This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Friday, March 27, 2009

What was the Purpose of the Original US Constitution?

Many pro-State trolls say


"The US Constitution was a brilliant document. It was a great model for a form of government. The current economic and political leaders wrecked a great system."

Actually, the original US Constitution was itself illegitimate.

There's an obvious argument against the morality of *ALL* Constitutions. Unless the Constitution is unanimously approved, the authors of any Constitution are saying that the majority has the right to enslave and steal from the minority. Once you say "A majority can approve taxes!", you are saying that the majority has the right to steal from the minority. Once you realize "Taxation is theft!", you cannot morally support *ANY* government at all. No matter how noble the intentions, any taxation system rapidly degenerates into a system of tribute collection and distribution.

If you accept that the State has the ability to collect taxes, then the State must also have the ability to use violence to force people to pay. This means that the State must be given a monopoly of violence. With a monopoly of violence, the evil power of the State can only grow over time. No matter what restrictions you place on State power, with a monopoly of violence, the State bureaucrats will always be seeking to expand and consolidate their power.

If State power dramatically increased all of a sudden, the scam would be obvious to everyone. Instead, individual freedom is gradually eroded. A true free market, where nobody has a monopoly of violence, would not suffer from this defect. If someone started acquiring a violence monopoly, other people would start to unite in opposition. Further, the violence monopoly would not be perceived as legitimate, making it harder to acquire or sustain a monopoly in the first place.

The truth is not determined by a majority vote. That is the ultimate flaw in all democratic or republican forms of government. Voting also provides an additional incentive to brainwash/school the masses to be complacent slaves.

At the time the original US Constitution was signed, the two main factions were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists said "We don't need a central government." The compromise was the creation of a Federal government, but with carefully limited power and many restrictions.

Viewed this way, the US Constitution was not a brilliant document that guaranteed individual freedom. Rather, it was a compromise between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions. Some conspiracy theorists say that the European bankers had placed some spies among the Federalist faction. They knew that once a monopolistic central government was in place, its power would only grow over time. The European bankers knew that the freedom the Americans had won was dangerous and contagious. By creating a strong central government, the freedom the average Americans had won would be eroded.

As another example, the original Federal Reserve Act contained many sound provisions. Some of the US bankers were concerned that the Federal Reserve law would actually restrain their ability to loot and pillage. The bankers' leader said "Don't worry. The important point is to get a central bank in place. We can always change it later." The executive branch declined to enforce the provisions restricting the expansion of the Federal Reserve's power, culminating with President Roosevelt's default on the dollar and gold confiscation in 1933.

Once you accept that the State has a monopoly of violence, its evil power can only grow over time. The original US Constitution was merely a compromise the Federalists made for the anti-Federalists. The bad guys knew that once a strong central government was in place, its power would only grow over time.

Once you accept that the State has a monopoly of violence, it can only grow in power. Even if a Federal government were not formed in 1787, it would have been formed at some later date, because the individual state governments were presumed to have legitimacy.

The original US Constitution contained many provisions that protected individual freedom. Over time, all of those protections were eroded. Once you have a monopolistic State, it becomes very easy to gradually erode individual freedom via the "Problem! Reaction! Solution!" paradigm. The State causes a problem, and the solution is to give the State more power. Eventually, any State at all, even a minimal one, will degenerate into the current mess.

If you say "Return to the original US Constitution!", you are pro-State trolling. The US Constitution is a failed and discredited model of government. The correct answer is "Who needs a monopolistic State at all? All services currently provided by the State could be better handled in a true free market."

The original US Constitution was merely a power grab by politically connected insiders. Insiders were concerned that they were losing their power. They were concerned that individuals were having too much freedom. The solution was to form a strong central government to consolidate their power.

You read about Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion in history class. These were both groups of people resisting taxes imposed by the new Federal government. The rebels are portrayed in school as villains, but they actually are heroes. In no State-licensed history class will the teacher ever say "Did the people participating in Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion actually have the moral high ground?"

