CBS calling for Scrapping the US Constitution!

xmcp123 said:
The Constitution controls the structure, duties, and basic low level procedures of the government. Those realistically could be made better, and early on he makes that case.
Click to expand...
What are you smoking bro?

xmcp123 said:
Fun fact: No you don't. Not if it means taking rights from other people.
Click to expand...
Rights are legal claims. They are fictions, delusions, etc.

You don't inherently have any rights.

Also, how do you propose to have government and not take anyone's rights away? How will you force people to participate in the system when they don't like the outcome or decisions?

The entire notion of government is completely, AND DEMONSTRABLY irrational. There is no "small government" solution that is marginally less crazy.
 


The constitution was dead long ago. It was a neat idea. A good experiment, but one that ultimately failed. It didn't take long from when the constitution was finalized for the first usurpation to take place. What good is a constitution when the entity it is supposed to restrain violates it wantonly?
 
The state is out of control which is why I consider myself to have no allegiance to any state or piece of land.

Land exists for life to live. Land has no loyalty neither do states and individuals and patriots need to check their allegiance to a pot of dirt.

Most patriots are loyal to ideals and not land. But they tie those ideals to land so when you have the inevitable happen -states manipulating those ideals to suit the benefit of fewer and fewer people they try to fight the state.

What you need to fight are ideals and not states. You need to separate yourself from state to be free. That's why IM is an incredible opportunity for many people to really free themselves -from constraints of land, state and human oppression, whether it be a job or inhumane laws.

Unfortunately the state can't be changed -change comes from collapse, when enough people have suffered to collectively establish a embryo state that is almost libertarian and anarchistic. It doesn't come from having infowar radio shows or complaining on forums. Unfortunately human history tells us that the embryo of freedom has always grown up to be an adult of oppression. That is the life of states.

The way out is to be your own state. IM allows you to travel perpetually, to play off the advantages of being able to work and play anywhere. Don't get bogged down fighting a state because it's fruitless. Remove yourself from state allegiances and tie the knot only with ideals that have no borders and no state. Take advantage of the amazing freedom that working for yourself, online, almost anywhere can give you.

Am I saying that lawyers wiping their asses with the constitution is a good thing? Not at all. But it's an expected thing. Human rights have always been the toilet paper of the ruling class and we haven't evolved far enough to expect it to be any different now.
 
Frank Zappa said:
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
Click to expand...

Having said that, what exactly did this guy say that could be called treason and deserves to get him shot? From a statist perspective, which he clearly is as a Constitutional Law professor, he seems to be arguing that the Constitution is full of stupid shit like the electoral college, and arguments about gun control would be better made rationally, instead of based on something written by a bunch of racist, misogynist, "tool bag lawyers" two hundred years ago. From the perspective of reforming our "Democracy," I'd say that's a perfectly valid argument. Currently, even the illusion of democracy is a joke, and changing that would take a constitutional convention to undo corporate personhood, Citizens United, etc. I'm not making an argument that would be anything other than a cluster fuck of epic proportions. I just don't get the outrage at this one guy, or some of the interpretations of what he's saying.
 
guerilla said:
What are you smoking bro?


Rights are legal claims. They are fictions, delusions, etc.

You don't inherently have any rights.

Also, how do you propose to have government and not take anyone's rights away? How will you force people to participate in the system when they don't like the outcome or decisions?

The entire notion of government is completely, AND DEMONSTRABLY irrational. There is no "small government" solution that is marginally less crazy.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about this from within the system we live in. I'm not saying it's possible to have a government without removing any rights at all.
The question this guy is not bringing up is whether it's better to live with a state but without the very few protections we're afforded, or better to live with a state and with the protections we've been afforded.
Not everything is a debate of anarchism vs. everything else. There's such a thing as better and worse within the state system. Since we're not going stateless any time soon, it's probably good to at least consider(when speaking practically) what is better or worse within the system we have.
 
xmcp123 said:
I'm talking about this from within the system we live in.
Click to expand...
You only live in it if you believe you live in it.

If I put on a big bird outfit, you're welcome to treat me like big bird, but I ain't actually big bird.

xmcp123 said:
Not everything is a debate of anarchism vs. everything else.
Click to expand...
It's not about anarchism. Indeed, no one has mentioned anarchism. The state is simply irrational, and participating in irrationality, is in fact, irrational.

The only excuse is people who are too dumb to understand, a group I do not include you in.

xmcp123 said:
There's such a thing as better and worse within the state system.
Click to expand...
States never improve. They always degenerate into collapse. The libertarian movement in the US is 50 years old, and the state continues to grow exponentially.

