Me, Shane and the Constitution

[Travis Retriever]

Right.  YouTube is being a fucking cunt, and doesn't seem to want to let me post my goddamn comments to replies Shane made to my comments on this video: [yt]7NmsLBWxf0k[/yt]

*EDIT* It looks like youtube DID post my comments.  I will delete them and post them here, so we can use more than the worthless 500 characters youtube limits us to. Also, sorry if I come off as invective, but this has been bothering me for several weeks now. Sorry if my reasoning isn't up to par, but I did point out various things saying, "to be fair" in case I was wrong about things you meant/said.*EDIT*


So I suppose I'll have to post them here.


Shanedk (to wizkid2000):

Why do you think a piece of paper with ink on it is able to do ANYTHING? And you call ME brainwashed?

OK, but what is the point of having a constitution?


shanedk (to me):

No, because Communism is not analogous to the Constitution; it's more analogous to the free market.
It's like: you hire a security force to keep people from stealing your stuff; they do nothing while people steal your stuff; they're the ones that failed you.
We the people are supposed to be the ultimate arbiters and defenders of the Constitution. We are the ones who are supposed to hold the politicians accountable when they violate the Constitution. We failed.

That's what happens when you give them a monopoly...
Also, your point is very unnerving.  Because to say that "we failed" is to imply indirectly, that the state crooks are off the hook and that we are responsible for actions they did with their own bodies, even though they are perfectly functioning adults, which is a very scary thing.
Even if that isn't your point, it seems to be a possible implication of it...

The state (which the constitution set up), by definition, isn't a voluntary contract.
So your point is still somewhat lacking.

Ladyattis cites sources that a democratic system is one which favors power concentration (or something like that.  He explained it better).
Given you spoke of "politicians" which are elected via this mechanism, it would be the democratic part that failed.
Also, my point still stands.  If people can't be obliged to act in this fashion, like the way people will still do drugs even if you apply force, then it is a human nature issue, and thus, something the patch of the constitution does not remedy.
[yt]PkAE6_R7Nls[/yt]

What's more, here's part of a comment comment I posted on AnarchyInYourHead on this strip: http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/08/29/things-paper-is-good-for/ 
as well:

"I see special pleading and pleading and red herring.
his point about comparing the government to a market activity of hiring private security is a complete red herring. If we had a choice in the matter like we do market activity he might have a point. But he doesn’t as states are, by definition monopolies on force.

He might not know it, but his reply to my point is actually a better argument against the state:
As Stefan Molyneux has pointed out, the problem with the state is the imbalance of incentives. The “ultimate arbiters” only have a few pennies taken from them, while the people in power get millions and a pension. They’ll fight tooth and nail to keep it. But what incentive do the 'ultimate arbiters' have?
This is another problem. Is his example, it’s one or a few people paying for a single service. With the state, the cost is collectivized. Why not simply scrap that mechanism of effed up incentives?"

To be fair, I apologize if I misread your point about the comparison in your reply to me.

However, given the problem of the incentive imbalance, why not scrap the concept of taxes all together?
Ladyattis explained that given the way the state gets money, it WILL grow, regardless here:

[yt]2f9566Z0jDM[/yt]

Instead of asking, "Is it constitutional and is it legitimate?" Why not save a step and ask, "Does it violate the non-aggression principle?"

Again, to be fair, I recall you saying that,
1. The initiation of force and fraud, even if done by government (whether Federal, State or Local), is not legitimate (or something like that to wizkid2000 at some point).
2. People should be able to opt out of services (hopefully this includes paying for them as well), but you still want a constitution.

Regarding the those two things; if you believe those things, then technically, you are an anarcho capitalist; at least by the common definition used among market anarchists that I associate with.
Technically you'd be more of a Rothbard style one.  I read he wanted a constitution or something like that as well on Wikipedia.

[MrBogosity]

OK, but what is the point of having a constitution?

The point is to have a document which creates the government, and therefore can be used as a club when government does something it shouldn't. But it's the people, not the Constitution itself, that actually does this.

That's what happens when you give them a monopoly...

Yes, and that's the point: WE gave them the monopoly.

Also, your point is very unnerving.  Because to say that "we failed" is to imply indirectly, that the state crooks are off the hook

Not at all! If the police fail to solve a crime, does that mean all criminals are off the hook?

his point about comparing the government to a market activity of hiring private security is a complete red herring. If we had a choice in the matter like we do market activity he might have a point. But he doesn't as states are, by definition monopolies on force.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says this, and the Second Amendment explicitly states otherwise.

2. People should be able to opt out of services (hopefully this includes paying for them as well), but you still want a constitution.

There's nothing mutually exclusive about those things.

[Travis Retriever]

Damn, I wasn't expecting you to be so civil.
I guess you weren't kidding when you said it was a matter of whether the person you're talking to was willing to return the favor.
Let's both hope it lasts for both of us.

The point is to have a document which creates the government, and therefore can be used as a club when government does something it shouldn't. But it's the people, not the Constitution itself, that actually does this.

OK, that does make better sense, in that it is supposed to be a club that we have to be willing to use; and if we don't use it, then it is more our fault.
However, that people aren't willing to use it via the incentive issues I pointed out earlier still makes my point.  People don't use it, allowing the state to grow because of human nature.

Yes, and that's the point: WE gave them the monopoly.

