Defend vs Alter the Constitution

Citizen said:

Believes government's role is to mold society by rewarding conduct deemed beneficial rather than just protecting rights.*

Click to expand...

Yes. I believe the members of society have a right to encourage desirable conduct while discouraging undesirable conduct. Some of this is properly done through individual conduct such as scorn/shunning or approval. Some of this is done properly via criminal prosecution. And I believe some is properly done via tax or other similar benefits.

These shades of nuance or subtlety seem far more preferable to an all-or-nothing approach.

Societies and their constitutions are not suicide pacts. Protecting the rights of innocent parties against the long term damages of bad conduct can properly take several forms. Encouraging good conduct while not outlawing every possible objectionable contrary conduct helps protect the rights of the majority while still being sensitive to the rights of the minority. Some things can be tolerated so long as only a minority choose to do it.

Citizen said:

Separately, does not explain who gets to determine whether a conduct is beneficial, nor whether the so-called benefits were weighed against the damages when making that determination, nor explains the process by which a conduct is determined sufficiently beneficial to merit coercing people to comply.

Click to expand...

I thought that process, imperfect as it may be, was well understood by all here. If I need to give you a refresher course on high school civics, on the principle of rational basis, etc, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Since you've never donated any money to any legal cause in which I may have been involved, I trust you won't presume to dictate to me as you have revealed yourself to want to do to others.

Charles

deepdiver said:

Yes. But the question is not should we support the document but whether we should support black robe interpretations of the document. This was a hotly debated issue for decades - whether SCOTUS was the final arbiter and absolute opinion or if SCOTUS even had jurisdiction to overturn state law. The matter, as I understand it, remained, at least at times, a pretty contentious issue until the Warren Court when the SCOTUS absolutists won politically.

So now we wait with bated breath for 9 black robes to tell us what the Founders meant, how the constitution is a "living document" or to just make up new rights out of whole cloth because of their political opinions.
[snip only to shorten response]

It certainly is an interesting question made more interesting by the framing of your question, Solus. I guess the question of where the limit lies is always a difficult one. "This far and no further" is a rather more difficult question in national politics and their failure than in playground bullying.

Click to expand...

+1 to your entire post. Well stated.

deepdiver said:

Yes. But the question is not should we support the document but whether we should support black robe interpretations of the document.

snip...

I suggest that we support the US Constitution in a constructionist paradigm. That we continue to fight politically to remove restriction on those rights infringed and demand that congress fulfill its obligations to the balance of power and stop bloating the executive with power via regulatory agencies. Beyond that I don't know.

It certainly is an interesting question made more interesting by the framing of your question, Solus. I guess the question of where the limit lies is always a difficult one. "This far and no further" is a rather more difficult question in national politics and their failure than in playground bullying.

Darnit, I have work to do, Solus, and now I am totally distracted by this subject! :cuss:

Click to expand...

diver, my consideration is the spirit and intent of the document, no matter how or who affected 'changes', is defensible, no matter what means are used, as long as it is called the Constitution!

while we (read citizens) might not agree with the methodology of change(s) to the document, i agree with your statement(s) any change must originate with this country's citizens to change, via political means, to ensure those doing the change(s) are replaced and their past deeds are resolved.

until our citizens step up to advocate for change, i'm truly worried...

and thanks for your response to my query as it reflects a candid and thoughtful comment.

ipse

deepdiver said:

SNIP I suggest that we support the US Constitution in a constructionist paradigm. That we continue to fight politically to remove restriction on those rights infringed and demand that congress fulfill its obligations to the balance of power and stop bloating the executive with power via regulatory agencies.

Click to expand...

In spirit, I agree with you.

However, something about the document is fundamentally wrong. As far back as 1870, a fella named Lysander Spooner pointed out in his essay No Treason [close paraphrase], "Either the constitution was gave us the government we have, or was powerless to prevent it." This was in 1870. The fedgov had already become a monster. Today, its even worse.

Buried in Mark Twain's series of articles about being a steamboat pilot is a stunning little comment. He was told by his training pilot that there was something riverboat pilots were forbidden to do. I don't recall exactly what--maybe run a narrow chute between an island and the shore going downstream where getting stuck meant you couldn't back out. The phrasing the pilot used really conveyed that in the late 1850's the fedgov was something different from today: "There is a law of the United States against it." Not "its illegal". Not "its a violation of federal law."

