HOME | DD
Ramen27 β Constitution fan
Published: 2009-10-21 20:51:30 +0000 UTC; Views: 7701; Favourites: 364; Downloads: 18
Redirect to original
Description
How about being a dA fan of something worthwhile?Many thanks to ~Jan3090 for the stock.
Related content
Comments: 78
Not gonna lie, the Constitution is what makes me proud to be an American.
π: 1 β©: 0
I'm a fan of the constitution.
Hey violators of the Constitution! Bite my shiny metal ass!!
π: 1 β©: 0
Obama can't be re-elected. He's already had his terms.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah but that's without affirmative action...
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually there is a term limit in the Constitution. The 22nd amendment ratified in 1951 states that the president cannot be in office for more than two terms._so even with affirmative action Obama cannot run for president during the 2016 elections
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, I know that, but what I'm saying is, they might take affirmative action to remove that limit
π: 0 β©: 0
Obama for 2016?
O GAWD NO!
π: 0 β©: 1
I carry a copy of the Constitution around with me just about everywhere in the real world, and I'm working on memorizing it. Happy to have a stamp supporting it on dA. I'm more happy to see people care about it and see that it's still very important and amazing. Thank you.
π: 0 β©: 0
One of the greatest things about America, I have to say.
x)
Nice stamp~
π: 0 β©: 0
I support the original constitution. You know, the one that has the good values of hard work, justice and good morals. I miss that constitution. As of late, our entire country has been running on money, not morals or what is right.
π: 0 β©: 0
Gotta love the Constitution. It helps me so much-especially the First Amendment.
(actually I'm not exactly sure how I fit in the Constitution, seeing as I'm not American:\)
π: 0 β©: 0
Thought Iβd take a moment and tell you Iβm using this stamp. 
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't normaly like to use the words of others but...
"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation
at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even
purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a
contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a
contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to
be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know,
historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on
the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal
manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.
Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so
far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it
obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things,
that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to
say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the
people" then existing; nor does it, either ex- [*4] pressly or impliedly, assert any right,
power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."
Opening to "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're quoting an anarchist. Using his reasoning as a rebuttal makes about as much sense as using a 10-year-old's reasoning for why "school sucks".
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually its more like using quoting a reputable scientist on why creationism is incorrect.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't subscribe to creationism either. And I don't believe the constitution is about that. If it was, there would be nothing in it about the separation of church and state, or freedom of faith.
π: 0 β©: 1
You misunderstand, governments (or more specifically states, which are monopolies of legitimized violence and coercion) act as the ultimate creationists, in that they are a product of human evolution and the emergent order yet deny its existence. It is a result of a bottom-up process in order, however it claims that all order is top-down originating from it. That is where the comparison comes from.
Many scientists have described evolution and the nature of the universe, while the creationists simply ignore these valid conclusions and substitute their own superstition.
Many libertarians/anti-statists have published works detailing how (some) societies can (and have) organized without what we call states, others did develop states and they are as much a product of social organization as the non-state society. However states claim to the bringers of order, not a particular offspring of it, and thus society feels a need for them and sees them as legitimate.
Over time many theories were proposed on just how to justify states, all until more recent history the justification was based on the deification of the kings and such. Nowadays the justifications have become more secular (at least in the western world) and they have to resort to something other than the wrath of god.
To me the constitution has no real objective authority by itself and is only supported by the inter-subjective consensus of most of the nation. But that isn't the same as agreeing to it, instead Americans presuppose its authority because they have been told it has authority. And the state has deified both the paper and its writers to the extent that people fear questioning it and consider it perfect. Spooner on the other hand, saw past the curtains and saw the document for what it was, just a piece of paper written on by dead men.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Americans presuppose its authority because they have been told it has authority" - something has to have authority. "Contract law" cannot exist without government. This is the biggest hole in his philosophy. If you subscribe to it, then you should basically believe that there can never be any constitution, since any such document would "enslave" us. And what is a nation without governing principles and laws? Anarchy. Stone age.
Bottom line is, no matter what some people seem to believe, there is no way to build a perfect society, for the simple reason that humans are imperfect beings. What you can do is create a balance that stops a society from either descending into anarchy or turning into a dictatorship. The constitution has been doing just that, and I daresay it's been working. It may not be perfect, but it's been successful enough to turn the U.S. into the most free, prosperous and diverse nation on earth. And one of the main reasons it's is in dire straits right now is because the constitution is being spat on. I find it ironic that you quote Spooner, because I feel right now this country is being taken far, far away from the direction he would have liked.
