Hints at sounds of screaching halt coming from Congress...

[Gaspar]

The true libertarian constitution (the Articles of Confederation).

Wrong!

[nathanm]

Wrong!

Is that really the best you can do? The Articles of Confederation, in my view, created a government for people who didn't want government.

[Conan71]

From me, no and no.  It ain't an ad hominem, though I very much wonder to what degree Gassy believes the things he believes. 

Gassy:  I believe the Constitution is one of the foundational documents of the modern world.  Taken with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, you're looking at a corpus that is as important as the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi's Code.  But I'm at a loss to understand how and why your reading of it qualifies as originalist.  Your reading seems highly selective, and your opinion of what it should accomplish seems very narrow when compared with the mechanisms the document itself sets up to mediate the losses of liberty.

To me, the Constitution guarantees that the liberty we will inevitably lose when being ruled will be adequately checked and balanced, and that those losses will be slow and agreed upon by as many people as possible.  It guarantees that the majority rules but that the minority will be protected.  And it guarantees that the document itself can change with the times.  And the Founders structured the government itself -- all three branches of government, from soup to nuts -- to help mediate our freedoms in the context of a governed society.

And yes, when I say "mediate our freedoms," you're going to break out in hives.  But really, our freedoms aren't absolute and haven't been since day one.  The existence of the judicial branch alone is evidence enough that there has to be a mechanism making sure our freedoms and our government are in balance. Look further into how the Judicial interfaces with the creation of and enforcement of the law -- how it will and will not intervene for certain things -- and it's clear that your freedoms aren't meant to always and cleanly win out. 

Anyhow, I don't find that we're having a lot of logical conversations about libertarianism.  I feel like our conversations veer off into the ideological almost immediately, and I can't get a good factual read about what you want, rather than what you don't want -- which seems to me to be everything. If we were trying to serve together in Congress, say, I would have no idea how to approach a relationship with you politically, because you seem hostile to the act of governance itself. 

Why seek to understand someone else's philosophy when you can simply bloviate?

[nathanm]

Why seek to understand someone else's philosophy when you can simply bloviate?

You may find this shocking, but there was a time when I self-identified as libertarian. It's a wonderful philosophy in abstract.

[we vs us]

Why seek to understand someone else's philosophy when you can simply bloviate?

Because there's no there there. 

[Gaspar]

From me, no and no.  It ain't an ad hominem, though I very much wonder to what degree Gassy believes the things he believes. 

To me, the Constitution guarantees that the liberty we will inevitably lose when being ruled will be adequately checked and balanced, and that those losses will be slow and agreed upon by as many people as possible.  It guarantees that the majority rules but that the minority will be protected.  And it guarantees that the document itself can change with the times.  And the Founders structured the government itself -- all three branches of government, from soup to nuts -- to help mediate our freedoms in the context of a governed society.

First of all, what I believe may not be right.  I am happy to admit that.  It is an evolved philosophy that I share, and it continues to evolve.

Secondly, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect.  The constitution is not designed to protect us from anything but government.  It does not serve to "mediate our freedoms."   That intension is wholly absent in it's intent.


Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution was not – and is not – a grant of rights to the citizenry. Instead, the Constitution is a "barbed-wire entanglement" designed to interfere with, restrict, and impede government officials in the exercise of political power. – Jacob Hornberger

Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people. – William F. Jasper

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Edited: to add a little Webster.

[Red Arrow]

The same views btw that our founding fathers (Yes! They were Liberals!) used to write the constitution.  

Actually, the English probably considered them to be somewhat radical.  Maybe even bordering on terrorist since we shot from behind trees rather than line up to be mowed down.

[waterboy]

Actually, the English probably considered them to be somewhat radical.  Maybe even bordering on terrorist since we shot from behind trees rather than line up to be mowed down.

John Locke, upon whose writings much of the constitution is based on, was part of the upper class during his time just before the Revolution. These so called liberal ideas based on the rights of man were floating around all over England and France unofficially during the 1700's. They were certainly considered radical by the King and could subject their believers to death. Our founding fathers were well read, well traveled and well aware of these liberal precepts.

Yes, the British had little respect for our military tactics we had learned from the natives along the frontier. I would disagree that they felt we earned the label terrorist however. A terrorist commits heinous crimes in order to terrorize any opposition. The British were much better at terrorist behavior than we were. They considered us hopeless simpletons who needed to be put in their place.

Kind of like we think of each other around here.

[guido911]

Why is Waterboy signing on as "guest"?

[Gaspar]

Actually, the English probably considered them to be somewhat radical.  Maybe even bordering on terrorist since we shot from behind trees rather than line up to be mowed down.

Actually the terminology we employ today is quite twisted from it's original definitions.  The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" have very little of their original trappings.  Both have been infiltrated by philosophies that could find no other place in the modern world.  They are but terms.  It is the philosophy of individual men that matters, and the framers had very diverse beliefs. But, they recognized common threads.  Those threads allowed them to construct a fortress to constrain the power of government from imposing its will on free men.

Red, I believe the framers were quite liberal based on the definition of the time period. 

[swake]

Why is Waterboy signing on as "guest"?

Yeah, what's up with that? Has he been kicked out? What happened?

