Ray Bradbury said, ""

A Criticism of the Treasonous 2020 Constitution Movement

Update: Welcome, all who link from the New Blog Showcase at Ogre's! This is a first fisking, and inevitably rough, hostile where even a trace of compromise is found between our Constitution and the explicit goals of this movement. Feel free to attack my errors. This is a rough, rough draft, and will be refined and expanded upon at the group blog Travis Benning and I formed: Constitution in 2021. Note: read this post to see my justification for the insertion of ad hominem attacks after my arguments.

Treason is defined as "a crime that undermines the offender's government." (Princeton)

The erection of a "constitution" which would annihilate the restrictions on government enshrined in our Constitution, in fact embracing the totalitarian control of a complete welfare state, oppressing the individual through the same parasitic burdens applied by tyrannies since time immemorial, is clearly an attempt to undermine the Government of the United States of America. It is the very epitome of treason.

Powerline posted the notes of a Yale Law School student present at the weekend's conference dedicated to the formation of a "progressive" constitution to topple our current one.

I will post the notes ad serratum with my fisking:

Roosevelt's speech came at the end of a three decade-long (The 1913 Federal Reserve act to his speech) failed experiment in Keynesian economics and government intervention which created a depression over 4 times longer than any in our nation's history. He had a communist spy (Alger Hiss) in his top cabinet,  propounded an "economic bill of rights" that claimed people had a "right" to recreation,  and gave Stalin millions of slaves as war reparations in the Yalta Agreements.  Roosevelt only looks good because the evil he was fighting was the epitome of evil.


Our Constitution limits the power of the government within a permitted sphere bounded by the equal freedom of all individuals. My right to life is synonymous with your restriction on killing me. My right to property is synonymous with your inability to rob me. Humans cannot survive under the threat of violence. It is by means of these restrictions on violence both within and outside the government, that humans may produce, plan, and enjoy what happiness they earn. As Bastiat said in Economic Harmonies, (I will garble him), "once the use of force is accepted, there are an infinite number of ways to apply it to mold the society to your image." What is the trend in political violence one era, will become obsolete by a new trend in political violence in another era. Only a government limited in its use of force will withstand the varied pressures tempting new (and not so new) attempts to mold society into the image of its would-be saviours.

In all of human history, not a single act of government force beyond the protection of life, liberty, and property, has achieved the results sought without negative results. In theory and in history, there is no justification for government intervention as a means of achieving the universally sought ends of peace and prosperity.


All rights depend on the right to life, and that is inextricably bound to the right of private property. The protection of private property by police, courts, and the military is the only basis of government which will achieve peace and prosperity. Every attempted alternative has led to famine, oppression, and pestilence.

Freedom is the absence of coercion. The only support I or anyone needs to be free, is a gun held to the head of the man who tries to rob or murder me and my family.


Curious. John Maynard Keynes, the man who codified the spurious economics of prodigality which our government had embraced since the 1913 Federal Reserve act through Herbert Hoover's government intervention, said in 1936 that his economics could most efficiently be practiced in Nazi Germany. The practices embraced by Keynes and Roosevelt, price-controls, wage controls, limits on interest rates, inflation, subsidies, tariffs, etc, are all key features of fascism. Roosevelt's attempts to replace the plans of each individual with his own plans, may have been a small-scale form of fascism compared to his contemporaries, but the suffering produced is evidence that even a mini-fascist will drastically impact the well-being of a nation.

There are 24 hours in a day. Every minute a government spends on debating the proper curvature of bananas, the cubic capacity of toilets, and the amount of money taken from some to give to others, is one minute not spent protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property. A government limited as ours by the Constitution is forced to spend its time protecting rights, i.e. security.


Montesquieu has been fisked enough by Bastiat in The Law. I will only point out that despite Roosevelt's intentions, his ideas led to a decade of poverty and suffering.
 
The juxtaposition of James Madison with FDR is sacrilegious and in a just society grounds for deportation to North Korea.

