CBS calling for Scrapping the US Constitution!

Belief in any political power inherent in the Constitution is indeed delusional (a fact) and those powers inherent are non-existent (a fact).

Of course, the gallery is welcome to prove that these sacred scrolls do have magical political powers. Or the easier route, try to prove it's a contract.
 


guerilla said:
I think the idea is pretty wacky tbh.


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.


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.
Click to expand...

Ad nauseam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No thanks. You win. Anarcho capitalism is awesome and would work perfectly in the real world. Happy?

Everyone who opened this thread to discuss the topic at hand is stupid for discussing changing papers which establish basic understanding when large groups of people try to organize. Some of us might want to discuss this topic, but since it is stupid according to you, we can't do so without getting derailed with your prosthelytizing.

If the topic is a non-topic to you, and we are delusional, then why do you inundate this non-topic with your rhetoric? I can tell you, if I see a group of people I would consider crazy talking about how we have reptilian alien overlords, I would not waste my time trying to convince them otherwise. If I did, I would be crazier than them, no?
 
greenleaves said:
...we have reptilian alien overlords...
Click to expand...

If only it were that simple.

Gorn_Kirk_cannon.jpg
 
cabezon said:
You're making a lot of assumptions about what he does or doesn't know.
Click to expand...
It is crystal clear that he is calling for scrapping the constitution, right? Well that has side effects that could and very likely will be devastating to his goals. I therefore don't have any regrets assuming what I assumed there.


cabezon said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I believe in following the NAP, so no, he nor anyone else DESERVES to be shot for his beliefs, as stupid as they are. I was just stating that he's just made his ass into a bullet magnet, that's all. I do not condone his murder.


greenleaves said:
I dare anyone here to read the Constitution and NOT think it should be changed in some way.
Click to expand...
Now there's a loaded dare...

I wouldn't advise changing it in any small way if you hope to hold the state intact and without a lot of bloodshed. Tag on amendments, fine, but if you touch the constitution itself, make it editable in any way, you're asking for more trouble than your brain can imagine.


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...
Our theories don't obviate human nature... Statehood does. Power corrupts, not freedom & equality.
 
cabezon said:
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.
Click to expand...

JarredLv said:
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.
Click to expand...

lukep said:
It is crystal clear that he is calling for scrapping the constitution, right? Well that has side effects that could and very likely will be devastating to his goals. I therefore don't have any regrets assuming what I assumed there.



To be clear, I believe in following the NAP, so no, he nor anyone else DESERVES to be shot for his beliefs, as stupid as they are. I was just stating that he's just made his ass into a bullet magnet, that's all. I do not condone his murder.



Now there's a loaded dare...

I wouldn't advise changing it in any small way if you hope to hold the state intact and without a lot of bloodshed. Tag on amendments, fine, but if you touch the constitution itself, make it editable in any way, you're asking for more trouble than your brain can imagine.



Our theories don't obviate human nature... Statehood does. Power corrupts, not freedom & equality.
Click to expand...

So you are saying we need 435 people in the house of representatives to work constantly in creating federal laws? And you think they should be re-elected every year? IS that really in our long term interest?

I can see how that was necessary when the country was born. With over 20,000 federal laws, I'm sorry, I don't' think that is necessary now. How about we let ANYONE propose a law, and see how much support it gets. This couldn't be done before. With technology, all kinds of shit is possible that couldn't even be dreamed of before. I'm not saying ANYONE should be able to enact laws and put them before their fellow citizens, but this is the type of radical, progressive thinking that we need to move forward. It WAS the type of radical progressive thinking done by the now demonized/sanctified founding fathers that allowed them to form the nation.

What the guy says in the original video is simple; think for yourself, holding on to relics of the past doesn't make sense (obviously not everything is a relic, but he says that)
 
guerilla said:
Belief in any political power inherent in the Constitution is indeed delusional (a fact)
Click to expand...

couldn't help but notice the second sentence :

"As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception."



"Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization... opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."

Dogma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Since I know everybody secretly wanted to keep this awesome thread going, and I'm on a three hour train ride with a very tall Beam and coke...

lukep said:
It is crystal clear that he is calling for scrapping the constitution, right? Well that has side effects that could and very likely will be devastating to his goals. I therefore don't have any regrets assuming what I assumed there.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it was crystal clear at all what Professor Goofball meant, and I think making any real assumptions about somebody based on anything from a TV news outlet is a bad idea. Having said that, if you were to ask him, I bet he'd suggest a constitutional convention would be a good idea.

Am I the only one that finds these anarcho-tard vs. statist-tard debates a bit retarded? I mean, is there anybody in this thread who thinks the U.S. government isn't a violent, criminal cluster fuck from hell? And, is there anybody who would, given the opportunity, flip the switch on all state power and deal with the consequences? Be honest now.

Personally, I don't really like to define myself as anarchist, libertarian, liberal, conservative, left, right, or any of that shit. I think it's all nonsense, when you get down to it. I think the important thing is to define you core values, and apply them to current reality.