π: 0 β©: 1
For the record:
I'm not a huge fan of Spooner except for this essay. I personally subscribe to the ideas of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman.
I am not an anarchist, I don't call or really consider myself one. The term is a bad one as most associate it with either communism or chaos or both. Also many so called anarchists I have heard sound as totalitarian as a statist.
I am not a Utopian and I don't see how a totally perfect society could ever exist, state or no state. Nor do I object to laws, just the monopoly of one corporation being able to create laws.
You and many others carry a belief that "if only we could restore the constitution then everything would get better" well since it was made to hold back the power of the state it has certainly and utterly failed in every aspect. Decreasing the tyranny would only hold it back for so long until its right back at where it is not.
You call humans "imperfect beings" and I agree. But what is the state except a collection, even a class, of particularly (an historically) horrible people. If the state (even a limited one) is supposed to be what protects us from ourselves, even though people just like us are running it, where does it get its magic powers to make everything better?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well... Technically, communism is the opposite of anarchy/chaos. Communism is a totalitarian regime in which God is replaced with government.
well since it was made to hold back the power of the state it has certainly and utterly failed in every aspect - how do you figure? A failure would mean the government can go against it, and get away with it. I don't believe this is the case. I believe people will push back in November. If they don't... Then yes, it'll have failed. Wait and see, I guess.
Yes, I believe that if we stop doing unconstitutional things it would get better. It doesn't have magic powers, no... But I think for what it is, it works. Time is testament to that. If someone has a better solution, I'm open to that. Unfortunately, they do not. Look at Europe, and what mess it has become. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be like them? I'd rather support the constitution than anarchy, or tyranny.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually you'd be surprised at how totalitarian an anarcho-communist can sound.
The government has been getting away with breaking the constitution, has been since the document was violently imposed on the nation (after taking away the less interventionist articles of confederation). The constitution is an irrelevant document to just about every politician.
You also assume that no better alternative have been proposed since the constitutions implementation.
This is incorrect. The system I would like to see tried is (the poorly named) "anarcho-capitalism" where even the basic functions of the state (like arbitration and defense) are provided by private competing firms.
Now before you say that it can't work and will never work, just remember that people said the exact same thing about the American Republic at the time. And it did sort of work, it even worked better than the monarchies of Europe, just not for a long time.
(If you are interested and feel like reading a book or two I highly recommend "For a New Liberty" and "The Machinery of Freedom" as they clearly and concisely spell out just what such a system would look like. [link] [link] )
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the book links, they look interesting. I'll check them out when I can.
Based on what I know (and I don't know that much, so correct me if I'm wrong), anarcho-capitalism is yet another one of those ideas that look great on paper, but could potentially go horribly awry when implemented... again, because of the nature of man. The main problem I have with it is that I doubt capitalism is even possible without some kind of centralized law. For the simple reason that capitalism = free market, but also free market = property rights. So how would that work, exactly? If corporation A has more money than corporation B and can pay for better protection of its property, what stops it from terrorizing corporation B (and C... and everyone who's worse off)? What stops it from favoritism and outright tyranny? It's pretty much organized crime, only on a larger scale.
I guess, my point is, someone is always on top. It's just human nature. And if it's a private party that imposes authority with impunity, it's no better than government. I'd love to believe that people can evolve to be fair, responsible, and selfless, but unfortunately, most humans are not. The reason I believe in this country and the Constitution is because I'm the "choose the lesser evil" type of person. I lived for 20 years in a place where the government owned everything, and where studying hard, working hard, and being honest put people on the brink of poverty instead of making them successful. From everything I've seen in my life, this is the least of evils because it allows people an opportunity to do what they want with their lives, and to achieve happiness.
π: 0 β©: 1
Every idea and movement tends to look better on paper, though I am convinced that this will work well enough to replace the current system.
The kind of capitalism (or more specifically a true free market economy) that would exist under "anarcho-capitalism"/"market anarchy"/anti-statism/libertarianism would operate on quite a different method than the capitalism of today.
Its the central monopoly law of the state that creates both the negation of freedom that more liberty minded people favor, as well as the corporatism that the "leftists" dislike. Libertarian law would be less susceptible to corporate corruption in general, partly because of its basis in property rights. If AIG was to in some way harm your home somehow, the AnCap system lets you sue them for property damages. Also their would be no state to bribe that would force you to move under eminent domain.
As for people being honest, well many people are truth be told. There are just enough people, however, that regularly refuse to follow the rational rules that human society has written into its basic codes. However many of today's politicians and the friends they give connections too fit this profile like a glove to a hand. Centralized power attracts the power hungry and gives them jobs, decentralized power could limit them up to only to what they could do directly and physically.
