As the arguments of the founders are a matter of historical record, this point is of course widely known, even in "the mainstream", although the inevitable conclusions I have drawn here via human action theory are just as widely ignored.
Then and Now
To me, the principles of applied human action theory must inevitably also apply to federal or state judges either then or now, or to any member of the government, living or dead. [ A great book on this, covering the individual economic prejudices of the founders, was written by the somewhat left-wing economic historian Charles Beard- e.g. see his "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029024803/lewrockwell/002-1812875-5295257
A Real World "Bottom Line"
The bottom line here is : even if it were possible for the constitution and Bill of Rights to be written to mean one thing and one thing only, as libertarians and others argue via "original intent" arguments e.g.: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north150.html
or,http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
the plain fact of the matter is that in the real world, they are _still_ going to be subjectively interpreted by individuals both inside or outside of the government and judiciary, who have their own, constantly changing and evolving value systems, experiences, biases, agendas etc. ,
This is inevitable, according to the very philosophy that supposedly underpins much of libertarian thought [i.e. subjective valuation and "Human Action theory"]
Problem [2] The Historical Record
Problem 2 is historically and factually a little more obscure to most libertarians I know, and starts with the anti-federalist arguments.
The anti-federalists, as you know, successfully argued that the constitution should _not_ be passed , simply _because_ it was a ridiculously open-ended document which would bring tyranny [e.g. see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451625250/002-1812875-5295257?v=glance ].
Intentionally Open -Ended
The bald truth, as Brutus and the other anti-federalists pointed out, is that the constitution was intentionally, a totally open ended document. [ Also see the Pennsylvania Minority's writings, as with Brutus, included in Ralph Ketchum's "Anti-Federalist Papers" : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451625250/002-1812875-5295257?v=glance
and : "The Secret Proceedings and Debates of The Convention To Form the US Constitution" by Yates, a convention delegate: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/marketing/Week-of-Mon-20040209/000643.html
Madison's Promise- the "Bait and Switch"
As you might know, the anti-federalist arguments at that time led to Madison's promised concession of the addition of a Bill of Rights, to further supposedly "define" constitutional limits, IF and WHEN the constitution was ratified [i.e. a political "bait and switch"].
Of course, this brilliant political move by Madison , second only to naming his side "Federalists" - when in fact the anti-federalists were the true "federalist"[!], pulled any remaining rug out from under the feet of the so-called "anti-federalists", and the constitution effectively became law when New Hampshire, the 9th colony, ratified on June 21st. 1788 , although it is not "officially" in effect until March 4th 1789.
What You Are Probably Not Aware Of - The Judiciary Act of 1789............
What few are aware of is the historical fact that the day before the new congress signed the Bill of Rights, to be returned for review and approval or rejection by individual states before becoming law, it passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was not subject to review by any of those same states.
To learn exactly how the Judiciary Act of 1789 guarantees the destruction of the rights you think you might have [or had!] under the 10 ammendments of the Bill of Rights , please ask here in the comments section and I will get back to you ASAP!
....
ARTICLE EDIT/UPDATE 01/24/11: click here to learn about the Judiciary Act of 1789
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
You vs The World-19 False Assumptions
YOUR 19 FALSE ASSUMPTIONS?
Here are, for your edification, abuse, and ridicule, are 19 poorly thought out false assumptions that will hopefully prevent you from living a better life. Enjoy!
YOU AND SOCIETY
False Assumption : that you should be someone other than yourself.
False Assumption : that others will do things the way you would, or be like you.
False Assumption : that your emotions should/can/ will conform to an intellectually preconceived standard, as should others emotions.
False assumption : that you can control others.
False assumption : that others should respect you
YOU AND MORALITY
False Assumption : that you must obey a moral code created by someone/anyone else.
False Assumption : that you must put the happiness of others ahead of your own.
False Assumption : that anyone can speak on behalf of another.
YOU AND YOUR POLITICS AND FREEDOM
False Assumption : that other people can prevent you from being free.
False Assumption : that your [political] rights will make you free.
False Assumption : that you must create better conditions in society before you can be free, and that therefore, there are compelling social issues that require your participation.
YOU AND YOUR DECISION MAKING
False Assumption : that you can make important decisions when you’re feeling strong emotions.
False Assumption : that time, effort, and money spent in the past must be considered when making a decision in the present.
False Assumption : that the cost of getting out of a bad situation is too high to ever consider.
False Assumption : [when making an important decision], that your information is 100% certain.
YOU AND GOVERNMENTS
False Assumption : that governments perform socially useful functions that deserve your support.
False Assumption : that you have a duty to obey laws.
False Assumption : that the government can be counted upon to carry out a social reform you favor.
False Assumption : that the government is so powerful that it can prevent you from doing what you want with your life.
Here are, for your edification, abuse, and ridicule, are 19 poorly thought out false assumptions that will hopefully prevent you from living a better life. Enjoy!
YOU AND SOCIETY
False Assumption : that you should be someone other than yourself.
False Assumption : that others will do things the way you would, or be like you.
False Assumption : that your emotions should/can/ will conform to an intellectually preconceived standard, as should others emotions.
False assumption : that you can control others.
False assumption : that others should respect you
YOU AND MORALITY
False Assumption : that you must obey a moral code created by someone/anyone else.
False Assumption : that you must put the happiness of others ahead of your own.
False Assumption : that anyone can speak on behalf of another.
YOU AND YOUR POLITICS AND FREEDOM
False Assumption : that other people can prevent you from being free.
False Assumption : that your [political] rights will make you free.
False Assumption : that you must create better conditions in society before you can be free, and that therefore, there are compelling social issues that require your participation.
YOU AND YOUR DECISION MAKING
False Assumption : that you can make important decisions when you’re feeling strong emotions.
False Assumption : that time, effort, and money spent in the past must be considered when making a decision in the present.
False Assumption : that the cost of getting out of a bad situation is too high to ever consider.
False Assumption : [when making an important decision], that your information is 100% certain.
YOU AND GOVERNMENTS
False Assumption : that governments perform socially useful functions that deserve your support.
False Assumption : that you have a duty to obey laws.
False Assumption : that the government can be counted upon to carry out a social reform you favor.
False Assumption : that the government is so powerful that it can prevent you from doing what you want with your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)