The existence of "positive rights" destroys "negative rights." Freedom is the absence of coercion, and cannot be gained by selectively privileging some with the ability to coerce others.

Property is protected by law. It is created by Man.


A government is a small group of people to whom the rest of the population delegates the ability to use force in protecting their rights. Rather than us all going to Karate classes, buying guns and mace, we maximize our time and effort by letting a small group of people continually protect us. I could just as easily keep you from killing me with my own gun, but I'd rather have someone trained and prepared holding the gun.

"Individualism" can only have the meaning that the plans of individuals, so long as they do not coerce others, are expressed in a society, as opposed to "collectivism" in which the plans of one or a few are imposed by force on all. It is severe cognitive dissonance to claim that my plans are bolstered by a bureaucrat deciding for me.


Roosevelt did not define Human Rights as the restrictions against coercion enforced against both governments and other individuals. His concept of rights was one of "positive rights," or the idea that my right to property must be "gained"  at the expense of your own property. In the 19th century, you'd be gutted like a catfish for saying something that evil.


The Constitution by then had already been perverted by the purposely vague Sherman Antitrust law, the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th Amendment, and the Prohibition. Roosevelt did not attack the basis of these perversions, but the very principle that they rejected.


Do I need to remind people that a poorly written law is an invitation for one's worst enemies to use it against you? If the law reads, "Don't kill," it doesn't matter if your worst enemy is in charge of that law. If the law has the word "fair" in it, then is it not obvious that it admits of interpretations that could express the worst intentions of your worst enemy? Even children understand that a badly worded command can be used against oneself!


Constitutional Law is not evolutionary. The principle that man requires freedom to survive has always been true, and will always be true. It is a fact of nature, and no amount of subjective "evolution" will permit a contrary law to work.


Wrong. The task of every generation is to adhere to the only order of society which can yield peace and prosperity, and that is one founded on individual rights, equal freedom, and private property. The idea of "creating new institutions" to enforce "new principles" is as ludicrous as if one said the task of every generation of mathematicians is to create new integers which express fundamental mathematical theorems.


No. The question is whether the will of each individual, bounded by the equal freedom of others, is expressed, or if the will of those writing the "second bill of rights" will be imposed on everyone else. Come near me with that and I will maul you.


Which is more hospitable to change: a man who has a gun held against his head, or a man who is free to make mistakes and discover?


The draft, the idea that one's life is the property of the government to dispose, does indeed decay the concept of government as the protector of the right to life. And historically, it is the liberals who overwhelmingly support this idea.

The political party in a society bounded by a Constitution defending individual rights, is literally unable to exert a tyrannical influence. Contrast that with any political party in a socialist nation. Idiot.


Every dollar the government gives must first be taken from someone else by taxes or inflation. What the hell is this guy talking about?


"People really are ignorant." I will repeat that: this man said "people really are ignorant." Who, pray tell, will raise the people out of their "ignorance?" Their ignorance means they cannot be trusted to run their lives, what wise statesman will run their lives for them?


Every dollar the government gives must first have been taken away from someone else through either taxes or inflation. You figure out what that means.

As opposed to the current representative republic?

Note: the 14th Amendment defends rights. This little slip of the tongue indicates what this person thinks of "rights." They are "privileges" to be redeemed, and what is redeemed must first be given and can be revoked. Who will do that, do you think?


The "Progressive tradition" as followed by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, killed over 170 million humans in the last century. Keep that tradition to yourself, you neanderthal.
Three different categories? I must be stupid. All I see is three different implementations of the idea that one man has a right to my life.


"Multiple sides of insecurity" is meaningless. Unless Sunstein means our president's refusal to ground the terrorists into the ground meat they so richly deserve to become.

 
Let me get this straight. Possessing the protection of my life and property under a government is inimical to the protection of my life and property? Low-life camel sucking ingrate. Go live in North Korea.


This is also meaningless. What does "security agenda" mean if it involves violating the rights of everyone for the sake of "progressive ideas"?


The Constitution protects my security against both people like you and terrorists. Get out of my face.