In Shay's Rebellion, the new Federal government imposed a gold standard, demanding that property taxes be paid in gold. The colonists had no gold. Because they had no gold, they were unable to pay taxes; they probably would have paid the tax if they could have paid in goods instead of gold. At the time the US Constitution was written, the gold standard was evil, because other forms of money were outlawed and the European central banks had a near monopoly of the world's gold supply. The farmers in Shay's Rebellion refused to pay property taxes in gold, and violently resisted efforts to foreclose on their property and kick them off their farms.

In the Whiskey Rebellion, people were refusing to pay the excise tax on alcohol imposed by the new Federal government.

One of the first things that George Washington did was that he declared martial law against these tax revolts. He dispatched Federal troops to violently put down the tax revolts. The vast majority of the population did not realize "Taxation is theft!" They voluntarily paid taxes/tribute, and the profits were used to put down isolated pockets of resistance. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were not decided by a careful debate of the issues. They were decided with violence. Some people did not consent to the taxes imposed by the new Federal government, but violence forced them to pay.

Viewed this way, the original US Constitution was merely a power grab by insiders. Violence was used against people who resisted the new Federal government. Insiders were able to lobby the new Federal government for favors, which has continued to the present. The new Federal government assumed responsibility for Revolutionary War debt by individual state governments. With its taxation power, the Federal government was able to pay off this debt at face amount. Before the Federal government was created, Revolutionary War bonds were practically worthless. Insiders bought them up at a discount, profiting immensely when the new Federal government was created.

The original US Constitution was not a noble document. It was a compromise that placated people who were wary of State power. All the careful provisions that limited State power were concessions to the people who were wary of a strong State. Over time, all these provisions were eroded. Once the State has a monopoly of violence, it is very easy to gradually erode all the protections of individual freedom that the original State bureaucrats had promised.

Viewed this way, Freedoman's "jealousy" argument applies. The insiders who led the US Revolution were not saying "Great Britain's power is illegitimate!" Instead, they were motivated by jealousy of Great Britain's power over the Americans. Instead of paying taxes/tribute to Europe, they wanted the average American to pay taxes/tribute to them instead! Were the founders of the US government motivated by jealousy, more than a desire to protect individual freedom?

Even if you have noble intentions, your judgement becomes clouded once you have a monopoly of violence. For example, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution, but once he was President, he took actions that increased the power of the State. For example, Thomas Jefferson was concerned that the US Constitution did not technically authorize the Louisiana Purchase.

It is wrong to say "The original US Constitution was the best possible form of government." It is more accurate to say "The US Constitution was the best form of government tried until this point in history." Since then, the "no monopolistic State at all" theory of government appears to be superior. I claim the "no monopolistic State at all" form of government will prove to be the best. Like all scientific theories, this one must prove its value in the real world. I predict that the philosophy of true free markets will be successful, with actual tangible benefits for those who implement the philosophy.

8 comments:

David Z said...

"Viewed this way, the original US Constitution was merely a power grab by insiders."

I like to remind people from time to time that the constitution wasn't authorized by the Articles of confederation, and that the primary reason it was drafted in secrecy, is because it was treason.

robert30062 said...

What would you call the form of government represented in Star Trek? They don't use money so taxes aren't involved. I was wondering if the type of utopian society in Star Trek could really exist with all of the institutional organization and power that exists in that world. I.e. United Federation of Planets (very big) and Starfleet. It seems to me that somehow instinct will have to catch up with the current circumstances of civilization and technology for humans to have a chance at surviving as a species into the distant future. I have observed that nature adapts very slowly or at least "slowly" in reference to one human life or even multiple generations. For example, if you cut open the skin in the upper abdominal area of a blue whale, you will still see tiny skeletal arms from when it used to walk the earth millions of years ago. Look how long that took to change!!! Just a few thousand years ago, and for a much longer time period than that, humans lived much shorter lives in comparison to present day and faced all kinds of natural dangers that made promiscuous breeding ABSOLUTELY necessary for the species to survive. In the present, society as a whole has asserted a less promiscuous lifestyle for reasons such as health and global over-population but the instinct to be sexually promiscuous is still very powerful. The instinct to horde resources was ABSOLUTELY necessary for survival many years ago due to the scarcity of them (or scarcity of access to them). Now we have the means to reach and deliver all the resources the global population would ever need for survival yet there are those who still act on instinctive compulsions to horde (like the tiny skeletal arms). I think the residual effects of these long standing instincts which have outlived their usefulness are a major obstruction in real change in our society. Who needs the greedy people of the world to “gain morality” if they just become enlightened enough to see the interconnected and ultimate SELF interest in living more harmoniously with their fellow man?