At one point, you have to acknowledge that you're fucking for virginity and stop.

xmcp123 said:
Since we're not going stateless any time soon, it's probably good to at least consider(when speaking practically) what is better or worse within the system we have.
Click to expand...
You don't have a system. A system is imposed on you. You can change systems, arbitrage systems, or ignore systems any time you want.

But most people won't. They get obsessed with nonsense like "the constitution" which is basically, 4 pieces of paper, with no "legal" or contractual power whatsoever.

It's like watching people worship a golden calf, or talk about it like it's really a god who acts in the world.

Again, the Constitution is just 4 pieces of paper. Nothing more.
 
This Constitution thing really sets me off. I realize most people are happily delusional, so in advance, I will apologize for introducing any amount of reality into this discussion and spoiling your day.

The Constitution supposedly is a social contract. But no one signed it. Yes, Washington signed, as a witness. A witness to a contract is not a signatory to an agreement.

And even if he had signed it, did George Washington have the authority to sign on your behalf?

Of course not. Binding future generations to social arrangements before their birth has a name. It's called slavery.

The entire charade of observing the Constitution, saying an oath to uphold the Constitution, etc is just political theater. No one has to follow the Constitution, and indeed, almost no one does.

Not to mention, YOU as in YOU the little every day motherfucker just trying to live his life in peace each day, has absolutely NO recourse if someone in the "government" doesn't follow the Constitution.

The very republican system so many "libertarians" and "conservatives" celebrate, also isolates you the constituent from being able to exercise any power vis a vis the state.

So please folks, enough about the Constitution. It wasn't conceived in liberty, it actually was conceived as treason against the Articles of Confederation (which were infinitely more libertarian than the Constitution) by white, wealthy slave owners who wanted to centralize and federalize the US to their mutual advantage.

No one ever thinks about that. The Constitution didn't rescue anyone from tyranny. The Constitution didn't create a more libertarian state of being than existed under King George or the Articles of Confederation.

All it did was setup a racket.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrC5lRY4Kr8"]Articles of Confederation versus the Constitution (by Sheldon Richman) - YouTube[/ame]
 
guerilla said:
So please folks, enough about the Constitution. It wasn't conceived in liberty, it actually was conceived as treason against the Articles of Confederation (which were infinitely more libertarian than the Constitution) by white, wealthy slave owners who wanted to centralize and federalize the US to their mutual advantage.
Click to expand...

White, landed gentry with on-the-record contempt for us "little every day motherfuckers." Founding fathers -> :321:

That looks like a good vid. Thanks.
 
The problem with the Constitution isn't in the idea, but in its execution in my opinion. Read some of the essays in The Federalist Papers, especially the ones written by Madison, to truly appreciate the genius of the document, and the forethought that went into the founding of the nation.

However, it became quickly apparent that the "rights" enumerated would not be treated as inalienable rights, since they can be taken away by the government for any reason, or no reason, whenever they see fit. Therefore, what we consider rights are actually only privileges. The whole idea of having to have privileges granted to us by the government sets up a master/slave relationship. Freedom can not exist in that type of a relationship, by definition.
 
JarredLv said:
What good is a constitution when the entity it is supposed to restrain violates it wantonly?
Click to expand...
It did seem to help the simpletons keep in line... Simpletons gonna simple, so at least the rednecks with guns could point to it and say, "simple in an orderly fashion."

As long as the US Gov is being forced on us, I'd prefer them hold onto that particular document. We probably wouldn't even remain a republic without it, as the crony corps would find a way to assume moar power in its' replacement.


cabezon said:
Having said that, what exactly did this guy say that could be called treason and deserves to get him shot?
Click to expand...
I dunno, perhaps destroying the most protected document in the nation? Shaking the core of our very law to its' foundations? Dishonoring the founding fathers, pretending that some law professor knows better than them? Scaring the sheeple by giving them less structure at a time they ask for more?

Any one of those is enough to make a "Real Murikan hero" hunt him down with guns blazing.


cabezon said:
From a statist perspective, which he clearly is as a Constitutional Law professor, he seems to be arguing that the Constitution is full of stupid shit like the electoral college, and arguments about gun control would be better made rationally, instead of based on something written by a bunch of racist, misogynist, "tool bag lawyers" two hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
It's hilarious really; he doesn't seem to know that if they scrap those parts he doesn't like, it would require a huge continental convention of some kind and the corporation with the most money will rewrite the constitution however it pleases there. He'd likely get all the parts of the constitution he likes thrown out!