I mention that mainly to give perspective how things have changed across time rather than support Spooner.

But, I think Spooner's meaning is even more visible today. Remember Pelosi's comment a few years ago about Obamacare, "We have to pass this legislation so we can find out what's in it."

I hold that creating a power-center is near the heart of the problem. I consider that at the core is a two-prong problem:

1) Granting anybody the right to rule others without their express individual consent.

2) Permitting that rule to extend to all people within a given territory.

Knock out either of those prongs, and suddenly all the unaccountability, the arrogance, the disregard for constitutional restrictions--it all disappears. Suddenly, anyone who would aspire to providing a "government" service has to competitively provide that service at a price the market is willing to pay (the people set the value), and has to satisfy customers who can go to another service provider. All the incentives change.

Citizen said:

In spirit, I agree with you.

However, something about the document is fundamentally wrong. As far back as 1870, a fella named Lysander Spooner pointed out in his essay No Treason [close paraphrase], "Either the constitution was gave us the government we have, or was powerless to prevent it." This was in 1870. The fedgov had already become a monster. Today, its even worse.

Click to expand...

It is true, we have the worst form of government...except for all the others.

Citizen said:

I hold that creating a power-center is near the heart of the problem. I consider that at the core is a two-prong problem:

1) Granting anybody the right to rule others without their express individual consent.

2) Permitting that rule to extend to all people within a given territory.

Click to expand...

And yet in some 50 pages, you've been unable or unwilling to provide meaningful examples of how to actually order a society and resolve intractable disputes when conflicting beliefs of rights try to coexist in the same location.

Whether it is such a benign thing as noise ordinances relative to either a siesta or traditional US sleep schedule, so long-standing and controversial as elective abortion, or so extreme as bestiality and heroin use in public parks, anarchists' responses to such examples of conflicts range from ignoring, to side-stepping, to mocking, rather than providing meaningful examples.

In contrast we all understand how proper federalism with diversity among the States would function. It worked well enough for 80+ years to let slave and free State coexist in peace. Is there a greater infringement of individual rights than being held as a slave? Yet federalism permitted States with that much diversity to form a union.

Within my lifetime we've seen how a bit of federalism allows diversity of view on gambling, prostitution, marijuana, and consensual euthanasia to be be accommodated within the union. Even marriage benefits for homosexuals wasn't much of a national issue until the federal courts got involved. If Massachusetts and a few other liberal enclaves want to legalize that, ok. Other States will take a few measures to keep their judges from following suite, but otherwise not like they were going to invade the Bay State to put an end to the practice.

Put it across State lines and the conflict is minimized. Put it all in one neighborhood and the issues are huge and remain largely unaddressed by the anarchists who seem to have a religious devotion or faith to the concept (Marshaul admitted to as much), but who remain largely unwilling or unable to provide practical examples of how it works in the sticky cases.

Rather than trying to resurrect that thread here, or otherwise make every single thread about "individual consent", how about you at least pretend to keep things in that thread?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

SNIP And yet in some 50 pages, you've been unable or unwilling to provide meaningful examples of how to actually order a society

Click to expand...

Sure I have. You've just been pretending I didn't: leave the non-consenters alone, form a government to rule yourselves.

As to intractable disputes, you've already been answered by others. In fact, I answered you near the current end of the thread on Intervention vs Rights.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Citizen said:

Sure I have. You've just been pretending I didn't: leave the non-consenters alone, form a government to rule yourselves.

Click to expand...

Not really responsive.

Citizen said:

As to intractable disputes, you've already been answered by others. In fact, I answered you near the current end of the thread on Intervention vs Rights.

Click to expand...

I'll take a look. But at last read, the closest to any real response was from whomever admitted that intractable differences would ultimately lead to force and violence. You've frequently claimed to answer the question, but like above, leaving "non consenters" alone to infringe on others rights isn't really a solution even if you, they, and the other anti-social anarchists don't recognize those rights.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Not really responsive.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. A few hundred million left to continue whatever order they want, including the compulsory government they already live under, while leaving non-consenters alone is dismissable as "not really responsive."

Suuuuure.

<chuckle>

Citizen said:

Oh, I see. A few hundred million left to continue whatever order they want, including the compulsory government they already live under, while leaving non-consenters alone is dismissable as "not really responsive."

Click to expand...

