Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom

Activists List
1

Mike,

You are doing an excellent job revealing the holes in my belief
system! However, I am still clinging to a conviction that consensus
exists only in small homogeneous groups. In a large, highly diverse
group such as the USA, you will find members who will argue that
honor killing is not only acceptable but required; or taking property
belonging to others is justified; or using force to achieve desirable
ends is necessary; or serving yummy horse meat in a Big Mac enhances
shareholder profit, creates jobs, and is all around a great idea.
Thus, it would seem to me that preconceived right and wrong are not
as clear as one would like, and a way for any group to remain a group
by choice is to hammer out a code of acceptable behavior, in my view
preferably written, and then remain vigilant. Perhaps the
Constitution has become more of a tourist attraction than a useful
code because those that wished to subvert it managed to be more
vigilant than those who did not.

Marcy

— In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, “Acree, Michael” <acreem@…>
wrote:

Marcy:

An important issue, and I would say yes and no. Most transactions,
including those between strangers, don’t need a written code. When
I
order a Big Mac, I don’t require a written contract specifying that
the
sandwich is beef rather than horsemeat. We do have laws against
fraud,
but, like laws against murder or assault, they are basically
superfluous: Although some people do these things, nobody defends
them
as right in principle, and any court or arbitration agency which
held
that view would have a hard time getting business. What we need
statutory law for is behaviors on which there is no consensus, like
using marijuana. Needless to say, libertarians don’t think there
should
be laws about any of those things. What we are left with is common
or
case law, and it is indeed useful to have a written record of these
proceedings, even though judgments will evolve over time.

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:16 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship Undermines the
Cause
for Freedom

Mike,

Very important not to leave well enough alone!! Ok, so far, so
good: the behavior is what counts, not the words that describe what
behavior is desired. And perhaps you are correct that even if the
words
(Bible, Constitution, Municipal Code, Libertarian Platform,
etc.) went away, the behavior described as desirable in those
documents
need not be considered gone. However, it would seem to me that
unless
we are speaking about a very small, very homogeneous group, or
better
yet, about no group at all (every one for him/herself), group
function
would be difficult without a written code. Range of possible
behavior
is just too wide. The group (if a group is desired) needs to
indicate
what behavior is OK and what behavior is not OK.

Marcy

— In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, “Acree, Michael” <acreem@>
wrote:

Marcy:

Perhaps I should leave well enough alone; but the "Worshipping
the

Constitution" title of Mike D.'s article invites a close
comparison:

Suppose the Bible (or Atlas Shrugged, or any other book)
contained all
the rules of good behavior. Then suppose all copies of the Good
Book
were destroyed forever. That wouldn’t mean that it was no longer
possible to be a good person, or that anybody’s behavior would
necessarily deteriorate; some people’s might actually improve.
Just the
same if the book had never been written. The point in either
case–
the

Bible or the Constitution–is the behavior, not the document,
which
is

just a symbol. I said that that symbol can be meaningful, in just
the
same sense that V said that the House of Parliament was just a
symbol
but its destruction can still carry a powerful meaning. Documents
are a
convenient way of pointing to what we believe, but they don’t have
any
power of their own to control our behavior. As Korzybski said, it
would
be a mistake to confuse the map with the territory.

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D.
Berry

Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:48 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship Undermines the
Cause
for Freedom

Mike,

I have engraved the second sentence of your e-mail in granite.
Let’s
get to work and promote that thought! I always keep on hand the
little
Constitutions the Cato Institute puts out, and will give them out
to

anyone who will listen.

Marcy

— In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, “Acree, Michael” <acreem@>
wrote:

Thanks, Marcy. I agree that, if voters held politicians
accountable to
the Constitution, then it could be a meaningful document. By
the

same

token, we could hold them accountable for doing the right thing
even if
“the right thing” weren’t codified in a document, just as,
through

the

market, we hold other agents, such as our insurance agents,
accountable
for doing the right thing, without defining an explicit set of
rules we
want them to observe. But, as you say, that may be a topic for
another
day.

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D.
Berry

Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:31 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship Undermines
the

Cause

for Freedom

Hi Mike,

I see your, and the article’s, point of view now. Perhaps there
is
no

way to ensure adherence to the Constitution, so why have the
Constitution. However, I still cling to the hope that if enough
voters
held politicians accountable for not abiding by the
Constitution,
by

turning them out of office, encouraging impeachment or censure,
etc,

then the Constitution could be a meaningful document. Whether
or

not, a

priori, a Constitution is needed at all is the subject for
another

day!

Marcy

— In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, “Acree, Michael”
<acreem@>

wrote:

Marcy:

I take Lora to be saying that the fact that we’re in Iraq
without
a

Congressional declaration, etc., just proves that the
Constitution

is

irrelevant, and totally ineffective in protecting our
liberties.
It

doesn’t keep Bush from doing whatever he wants to do. More
than

that,

we’re deluded if we think there’s any way it could restrain
Bush

(or

anyone else in his position). The point is to restore
liberty,

not

to

restore the Constitution, which has already proven itself a
failure
(as

any constitution would sooner or later). There’s no way to
enforce

observance of the Constitution when the nonobservers are the
enforcers.

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D.
Berry

Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:24 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship Undermines
the

Cause

for Freedom

Hi Mike,

I believe our fearless leader GWB agrees with this article
100%.

If he

did not, we would not be in Iraq without a Congressional
declaration of
war, we would not be subject to wire tapping without a
warrant,
we

and

our possessions would not be randomly searched without
probable

cause…the list goes on.

Marcy

— In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, “Mike Denny” <mike@>
wrote:

Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom

by Manuel Lora mailto:vanguardist@

Libertarians err when they use the Constitution to further
their

philosophy for freedom. While some say they want to "return
to

the

Constitution" and see a proper role for a limited federal
government on
the basis of it being an ultimate guarantor of liberty, they
nonetheless
argue that some constitutional functions (like eminent
domain

and

taxation), violate individual freedom. So which one is it?
Is

it

possible to both support some government laws and not
others?
On

what

grounds?

The Constitution is nothing more than a dead letter, a non-
binding

“social contract” and ultimately a historical artifact that
tourists go
to see when they visit Mordor, D.C. Indeed, as Keith Preston
mentions
<http://blog.mises.org/archives/004898.asp#78871> (in the
comments)

"the Constitution is what it is: A landmark document in the
evolution of
political thought and the political charter of the classical
American
republic that has been de facto overthrown for generations.
State’s

rights went out the window with the Civil War and
Reconstruction

and the

rest of the Constiution [sic] was destroyed over the course
of

the

20th

century. The few strands that remain, like due process and
free

speech,

are now being eradicated as well."

As a blog aficionado, I cringe whenever I read statements
such

as "we

have freedom of speech because of the First Amendment"
or "the

Second

Amendment protects my right to carry guns." Things like that
are

incredibly contrived. It is already bad enough that they are
coming
from

so-called “libertarians” who, really, should know better.
The

Constitution, even if we were to accept the notion that it
binds

us, is

just a chain on the feds. It does not give anyone freedom.

The most common argument goes like this: "We would be better
off

if

we

returned to the Constitution." Fair enough. We would be, but
that’s
not

because the Constitution equals freedom. That statement is
only

true now

because we are living in an era of unbridled sociofascism
and

thus

we

would enjoy more liberty if the Federal government were
reduced.
But

that argument, however, cannot ever be used to advance the
cause

of

liberty. It is at best a piece of historical data.
Libertarianism

aims

to be universally valid; it must apply anywhere and any
time.

Thus,

would today’s libertarians favor the Constitutional
Convention?

Would

they favor replacing the Articles of Confederation with the
Constitution? Surely not, unless the Articles were to be
replaced

with a

Giant Nothing. If the Constitution gave more power to the
central

government than it had under the Articles - and it did -
then

libertarians should have opposed it then (and some did) as
they

should

today.

Libertarians must refrain from positivism, empiricism and
historicism.
They shall succumb intellectually otherwise. The philosophy
of

non-aggression is not favored because it would promote any
particular
outcome. Aggression is simply not justified. Anyone who does
not

agree

with that is either confused or a criminal, or both. It is
not a

vice to

desire, say, the total elimination of murder, nor is it a
virtue

to

favor moderation in murder. But to say that a particular
government
law

should be followed because it gives us freedom, is erroneous
and

flawed.

That a law can be used to enforce restrictions on government
abuses
is

one thing. (Even then, the imposition of a law on those who
do

not

consent to it is also an act of aggression; it is theft of
land

and

the

involuntary inclusion into a group.) But it’s something
totally

different to claim that the law itself can bring about
freedom.

There is

no duty to obey
<http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_4/19_4_6.pdf> .
And that, as Spooner reminds us, is not treason
<http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm> .

April 18, 2006

Manuel Lora [send him mail mailto:vanguardist@ ] is a
freelance TV

producer and multimedia specialist in New Orleans.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Mike

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

[U s government grant](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=46y6ULHvC1K7UWYyT6_nJA) [California](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=t0WI39Ad6uCvaGD2aU9b4Q) [Activist](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Activist&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=4ByCWi03twUc71POcy8zfQ)
[U s government student loan](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=U+s+government+student+loan&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=lunB1IXkW25giNNSjXwduA) [California politics](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=U+s+government+student+loan&w5=California+politics&c=5&s=114&.sig=ehCbO4a23lr_0u_Q0TOlFQ)