Liberals will probably never understand that it's a true pandora's box to mess with the constitution itself. If you open it up to edits at all, then you've got to fight to keep all the good in it as well as fight to keep all of the "bad" out of it... And we all know exactly who wins fights in the USA... The corp or bank with the most money.


Fiver said:
Ok, so we'll all ignore what you're saying and go look at nudie pics instead.
Click to expand...
Like tomasjot said, random hot asses here and there are good for the soul... They don't make me lose track of the thread or distract me in any bad way... They only add to the overall awesomeness of the thread... True, instant value adding... Possibly THE thing that makes WF unique.
 
Dishonoring the founding fathers, pretending that some law professor knows better than them?
Click to expand...

Fuck the founding fathers.

It's hilarious really; he doesn't seem to know that if they scrap those parts he doesn't like, it would require a huge continental convention of some kind and the corporation with the most money will rewrite the constitution however it pleases there. He'd likely get all the parts of the constitution he likes thrown out!
Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assumptions about what he does or doesn't know. That was my point about the constitutional convention. That being any kind of productive event would require an enormous amount of popular cohesion to challenge corporate/state power. I'm not saying that's possible, or even desirable. I was mainly arguing this guy hardly deserves to be shot for questioning some sacred cow like the almighty Connie.
 
xmcp123 said:
Most people who hold the Constitution dear are really more concerned with the Bill of Rights, which this guy jumps effortlessly between as if they are the same.

The Constitution controls the structure, duties, and basic low level procedures of the government. Those realistically could be made better, and early on he makes that case.
Changing the Bill of Rights though? Go fuck yourself.


Fun fact: No you don't. Not if it means taking rights from other people.
Click to expand...

QFT

I think it would be good to clear the air as to what the constitution is. Most people here I'm sure haven't read it:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

You can think of the constitution as 'wordpress'

Then, came the first 10 amendments. That is know today as the bill of rights. Think of them as 'plug ins'
Bill of Rights

Then came another 17 amendments (think of them as more plug ins)
The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27

If anyone here has read the constitution, it is clearly out of date. It is geared to creating lots of laws in a newly formed country and in a specific world reality (before telecommunications). The country isn't newly formed, we have tons of laws, and global telecommunications are a reality. Re-writing it, so long as some basic power divisions are kept, is an incredibly sane thing.

I dare anyone here to read the Constitution and NOT think it should be changed in some way.

Now, the bill of rights (i.e. the first 10 amendments) should be left as is. That is fine.



And a big LOL at anarcho-tards who derail such a specific topic with their 'big and perfect theories' which totally obviate human nature and natural tendencies. It is like people talking about gun laws and someone coming in and arguing that we should 'all just get along' because it makes sense.
 
greenleaves said:
And a big LOL at anarcho-tards who derail such a specific topic with their 'big and perfect theories' which totally obviate human nature and natural tendencies. It is like people talking about gun laws and someone coming in and arguing that we should 'all just get along' because it makes sense.
Click to expand...

What you call "big and perfect theories" could also be called "ideals." And human nature is a moving target, and constantly evolving. Whether or not the human race, or even a small portion of it is mature or evolved enough to live in a certain way doesn't obviate those ideals.
 
Here are some comment spammers:

s1ENTCL.jpg
 
greenleaves said:
And a big LOL at anarcho-tards who derail such a specific topic with their 'big and perfect theories' which totally obviate human nature and natural tendencies.
Click to expand...

A big LOL at govern-tards who think that concentrating violent power into one large draconian organization wont be taken advantage of by that same human nature.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
The problem with the Constitution isn't in the idea, but in its execution in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is pretty wacky tbh.

greenleaves said:
And a big LOL at anarcho-tards who derail such a specific topic with their 'big and perfect theories' which totally obviate human nature and natural tendencies.
Click to expand...
Not only is this statement dishonest, but it's wrong.

No one has posted anything about anarchism in this thread. We're critiquing the Constitution qua Constitution.

greenleaves said:
It is like people talking about gun laws and someone coming in and arguing that we should 'all just get along' because it makes sense.
Click to expand...
The irony of this, is that you didn't even read what was posted (or you're trolling).

I can't be responsible for people being lazy, uninformed, delusional or obstinate. If you have something to say, post facts. Not opinion, not slander, not insults, and not assumptions.

What is the Constitution? 4 pieces of paper. 4 pieces of paper which people attribute mystical (read: delusional and non-existent) political powers to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom