Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom

Mike,

I loved your answer to my question regarding proof! Being a
Capricorn, I am very pragmatic, and would stay in a bad marriage
until I was sure of something better (not that I ever would enter
into a bad marriage to begin with! Bart is a saint).

I disagree that my comment about rolling up sleeves was the most
important thing I said, since it was obviously the most unclear! I
was referring to your writing being excellent, but not empirical
enough for my attitude about life. For example, I like to read
specific strategies about accomplishing something, while maybe you
would enjoy philosophy more.

Marcy

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

Marcy:

In my haste I neglected to respond to your question about proof.
Do you
stay in a bad marriage until you have proof that there’s somebody
available who’s better? People differ widely on how bad is too
bad, and
whether they have to have a replacement waiting in the wings before
they
make a move. I don’t see that there’s a universally right or wrong
answer here. Is your chart pretty Tauroidal?

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:18 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship Undermines the
Cause
for Freedom

Thank you for the article, Mike; and I could not agree more with
it.
However, my specific questions remain the same: 1) Is the problem
the
Constitution or the voters who vote clowns into office and in favor
of
legislation that make no sense? 2) What system, preferably that can
empirically be proven effective, do you propose? 3) Am I incorrect
in
requiring proof that a system works better than what we have before
I
say the system we have (Constitutional Republic) should be done away
with? If we can formulate a system that at least has the potential
of
working better than what we now have, how do we implement it
(remember,
you have signed the non-aggression pledge!)?

Please permit me to once again quote Creon’s words from Anouilh’s
Antigone: “It is easy to say no. To say yes, you have to sweat and
roll
up your sleeves and plunge both hands into life up to the elbows.”
In
the context of this discussion, to me that means not saying whant
we do
not want, but working towards what we do want.
And, BTW, I would class you amazing articles as such work
(Huuummmm, but
a little on the etherial side; maybe a little more rolling up of
sleeves?)

Marcy

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

Deal (as it was when we started).

As to the effectiveness of our Constitution, we definitely differ.
Here’s an article from today’s Rational Review News Digest:

It can’t happen here
The Power of Narrative
by Arthur Silber
"I’ve made this point repeatedly over the last several years, and
it is
only a measure of the remarkably primitive quality of our national
conversation that so many Americans seem incapable of grasping
it.
To

put the point the other way, which will hopefully penetrate the
wall of
resistance erected by so many people: the only reason you aren’t
in
a

concentration camp right now is because Bush hasn’t decided to
send
you

to one – yet." (04/30/06)

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/04/it-cant-happen-
here.html

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

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 10:27 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship Undermines the
Cause
for Freedom

Mike,

Well…we don’t have a state religion (no 10 commandments in City
Hall),
we do have a free press (Ron Getty need not be too concerned
calling the
City police “disfunctional”), and we can peacefully assemble
(lots
just

did regarding immigaration). So, the Constitution looks pretty
effective to me. Again, I do not know whether the same thing
could
be

achieved without a written document, since that feat has never
been

achieved in heterogeneous complex groups.

Yes, you are correct that most unfortunately all the laws and
rules
in

the world did not keep you from harm. And, yes, you are correct
that we
could “organize to defend ourselves.” I suppose where we differ
is

that, 1) I cannot visualize any system that would keep
every member a group from harm; the best we can do is to choose
a

system that will keep most from harm; and 2) we can organize
to

defend ourselves in a variety of ways (neighborhood watch, group
instruction in self defense methods, town hall meetings to bring
about
safer streets, walking buddies).

On second thought, it is OK if we do not agree on whether the
Constitution helps or hinders liberty; or whether it is better to
be a
minimalist or an anarchist. We keep moving toward your goal of a
rule-free society, which necessarily means moving toward my goal
of
a

least-amount-of-rules-as-possible society! Deal?

Marcy

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

Thanks, Justin. Of course, we know that “are guaranteed”
and "shall

make no law" were about equally effective.

From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Justin T.
Sampson
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 1:29 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship
Undermines

the

Cause for Freedom

Your comparison with Argentina is especially interesting. I
haven’t

read Argentina’s Constitution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if
it

were

rather similar to ours. The Soviet Union famously had a
Constitution

which supposed guaranteed all sorts of wonderful things. If
that’s

true, it inclines me to think that it isn’t the Constitution
that’s

making the difference, so much as something about the
culture.

Again,

the point that, if the supporting culture is there, the
Constitution

is superfluous; if it isn’t, a Constitution won’t help.

The Soviet “constitution” actually had some interesting, and
perhaps

important, stylistic differences from the Constitution for the
USA.

Whereas the Constitution for the USA is a foundational legal
document,
dominated by “shall’s” and “shall not’s”, the Soviet
constitution

was

more of a press release every several years, dominated
by “is’s”,

“do’s”, and “have’s”.

USA: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging
the

freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."

http://constitution.org/billofr_.htm

USSR: "In accordance with the interests of the people and in
order

to

strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the
USSR

*are

guaranteed* freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly,
meetings,
street processions and demonstrations.
Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting
public

buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working
people and
their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and
by

the

opportunity to use the press, television, and radio."

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html

(Emphasis on “shall make no law” and “are guaranteed” is mine.)

Cheers,
Justin

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=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=FOd4qdqU12L0kWrsKhuYhQ) [California](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=5g8CqXOcIKJM2EAreG5g9A) [Activist](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Activist&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=XEaAErK74HG3MSPO5TzVNg)
[California politics](http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+government+grant&w2=California&w3=Activist&w4=California+politics&c=4&s=81&.sig=9hSbXY7OkkWB6WjvI2ajBg)