June 4, 2011
Gary Barnett has this piece up at LewRockwell.com regarding his still being fed up with Constitution worship (and links to his previous piece on that). I’ve been listening to the Rev. Beck this past week, who has been constantly saying how the Constitution is being attacked from all sides and we have to “get back to the Constitution,” and so on (and, frankly, as with his stated views on Israel, I don’t believe Beck’s sincerity, but that’s for a different discussion.). Well, you bet the Constitution is being attacked — it is worthless.
People really need to free themselves from the burdensome weight of the long-held false assumption that the Constitution was ever a good thing, an assumption that anchors everyone down from their very freedom that the Constitution only prevents.
Barnett links to Bill Buppert’s piece on how the Constitution failed to liberate us from big government, and to Tom Mullen’s piece on the Constitution as the “18th Century Patriot Act.” In that article, Mullen quotes the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power to…” (Might as well just fill in the blank, because that’s what they have been doing for the last 200 years.)
Some further reading by Mullen also includes “The Constitution Does Not Protect Our Property.” Mullen notes,
By “property,” I do not mean exclusively or even primarily land ownership, although land ownership is one form of property. By “property,” I mean all that an individual rightfully owns, including his mind, body, labor, and the fruits of his labor. It is specifically the right to the fruits of one’s labor that the Constitution fails entirely to protect. In fact, it makes no attempt to do so whatsoever.
And Mullen gets into the Bill of Rights, which does not protect our property, nor does it protect our rights. The Fifth Amendment includes, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It might as well state: “The government may take your property.” Period.
Other noteworthy articles include Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which emphasizes how the Constitution could not be a legally binding contract that future generations must obey. Also, Laurence Vance documents here and here how the Anti-Federalists were right to oppose the centralized federal government and the then-proposed Constitution. And Gary North has this piece on the fraudulent nature of the Constitution.
No, the U.S. Constitution does not protect our liberty, our rights or our property. Instead, it empowers the centralized bureaucracy to invade our property, expropriate the fruits of our labor and enslave us.
As I noted in my piece of March, 2010 on how the November 2010 elections would be nothing but more rearranging of deck chairs (and more recently in my piece, Let Go of the Centralized State), as a society centralizes a government and gives it monopolies that are compulsory and restricts competitors’ right of entry, its power just can’t be controlled, and it will always grow and never shrink, and will be increasingly oppressive toward the people over whom it rules. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe noted, the idea of “limited government” is impossible.
People just can’t resist the power and will become addicted to it, like a drug. They won’t let go and will only want more and more power. And wealth (as they steal it through taxation, the Federal Reserve and other illicit means).
And the Constitution will not protect us from the DC parasites, hooligans and imbeciles, or from their hired guns the police or the military. “But the Supreme Court will protect us. They will overturn bad laws and police procedures that violate our rights.” No, the Supreme Court will not protect us. We have seen that more and more, from the 2005 Kelo decision that allowed the power of the government to be used to steal private property from people to give it to private developers, and, more recently, the 8-1 decision that endorsed greater police power to break into people’s homes without warrants. It was yet another reason to de-monopolize community policing.
Expanding the federal bureaucrats’ power, that they can’t let go of, and feeding the military contractor parasites (which Tom Engelhardt details so well here) is why we have this “War on Drugs” prohibition irrationality and hypocrisy and this terrorism fear-mongering.
And I have already noted several times how the socialist monopolization of national security has done nothing but feed the DC central planners’ hunger for power, as the entire apparatus of government usurpation of Americans’ right of defense has only encouraged DC to provoke foreigners to act against us, as an excuse to further expand the power of the federal bureaucracy and further terrorize the American citizenry.
The Constitution’s language was deliberately vague for the sake of federalists’ expansion of power, beginning with the drooling Alexander Hamilton. This “general welfare” clause we hear about really refers to the well-being of the country in general, not this socialist forced redistribution-of-wealth stuff that the Left seems to like. But how can a government claim to be concerned about its people’s well-being when the government intentionally provokes and harms and acts aggressively against foreigners on the foreigners’ own lands and murders hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there, thus driving widespread anti-American sentiment and provoking anger and retaliation? (And how come so many Americans actually don’t know what the U.S. government had done to people in Iran 30-60 years ago, and to the people of Iraq 20 years ago, 10 years before 9/11?)
Has the income tax, begun in 1913, been helpful or hurtful to out “general welfare,” our general well-being? Has the Federal Reserve, begun in 1914, been helpful or harmful to our well-being? The Fed, by the way, is entirely unconstitutional. Not that it matters, because the federal government has been ignoring and shredding the Constitution for decades, and that Supreme Court is useless to protect our liberty, our rights or our property.
A “Bill of Rights” may having been well-intentioned, but when you empower a “supreme” authority with a monopoly of ultimate judicial decision-making, you are right then and there sacrificing your liberty and your rights to serve the elitist rulers. A monopoly that is protected by the State and restricts free entry into that field immediately corrupts the monopolists, and the ultimate decision by this monopolized authority will not be just, and you will not have real justice. (Note Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s recent article on that.)
No, I say, not only must we get rid of the federal government and let the states be sovereign and independent as they were meant to be by the Founders, also dump the Supreme Court, and get rid of that worthless Constitution that the bureaucrats in DC no longer follow anyway.
What we really need to protect our liberty is just basic laws of society: No theft or fraud, no trespass, no physical aggression (except in actual self-defense).
But also, no individual, group or institution may be above the law, no police may initiate aggression against others or have authority over anyone. Everyone is equal under the law. And no monopoly, either. That includes no monopoly in community policing. No restrictions on the right to bear arms. Let a neighborhood’s people, residents and business owners police themselves, encourage people to be vigilant and self-protective. (But not paranoid.)
Centralization and monopolization of police and national security, judicial decision-making and money has been harmful to America, and we need to give it all the heave-ho.