My core values are things like peace, freedom, love, kindness, justice, compassion, creativity, progress, spiritual evolution, etc. And, current reality is, well, current reality. If you asked me to define my ideal world, it'd be something like Ursula LeGuin's Always Coming Home, only with more dive bars, loud music and cheap drugs. But, the reality is we're hell and gone from that, and there's a river of shit to swim through before we even get close. There's a river of shit to swim through, period.

Not sure where I was going with all that, other than it's all meant with love and respect. There's mad intellect up in here, and that's not just the bourbon talking, although it helps.

Man, trains fucking rule. We should all travel by train, all the time.
 
cabezon said:
Am I the only one that finds these anarcho-tard vs. statist-tard debates a bit retarded?
...
My core values are things like peace, freedom...
Click to expand...
When you get down to it, a critical thinker who values peace & freedom will eventually always become a anarchist, because all governments lead to war and slavery, period.

So although you aren't the only one who finds these debates retarded, I'm pretty sure the others who do enjoy the state more than you.

The reason I personally make time to participate in them is two-fold:

1. To hone my skill of argumentation.
There's little I hate more than not being able to argue effectively something I know to be right.

2. To spread the good knowledge. (Without actively evangelizing.)
I think WF is the best place that could exist for this purpose because so many here are smart enough to understand Anarchy yet so few have heard of it before here... Quite the opposite of what you find out in the real world.

So with these two points in mind, I plan to keep up the good work for a while longer at least. Humanity needs it.
 
greenleaves said:
So you are saying we need 435 people in the house of representatives to work constantly in creating federal laws? And you think they should be re-elected every year? IS that really in our long term interest?

I can see how that was necessary when the country was born. With over 20,000 federal laws, I'm sorry, I don't' think that is necessary now. How about we let ANYONE propose a law, and see how much support it gets. This couldn't be done before. With technology, all kinds of shit is possible that couldn't even be dreamed of before. I'm not saying ANYONE should be able to enact laws and put them before their fellow citizens, but this is the type of radical, progressive thinking that we need to move forward. It WAS the type of radical progressive thinking done by the now demonized/sanctified founding fathers that allowed them to form the nation.

What the guy says in the original video is simple; think for yourself, holding on to relics of the past doesn't make sense (obviously not everything is a relic, but he says that)
Click to expand...

I don't know why you quoted me as inspiration for this diatribe, but no, I don't think we need 435 people in the House making laws. I don't think we need the House. I don't think we need a federal government...or any government for that matter. But hey, I'm just your run of the mill "anarcho-tard".

Although I'm curious on how you propose this little gem be enforced:

greenleaves said:
How about we let ANYONE propose a law, and see how much support it gets.
Click to expand...

So someone proposes a law, it garners enough support, and then what? And how much support is enough?

lukep said:
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.
Click to expand...

To what effect though? The U.S. government has used the constitution as justification for every seizure of every liberty it has squashed. According to the government, all of the following are constitutional government actions:

Banning the growing of wheat.
Sterilizing the mentally handicapped.
Forcing the purchase of a private product.
Retrival of library records without a warrant.
Indefinate detention of american citizens.
Assassination of american citizens.
Banning the consumption of unpasteurized milk.

The list goes on. So what good does a constitution do? When you have a complete monopoly on violence, a piece of paper isn't going to stand in your way when you want something.
 
JarredLv said:
The list goes on. So what good does a constitution do?
Click to expand...
Took 'em over 200 years, didn't it?

Clearly it stood in their way from picking up exactly where King James left off. So as I said, if we're being forced into a government, one with a minimalist constitution is better than none.

Of course I'm with G in wishing we'd instead have the AoC, but it was clear the people weren't ready for it back then. Shay's rebellion was basically the first state's revolutionary war... No way I'd want to live in a state where that goes on every 8 years...
 
lukep said:
Are you saying that the Alien & Sedition acts is directly responsible for the:
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the Alien & Sedition acts are one of the first examples of the government violating the document that was supposed to restrain...and only a few years after it was inked. Sure it took over 200 years to get to this point, but the violations started immediately. While some may look at this a good thing, I don't. People tend not to notice subtleties. A liberty here, a liberty there. Slowly the government chips away.

Meanwhile they start wars, steal property, and build jails with the population lulled into a false sense of need. They now need the government. Everything they did on their own is now the responsibility of the government. After a generation or two people forget all that was possible without a government and settle on the notion that a government is not only necessary, but anyone who proposes such a radical concept as anarchy must be mad.
 
You asked "what good does a constitution do?" And I answered that it slowed down the pace of destruction. Clearly we agree that it's not a great solution by any means, but surely you can see that since those peasants couldn't even handle life under the AoC without bloodshed then they certainly weren't ready for a full Anarchy yet, right?

I'd bet that back in the late 1700s there were only a handful of well-studied folks alive that could see the point of an AnCap society and agree with it. The rest were peasants, plain and simple, and the amount of education it would have taken to get them to where you are today (politically) is inconceivable.

So under those circumstances, I think the Constitution was the lessor evil they could have taken. Hopefully soon, this will no longer be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom