The Constitution was the Seed of Violence that Bred this Society
Many people, mostly the statist type of course, see problems with our current government or society, but can’t bring themselves to accept that the constitution itself is in fact at fault for the situation we find ourselves in today. Is blame necessary to place? Probably not, but part of explaining the inherent failures of government is to explain why which might include assigning a bit of blame.
The Constitution was written for one of two reasons as far as I can gather from all the positions being thrown around today. It was either written to limit government and protect rights or it simply designed a government that morphed into what we have today and will continue morphing into the future. It couldn’t be much simpler than that. It either set up a government that was supposed to stay mostly as designed or it allowed for the government it set up to become whatever it wants to become.
A person who holds either of those positions while complaining or pointing out the “injustices” or wrongs of government, must be compelled to look this fact in the face. The Constitution failed. If someone thinks the Constitution should have restricted or limited government to avoid “this mess” they must then admit the Constitution failed its mission otherwise they would not have a complaint about government growing outside of its restrictions. Similarly a person who thinks the Constitution just set up an ever changing government must admit that the Constitution failed because what we got was by the Constitution’s design. Perhaps not specifically, but the design laid out by the Constitution lead us here. The difference is between the two is basically irrelevant.
Once more people can see that the Constitution has failed maybe more will aim their frustrations at the right target. One thing that should be made clear is that the Constitution did not fail because of it’s use of words, intent or design. It failed because it violated Natural Law(self ownership). No society can have a positive outcome while simultaneously violating natural law, especially if the foundation of that society is a violation. This may be reminiscent of the social contract argument, but instead of trying to prove it isn’t valid through contract law one can show it’s base violation of natural right.
The fact that very few people signed the Constitution isn’t just something to laugh off. The idea that person A’s signature can count for person B-Z’s signatures. Is a violation of self ownership. Only my signature counts as my approval or agreement to what has been signed. So from the very beginning of American history there has been a violation of natural right embedded into society. Fast forward over 200 years later and what has happened? There are violations of rights all over the place and they are accepted as normal, law, just and moral. The Constitution was the seed of violence that bred this society.
The constitution was designed to create the smallest, most limited government in world history. It ended up creating the largest, most evil, most immoral government in world history. If minarcharchists get there way we will just get the same government we have now back in 30 years.
The push to reduce the size of government has only increased the size of the government. It is time to end this evil monstrosity.
Right on!
Excellent article! I'm going to share it on my page. BTW, aren't you associated with An Anarchist Conversation on Facebook? If you ever want to cross-promote or collaborate somehow, hit me up.
My page is American Objectivist. I don't get a lot of time to spend on it, especially to do original content like videos and articles, but this is one subject I've been wanting to cover next.
It baffles me how Constitutionalists these days have fits about Congress meeting behind closed doors and not being transparent, and secret legislation, when those were the exact circumstances under which their precious chicken scratches were adopted. I wrote something a while back about that, and a Constitutionalist friend of mine (who should know better since he's authored a few books on that and related subjects) made his apology saying, "They just didn't want King George to know what they were up to."
That's funny, since the Constitution wasn't adopted until about five years after the Revolutionary War ended? Funny that the Articles of Confederation were adopted right during the Revolution, and I don't remember reading anywhere that they had any privacy concerns about that one? That was just one more reason for me to think that statism is a religion. They'll attempt any kind of mental gymnastics they have to in order to defend their Holy Book. And I'm not being facetious when I call it that; it's full of holes.
Sorry, I've been distracted from steemit. Yes I run the podcast An Anarchist Conversation. I'd enjoy to converse with you on such topics. Message me on the book if you'd like to pursue that further. Thanks!