Exactly. I've explained how federalism works, and provided multiple examples of it resolving or minimizing intractable conflicts. Your grand hand waving does not do any of that.

Besides which, you've still failed to provide objective proof (or even good objective evidence) that all men really are equal. You've build your house of objective cards on a sandy foundation of subjective feelings and irrational religious beliefs.

Charles

The colonist rebelled against their constitution.

The constitution has failed.

Society does not have a right form a violent coercive monopoly on "encouraging" what they desire.

Society is the people it is not the state.

Citizen said:

QFT

Believes government's role is to mold society by rewarding conduct deemed beneficial rather than just protecting rights.*

Separately, does not explain who gets to determine whether a conduct is beneficial, nor whether the so-called benefits were weighed against the damages when making that determination, nor explains the process by which a conduct is determined sufficiently beneficial to merit coercing people to comply.

Click to expand...

Alright citizen. You're really ******* me off. "Forcing" me to read otherwise hidden posts by quoting such 'tard-laden deplorable BS as the one below

utbagpiper said:

SNIP It is generally recognized that society/government does have some proper power to encourage/reward desirable conduct.

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

... Separately, does not explain who gets to determine whether a conduct is beneficial, nor whether the so-called benefits were weighed against the damages when making that determination, nor explains the process by which a conduct is determined sufficiently beneficial to merit coercing people to comply. ...

Click to expand...

Actually, in my view, the question is not, or should not be, who gets to decide (for all) this or that, but to what degree we are "allowed" to exercise "this or that" which they deem appropriate. Interventionists may be persuaded to "go along with" this or that, but they certainly will resist removing of any controls over "this or that" that they agree with.

Unfettered liberty is pure poison to interventionists.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Alright citizen. You're really ******* me off. "Forcing" me to read otherwise hidden posts by quoting such 'tard-laden deplorable BS as the one below

Click to expand...

Oh. Sorry. Then you're really gonna hate me for this :


Snipped from post #17 above: It is generally recognized that society/government does have some proper power to encourage/reward desirable conduct. Whether that is tax breaks for buying a home, but not for buying a car or vacation, tax breaks for installing solar, or for investing in retirement accounts, or even making charitable contributions, government routinely provides encouragement for certain conduct deemed beneficial to society.



Something occurs to me about Utbagpiper's position on tax breaks.

For one thing, if government is giving tax breaks to some, its over-taxing somebody. If taxation is being done at a proper level one day, how can government afford to receive less the next day after instituting a tax break? Who is paying to make up the shortfall? If there is no shortfall, taxes must have been too high in the first place.

Alternatively, lets say government made up the shortfall by raising taxes on the category of people government deemed didn't need encouragement for something. That hardly sounds fair. For example, why should a single person pay more than a person who is married? What if marriage doesn't fit in the young lady's immediate game plan to finish college and get solidly started on a career before marrying? Should she really pay more during her unmarried college and career start years?

What about millions renters who don't yet have down payment to buy a home? Why should they pay more than homeowners?

So, how can government legitimately possess a power to "encourage" some at the expense of others who were themselves doing nothing wrong? Even if one circumscribes his concept of equality to "equality under the law", this is hardly equal.

It seems to me it only takes a superficial inspection of the concept of tax breaks to see those points. But, those are just kinda academic, because the actuality is far, far worse. The federal government is not taxing anybody's personal income at the proper rate (all of Ut's examples are personal income tax breaks). What do I mean by that? In this context I mean the fedgov is not only broke, its trillions in debt. The government is taxing nobody at a rate that covers its expenditures.

As far back as the (Grace?) commission under Reagan, it was determined our federal personal taxes are eaten up by interest on the national debt. Meaning, your personal income taxes don't go to defense, roads, etc. They go to paying interest on the national debt. This is one of the nasty little hidden evils of the fedgov. Since it can borrow to pay for its massive spending, it doesn't have to tax directly to pay for all of it. It only has to tax enough to pay the interest. "Whoopee! We can pander to all these special interests because we only have to be careful to tax enough to pay the interest!"

If the fedgov taxed enough to cover all the spending, there would be a revolution tomorrow morning. But we've reached a point where the fedgov can't tax enough to pay it all off. Depending on the source, the total debt and obligations of the fedgov is somewhere around $50T. Some say a little less. Most I've seen say in the low 50's. Its more than the economic output of the whole planet, which is to say that if the fedgov taxed every human being on the whole planet for a year at a tax rate of 100%, the fedgov still couldn't pay it off.