[swake]

First of all, what I believe may not be right.  I am happy to admit that.  It is an evolved philosophy that I share, and it continues to evolve.

Secondly, your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect.  The constitution is not designed to protect us from anything but government.  It does not serve to "mediate our freedoms."   That intension is wholly absent in it's intent.


Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution was not – and is not – a grant of rights to the citizenry. Instead, the Constitution is a "barbed-wire entanglement" designed to interfere with, restrict, and impede government officials in the exercise of political power. – Jacob Hornberger

Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people. – William F. Jasper

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Edited: to add a little Webster.

The framers had a very healthy mistrust of "the people" and popular opinion. They shielded government from the people all over the place. They very much wanted to protect people from the tyranny of the masses and created a great deal of insulation and checks and balances on the will of the people. They protected people rights only secondarily with the bills of rights which of course wasn't achieved as an original part of the constitution.

Examples:
The Electoral College. They didn't trust people to vote directly for president, the original intent was that in local regions people would elect a wise and trusted person to vote on their behalf for president. This was an intentional separation between popular vote and power.

Election of Senators: Much like the Electoral College, originally Senators were not representatives of the people at all, that was only intended to be the House, the Senate was intended to be the representative of each state as a whole elected by the state legislatures.

Lack of any mechanism for direct petition. It just doesn't exist and that is intentional.

Look at the three branches of government as originally intended, each branch has checks and balances on the other two. And only half of one branch was elected by the direct will of the people.

They also limited states powers and made states plainly subordinate. While the states were given influence through the Senate, they are always overruled by Federal authority. This also insulated government from the people's direct influence.

Amending the constitution: The founders did want a bill of rights and it was the first change they made to their own document and it was achieved and it codified the rights of citizens. But at the same time, they made removing or changing those rights very difficult. The 2/3 rules make popular opinion far from good enough to amend the constitution.

Throughout the Constitution you can plainly see that founders didn't fear government so much as they had a fear of unchecked power in any one person's or groups hands and a great fear of the whim of the masses. We are a government "Of the people" not "by the people" and have strong mechanisms that protect the rights of the minority.

[Gaspar]

The framers had a very healthy mistrust of "the people" and popular opinion. They shielded government from the people all over the place. They very much wanted to protect people from the tyranny of the masses and created a great deal of insulation and checks and balances on the will of the people. They protected people rights only secondarily with the bills of rights which of course wasn't achieved as an original part of the constitution.

Examples:
The Electoral College. They didn't trust people to vote directly for president, the original intent was that in local regions people would elect a wise and trusted person to vote on their behalf for president. This was an intentional separation between popular vote and power.

Election of Senators: Much like the Electoral College, originally Senators were not representatives of the people at all, that was only intended to be the House, the Senate was intended to be the representative of each state as a whole elected by the state legislatures.

Lack of any mechanism for direct petition. It just doesn't exist and that is intentional.

Look at the three branches of government as originally intended, each branch has checks and balances on the other two. And only half of one branch was elected by the direct will of the people.

They also limited states powers and made states plainly subordinate. While the states were given influence through the Senate, they are always overruled by Federal authority. This also insulated government from the people's direct influence.

Amending the constitution: The founders did want a bill of rights and it was the first change they made to their own document and it was achieved and it codified the rights of citizens. But at the same time, they made removing or changing those rights very difficult. The 2/3 rules make popular opinion far from good enough to amend the constitution.

Throughout the Constitution you can plainly see that founders didn't fear government so much as they had a fear of unchecked power in any one person's or groups hands and a great fear of the whim of the masses. We are a government "Of the people" not "by the people" and have strong mechanisms that protect the rights of the minority.

I don't disagree with that.  Accurate.  They believed Democracy was "Mob Rule."  They realized that Democracy was simply the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. . .tyranny of the majority.

They cherished individual liberty within the framework of a Constitutional Republic.  It wasn't "mistrust of the people", it was mistrust of the "Mob".   In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper. In a Constitutional Republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper, and the sheep are well armed.

They protected the individual from both government and the "mob."  They struck a beautiful balance.  The only reverence they had for government was in its necessity to protect individual rights through the enforcement of law. 



FROM THE US ARMY TRAINING MANUAL

"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

[we vs us]

I don't disagree with that.  Accurate.  They believed Democracy was "Mob Rule."  They realized that Democracy was simply the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. . .tyranny of the majority.

They cherished individual liberty within the framework of a Constitutional Republic.  It wasn't "mistrust of the people", it was mistrust of the "Mob".   In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper. In a Constitutional Republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper, and the sheep are well armed.

They protected the individual from both government and the "mob."  They struck a beautiful balance.  The only reverence they had for government was in its necessity to protect individual rights through the enforcement of law. 



FROM THE US ARMY TRAINING MANUAL

"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

Quick point of order:  that US Army Training Manual is quoted from the 1928 edition, as best as I can find, and is cited almost exclusively in places like firearmsforum.com, libertytree.ca, etc.

Would dearly LOVE to see a slightly more verifiable cite.

[guido911]

Yeah, what's up with that? Has he been kicked out? What happened?

Why the silent treatment on our requests?