...What do you mean "we"? I wasn't even alive back then?
But seriously, if you mean it in more of a Mary Ruwart, "We have to see that this is unacceptable" kind of way, I suppose I can get on board.  In that way, my original analogy would still work, but in a different way; in that the people in Russia at that time saw communism as legitimate, and accepted it, even though it would involve a huge amount of force.
You could argue that the difference with the people and the Constitution (and possibly with the folks in Russia, depending on when Mises published his book Socialism) that the economic mechanism for 100% free markets, the Austrian school of economics, wasn't yet known at the time, and so the framers of the Constitution, much less the people in general, wouldn't have known better, but I digress.

Not at all! If the police fail to solve a crime, does that mean all criminals are off the hook?

True.  OK, thank goodness.
For a second I thought you were pulling an Alex Jones, where he blames the "private" bankers, while letting the government crooks who allowed it to happen off the hook (as LibertyStudent would say).

There is nothing in the Constitution that says this, and the Second Amendment explicitly states otherwise.

(Assuming I interpreted what you said correctly)
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" --source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

If public schools are considered a monopoly because you pay for them via regardless of whether you use them or not, so can this stuff.
It could be that taxes had a different definition then, but still...

Speaking of the second Amendment, the response I got to that was, "tell that to the judges to keep striking down people's right to bear arms."
You could argue that, "well we failed" but again, see my point on the incentives issue.
What if I was carrying a gun, not hurting anyone, and am arrested for it?
What if I TRY to defend my right on constitutional grounds verbally, but am still locked up?
What do I do then?
In short, the Constitution may be a club, but it's not a very good one...

In your first video about the Constitution, you made the point about tacit consent saying that, "that seems like an awful lot; if you're free shouldn't you be able to be free where you are now?"
If you can make the point about things should be easier/simpler, then I say the same of this.
Having to "watch the watchmen" seems like a bit much...shouldn't things be a bit simpler?
Virgil0211 said that the state/government (or whatever word he used) was like a rabid dog that could kill you at anytime, but you keep in order to defend against other nations' rabid dogs.
That seems unrealistic and to much for the rest of us.
Here's an idea:  don't buy the dog, buy a shotgun (and maybe a flame thrower if you have any money left over).  If the other nations' "dogs" don't bother you, fine, if they try to hurt you...
BLOW
THAT
FUCKER's
BRAINS
OUT.
And/or melt it with the flame thrower if need be.

Also, it also occurred to me that my points aren't necessarily an argument against a written constitution per se, but especially against it utilizing a democratic mechanism, and the ability to collect taxes (which are, by definition, collected at the barrel of a gun).
I don't know whether or not the founders set it up so people could opt out of the system from an individual level; however, given ladyattis's points about resource acquisition, that would be a HUGE step forward.  As would allowing the government (again, not to be conflated with the state) to compete on a free market basis; just like anything else.  You have talked about emergence via the free market.
I simply ask, if that applies to damn near every single service/good/etc in an economy, why not something as important as law/courts/police/defense?
Why do these things need to have the initial/first cause of constitutional framers to set things up, when they'll only be later discarded when the government doesn't obey the constitution later on anyways?
Why not take the atheist, as opposed to the deist view, and order and institutions that maintain it by punishing force/fraud can emerge in society; just like health care, just like anything else.

You yourself have even said that the State can NEVER calculate.
Why not allow a free market in those things?
Why even make it so people would pay taxes at first to begin with, and just allow the same free market that got us a polio vaccine, computers, airplanes and so on; why not allow them to make vast progress in law, courts, police, defense.
Remember your Mises.  The state cannot calculate.
To be fair though, your idea of service charges for government services is a huge step forward in that it helps with the resource acquisition part of the calculation problem noted by ladyattis in that they have to provide a good service or people won't buy it.

It also struck me before I wrote that that you seem to define government as the use of institutionalized force; though not necessarily a coercive monopoly on force or the initiation of force (both of which, I recall you saying).
If that is so, then your point about, "well police/courts/defense involve the use of force; the post office doesn't" makes sense.
If you defense ANY police/courts/defense, including ones emergent in a free market as "government" then your point makes sense.
As I have said, many (if not all) anarcho capitalists are NOT against the use of force for defense or restitution.  Only the geo-political monopoly on the initiation of force known as the state.

There's nothing mutually exclusive about those things.

True.  Hence my point after that.

*EDIT*
It also occurred to me that, before the constitution was even framed, there already existed statism in this country in the form of municipal states (eg. Maryland, Delaware, etc); and that might have set a precedent that would later follow (remembering that compromise had to be formed between the federalists and the nationalists); so that might have something to do as well.
And to be fair, I don't know how each of them ("states" in the United States sense) were set up; whether some were anarchic (voluntary), or were statist (non-voluntary) or whatever.

Also, I know that the reason you and others prefer the states instead of the Federal Government is because it is more decentralized, more local, etc.
Yet they are still geopolitical monopolies on the initiation of force.  Maybe not as bad as the federal nation state, but still...an institution that can initiate force and still be seen as legitimate is still what it is; be it a National State, a Municipal State, or a Local State.
If more local = good, why not take it ALL the way, and deal out all the power back out to sovereign individuals?
I've been told that some things are better provided by a National State, such as defense, but I see no reason to believe that.
Especially when the only war that, to my knowledge, was justified (Source: Rothbard) was the Revolutionary War, before the National State/federal government was even set up.
Just food for thought.