Oh, privileges and immunities! The very essence of a society based on individual rights. Go live in Turkmenistan.

One man's safety net is the dying opportunity of another man.

 
I assume he's the one holding the stakes.


I know that to the degree a society rejects private property, its "progressive" agenda can be measured by its number of mass graves.

 
Booga booga! You can take the money I will leave to my children from their cold dead hands, you neanderthal. So long as humans care for their children, they will provide for them. Notice that in "progressive nations," only the Party members have the ability to pass down money to their children.


As opposed to frequent elections? Get fucked, ingrate.


There can be no "privileges" in a society based on equal freedom as expressed in the Constitution. One man's privilege is another man's burden.



"Inexplicable" is a good word. Obama's intentions may be noble, but his results are guaranteed to be the opposite of what he seeks. Why would sane people support policies which would lead to the exact opposite results sought? Oh...


When those "others" believe they have religious justification for killing me and oppressing the women I know, I will classify them according to those criminal beliefs. I don't give a shit why a man wishes to kill me, and only in a society ordered on equal freedom is his motivation irrelevant.


I don't get the meaning of this.


I am hurt when Zarqawi and other terrorists are hurt? Then I am a masochist. Tell the guys at Gitmo I really feel like having some salt pressed into the terrorists' wounds.

 
No. Equal freedom and the nature of reality forbids minimum wage and maximum hour laws. Interesting choice of words- Roosevelt did do more to pervert the Constitution than any other president.


Only gotten at the expense of a poor teacher, and the even sorrier sap who is forced to pay him.



Glittering generality. This is meaningless.


The Constitution's provisions for the equal freedom of all those who become citizen is an "underdeveloped legal resource"? What the hell is a legal resource?


I will suggest that your progressive constitutionalism be exported along with you to countries more hospitable to it. Go help the "ignorant people" of North Korea.


My vision of equal freedom only has a dark side for those who would violate my right to live my life as I wish so long as I hurt no other. What the hell does that second sentence mean?


"It is a mistake to declare the right to a home." And then he goes on to advocate the "right" to the money of other people.


"Social security" is money taken from A to give to B, while B's child C is stuck with paying for both A and B when he gets a job.


He is for private property? Oh, he just means "equal distribution"


Subsidizing anyone is to the disadvantage of all those who must be leached in order to see the Law of Supply and Demand work to cause the exact opposite of the results sought by those who advocated the subsidies.



No. It has a bit of a Marxist-Stalinist quality to it. Go live in France.


Really? I thought the symbol of "progressive" was the monstrous pile of 170 million corpses accumulated in the attempt to achieve their goals.


Huh? The first amendment is open to no "evolution."  You want a heirarchy of speech? Go live in North Korea.


As well it should be, if by "campaign finance" you mean laws which contradict the constitution.


The FCC imposes regulations on speech. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law.." Case closed.


Odd. I always saw the First Amendment as the premier achievement of humans to recognize that survival relies on the freedom to think and to communicate. I did not know there were people who thought it was written  for the sole benefit of Milt Friedman. Why, that would tickle any man!

Constitutionalize it! Meaningless.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at April 09, 2005 19:14 EST | Permalink | comments (3) |
economics, pooklekufr constitutionalism, moonbats, disguised tyranny

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

#1  10 April 2005 - 20:39

 

Tom,
I posted on you and then discovered that you do not have a trackback feature here?

Even though I'm sure you'll see it anyway, here is the link;
Liberals to Force New Constitution - Pt. II

+Photi

Photios

#2  10 April 2005 - 22:33

 

Thanks!

Motime doesn't have trackback yet.

Would you like to join our group blog, Constitution in 2021?

Pooklekufr

#3  18 April 2005 - 15:22

 

Wow, I can't believe this socialist pig wasted so much ink to toss out a bad hash of collectivist redistributionism justified by buzzwords & catchphrases.

Sad, really. If I felt anything besides indifference for this worm, it would likely be pity.

Harvey
Bad Example

Anonymous

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.