Robert

Anonymous said...

Robert,

It's no utopia, it's the worst kind of socialism. No money = no private property. That's more like 100% tax than no tax.

Imagine the life of a man living on Earth or any other Federation planet. Perhaps he gets tired of the socialist "utopia" and wishes to get his own ship and explore the universe, or colonize a planet with some like-minded people. He can't save up money and buy a ship. All ships are owned by the Federation. He must beg for permission to use a ship. But giving freedom to malcontents is probably a low priority for the Federation. They need those ships to scan nebulas and stuff.

This is not a case of people evolving past greed. One organization has greedily stolen all wealth and enslaved everyone.

Are there any Star Trek episodes that explain how the government works? I haven't seen any but I think my assumptions are reasonable.

FSK said...

How did we wind up debating a fictional Statist society like Star Trek?

Let's keep our fictional analysis to important things, like the Federal Reserve and Obama.

Star Trek has some good fnords, like the "prime directive". Star Trek as an utopian Statist society is an evil fnord.

Anonymous said...

FSK, I enjoy reading your posts, but I have a couple points of debate:

First, you say the world would be better were it a totally free market without government, however, I wonder how long such a society could last before some corporation (or cartel of corporations) amassed enough power that it too would erode our freedoms. Without a government, what hope would we have of keeping such accumulation of power in check? Yes, government itself can (and certainly does) accumulate power and erode our freedoms, but at least we have a chance of reigning in the power of government. I'm not so sure we'd have such power over private corporations in the absence of some form of government.

Second (and this is unrelated to this post), you've said that banks are able to borrow from the FED at a low rate and lend to others at a high rate and pocket the difference. You infer that the banks serve no valuable purpose in this arrangement, but I'd like to point out that the useful purpose they do serve is assessing credit risk. They ascertain who is credit worthy and lend to those people and suffer the losses when they make bad risk assessments. That is, they take the losses when our government isn't in the habit of bailing them out!!! Now, I do agree that the practice of borrowing from the FED and lending to the Treasury is an outright theft, but aside from that, I just wanted to point out that banks (when not corrupt and in collusion with government) do provide a valuable service.

Josh said...

I'm amazed how many people believe a system can be near perfect, yet unable to sustain itself.

Sovereign said...

This is in response to Anonymous who said:

"First, you say the world would be better were it a totally free market without government, however, I wonder how long such a society could last before some corporation (or cartel of corporations) amassed enough power that it too would erode our freedoms. Without a government, what hope would we have of keeping such accumulation of power in check? Yes, government itself can (and certainly does) accumulate power and erode our freedoms, but at least we have a chance of reigning in the power of government. I'm not so sure we'd have such power over private corporations in the absence of some form of government."

Corporations are easily boycotted. You can't boycott government without threat of violence. Worst case scenario, if a corporation or cartel thereof becomes violent themselves, their buildings can just be burned down.

=)

fritz said...

During the time the constitution was constructed a true non government free market society would have been unable to exist. The powers of imperialism were to great for the regular free peoples of the world to keep at bay. At least an attempt was made to limit the powers of government.

Just remember that because it was the best system created up until that time. Doesn't mean that we can't do even better. At least this form of government has lasted long enough to let better ideas develop.

Now is the time, and people are ready. Most are sick and tired of being stolen from and lied to. The world is ripe for a free market no government revolution.

Spread the word, and promote Agorism!!!!!!

FRITZ

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.