So, any tax breaks are feeding into fedgov pandering by shifting the lost taxes to the national debt, adding to the day of reckoning when the principal has to be paid, or the economic destruction from a default.

The very thought of punishing the producers of specific items for reasons of behavior modification is so despicable and corrupt I can barely stand thinking about it.
Those that support such deplorable inequities rank down with pedophiles in my respect-for column.
It is blatant anti-liberty.

twoskinsonemanns said:

The very thought of punishing the producers of specific items for reasons of behavior modification is so despicable and corrupt I can barely stand thinking about it.
Those that support such deplorable inequities rank down with pedophiles in my respect-for column.
It is blatant anti-liberty.

Click to expand...

Sure. Because telling a guy he can't get stoned or high out of his mind is at all comparable to sexually assaulting little kids.

Even under libertarian philosophies, the "harm" inflicted on a guy because he can't legally fry his brain isn't even in the same universe as the grave injury inflicted on innocent children subjected to sexual abuse and assault. It is either gross hyperbole or a messed up value set to even attempt to compare the two.

I recognize there is a certain amount of puritanical control freak in our drug laws, and some racism about what the drug of choice is in various cultures. But make no mistake, most of us who support limits on recreational drug use do so not out of some desire to keep others from having fun. Rather, it is from a desire to protect the rights of other members of society.

Upwards of 10,000 persons a year are killed in DUI related car crashes. Most of those are innocent victims who were not intoxicated, they were killed by someone who was. These are the easily tracked numbers. Spouse and children abused or neglected as a direct result of drug use and abuse represent innocent victims.

Sadly, a lot of recreational drug users seem to have a very hard time keeping their use truly private. Their conduct tends to spill out and affect non-users.

When Amsterdam effectively legalized pot use, along with prostitution, I was among those then singing their praises. Ending criminal sanctions would eliminate the need for recreational uses to engage with the criminal element, reduce violence, and otherwise reduce the social impact to non-users. Fifteen years on, nobody much wants to talk about Amsterdam anymore. When even left leaning Saturday Night Live makes fun of drug use and hookers on playgrounds you know things didn't go quite as hoped. While they won't revert to any kind of "war on drugs" Amsterdam has and is pulling back from their libertine philosophy and imposing some limits. They learned the hard way that even secular people don't want to live or raise their children in certain environments.

I know it is very entertaining and easy to imagine that those who hate guns, or those who don't take the libertarian view on recreational drugs are wholly evil, or stupid, or have an overt desire to harm or control others. But if you can't come to an honest and reasonably accurate view of opponents, if you can't understand them, you are that much farther from being able to either reach compromise with them, or even defeat them politically.

Charles

Tell someone they can't do anything with their body is as much against natural law and the rights of liberty as pedophiles. In some ways worse because its intstitutionalized, and supported by state apologist. They are willing to use violence and kill you for not allowing you tell them what to do with your body.

sudden valley gunner said:

Tell someone they can't do anything with their body is as much against natural law and the rights of liberty as pedophiles. In some ways worse because its intstitutionalized, and supported by state apologist. They are willing to use violence and kill you for not allowing you tell them what to do with your body.

Click to expand...

You've touched on something that bugs the devil out of me.

First, I agree.

The thing that bugs me is that some people are so far gone into Stockholm Syndrome or whatever they actually deny that I can be killed for such, or accuse me of hyperbole.

Then I patiently explain that if I refuse to comply, government uses force, and if I stand up for myself and reply with force, government agents escalate force. If I continue to stand up for myself, I have to escalate, too. Eventually we arrive at lethal force. I give examples to fill in the escalation. Then I point out that I can be killed for as little as refusing to show up to court for a traffic ticket. Some understand the explanation and get it. Some don't.

Now, I understand if a person never really thought thru on the equation. But, those who refuse to see it after I explain it just bug me no end. "Well, if you just pay the ticket, it doesn't have to come to that." Or, "Why would you fight back? You're obligated to pay your fine, that's the law."

Citizen said:

You've touched on something that bugs the devil out of me.

First, I agree.

The thing that bugs me is that some people are so far gone into Stockholm Syndrome or whatever they actually deny that I can be killed for such, or accuse me of hyperbole.

