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.