Then I patiently explain that if I refuse to comply, government uses force, and if I stand up for myself and reply with force, government agents escalate force. If I continue to stand up for myself, I have to escalate, too. Eventually we arrive at lethal force. I give examples to fill in the escalation. Then I point out that I can be killed for as little as refusing to show up to court for a traffic ticket. Some understand the explanation and get it. Some don't.

Now, I understand if a person never really thought thru on the equation. But, those who refuse to see it after I explain it just bug me no end. "Well, if you just pay the ticket, it doesn't have to come to that." Or, "Why would you fight back? You're obligated to pay your fine, that's the law."

Click to expand...

Oh, now that has been a peeve of mine since I figured out that little tidbit back in college and well argued it in a class much to the consternation of the professor. I suggest that any law passed for which enforcement can be escalated to imprisonment, which means that if you refuse apprehension you would face lethal force to "take you in", should be prefaced with, "Under threat of lethal force against a sovereign citizen of the United State of America, we the (Congress, City Council, State Legislature) hereby duly vote and pass the following: " or something of that sort.

Many thoughtful law abiding types really get going when you suggest that reality to them and follow-up with suggesting that if such were required and was read before every single stupid law was passed that perhaps, hopefully, many legislators and citizens would truly consider the ramifications of "there outta be a law!!!!1!11!" and the seriousness of passing any law which would lead to the confiscation of a citizens wealth in the form of a fine or, even worse, the loss of freedom for nothing more than an infraction, either of which could be immediately escalated to lethal force because one forgot a court date.

deepdiver said:

Oh, now that has been a peeve of mine since I figured out that little tidbit back in college and well argued it in a class much to the consternation of the professor. I suggest that any law passed for which enforcement can be escalated to imprisonment, which means that if you refuse apprehension you would face lethal force to "take you in", should be prefaced with, "Under threat of lethal force against a sovereign citizen of the United State of America, we the (Congress, City Council, State Legislature) hereby duly vote and pass the following: " or something of that sort.

Many thoughtful law abiding types really get going when you suggest that reality to them and follow-up with suggesting that if such were required and was read before every single stupid law was passed that perhaps, hopefully, many legislators and citizens would truly consider the ramifications of "there outta be a law!!!!1!11!" and the seriousness of passing any law which would lead to the confiscation of a citizens wealth in the form of a fine or, even worse, the loss of freedom for nothing more than an infraction, either of which could be immediately escalated to lethal force because one forgot a court date.

Click to expand...

You know, that might not be a bad idea for a state constitutional amendment. For exactly the reasons you say.

For example:


Article XXIII

Every statute for which enforcement can be escalated to imprisonment or fine shall include the language, "Under threat of lethal force to enforce compliance..." The same shall be included any time a court issues a warning about contempt.

Is there any law or ordinance that can't escalate to the point of lethal force?

Failure to pay a parking ticket can lead to a summons. If the cops actually get around to it, they might come knock on your door to serve a warrant. If you put up sufficient resistance things could get really bad.

Were you killed for failure to pay a parking ticket? Not exactly. You got killed for resisting arrest, for threatening the life and limb of the officers. Sure, it all started over a parking ticket. But it escalated when the recipient refused to recognize the power of the state to enforce laws.

What is the alternative? To eliminate all laws a person won't consent to being individually enforced against him? That is clearly what the anarchists argue for.

To have laws, but make them unenforceable? Not materially different than the first option.

Obviously, we ought to be prudent in how we enforce laws. A person ought not be faced with custodial arrest over a parking ticket they forgot about that has now finally risen to high enough priority for someone to notice. In this particular example, we ought to have some significant requirements about notice being given before an arrest warrant being issued or executed. A phone call or two, a certified letter, maybe a letter hand delivered and either placed in hand or posted to the front door before an arrest warrant is issued.

In any event, there is a happy medium between no laws, or no laws enforceable, and death penalties for every violation.

I'm very much in favor of speed limits on surface streets and especially in residential areas and school zones. I don't think those laws should be enforced with missiles fired from drones. Nor even with tire spikes.

I'm not suggesting that outright bans on all recreational drugs is the best solution; and certainly there is no good reason to continue the current military tactics "war on drugs".

Remember, at some point, the thing that allows for peaceful resolution of conflicts under our form of government is the rarely used potential for government to impose significant violence. That observation will really bother some. But the rarely enforced part is better, IMO, than what we see with the non-government service providers in Waco for whom violence is the common remedy to disputes.

Charles