If one, or many, gain control of a private security firm and try to take over with it, then they are going to loose revenue in the immediate future because they have lost the confidence of their costumers, at least until they start involuntarily taking their money (taxation). Fairly soon after (if not before) things are taken this far, other security companies trying to keep a good name will step in and fight them off, as will regular people. Free market competition ensures a greater system of checks and balances against a violent monopoly, especially when the normal solution is to just form a violent monopoly and hope it works out.
(Chapter 29 in "Machinery of Freedom" explains things rather well)
π: 0 β©: 1
If AIG was to in some way harm your home somehow, the AnCap system lets you sue them for property damages - well, theoretically. But practically, who pays for the lawsuit? And more importantly, who gets to decide what laws to uphold in such a court? The logical answer is, those who have more get to decide. And if the person you're suing has more money than you do, what stops them from simply buying their way out?
Fairly soon after (if not before) things are taken this far, other security companies trying to keep a good name will step in and fight them off - I think the problem here is that many people care much more about the size and stability of their bank account than about their good name.
Don't get me wrong, like you, I do believe that many people are honest (and hardworking, and overall decent). But my observation is that money corrupts, and the more a person has, the more they want. Even when they don't necessarily need it. I've seen this happen. They keep moving up until they're living an excessively opulent lifestyle, and because they feel the pressure to maintain it, they will stop at nothing to protect it, even if it involves screwing other people over... Not all are like that, but I bet at least 60% are.
By the way, anarcho-capitalism is the basis for Neal Stephenson's sci-fi novel "Snow Crash" - if you're into that sort of thing, you might enjoy it.
π: 0 β©: 1
The "buying their way out" problem is easy to address; first off all it happens today under statist law anyway (bribing juries for instance), second a court that is in competition with other courts among a population that sees honesty as a value and virtue will be less likely to accept bribes from a defendant/prosecutor who happens to be more wealthy than the opposing side.
That's how a free-market legal system will be checked and balanced.
Just remember also, no matter how pure the intentions, or even the founding documents, all the corruption that people fear in society is magnified when the corruption is somehow connected to the state.
(Snow Crash does sound interesting, maybe I will read it, even though I don't like fiction with any particular political or philosophical message, one of the reasons I could never read or even agree with Ayn Rand.)
π: 0 β©: 1
So basically... It comes down to number of decent people vs. number of scumbags. If the former is greater, the system works. If the latter is, it's likely to descend into a giant mafia war. I admit, it's an interesting theory. And if we could somehow be certain that the majority of people are virtuous, I'd probably not be against it. It's the second possibility that scares me.
Anyway... I thank you for an intelligent and civil discussion. It's so rare to find nowadays.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, we all have our opinions.
Actually on a purely practical level I'm not against the constitution per se, primarily in regards to its possibly panarchic loophole ([link] ) to let something like anarcho-capitalism to form without any real (violent) revolution, which just tend to make things worse.
And thank you for the compliment, I'm just surprised Goodwin's Law didn't show up... cause we all no dat hittler luved teh meriken consitutionsssssss!!!1111!oneone!!1eleven
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the link. An interesting read.
π: 0 β©: 0
Why does everyone seem to worship The Constitution? It isn't sacred or perfect or even necessarily permanent.
Now let me just qualify that by saying that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the authors of the constitution. They were brave, brilliant, fascinating people, Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton especially. But if they were here today, they would be shocked and appalled to discover that we are still using the same 223-year-old document. They never intended for it to last this long. They made it amendable for a reason. It was their hope that each successive generation would adopt a form of government best suited to its era's needs. Instead we have struggled to stretch and skew their version of The Constitution to cover ground it was never intended to cover. I say, toss it out and write a new one. And The Founders would agree with me. Jefferson (the most radical Founder of all) thought that The Constitution should be torn up and re-written every nineteen-years! An extreme model perhaps, but you get the idea.
We live in a world that is infinitely more complex and dangerous than anything The Founders (smart as they were) could have foreseen. The fact that we are still trying to govern ourselves in the twenty-first century with an eighteenth century document is laughable. Unfortunately, The Constitution has proven almost impossible to amend. The United States has developed a self-worshiping national mythology in which The Constitution is treated as though it was handed down from Mt. Sinai, and The Founders are revered as a homogeneous bloc of bland demi-gods.
History has been forgotten. Time and a lot of clever propaganda have white-washed over the event that was The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Back then, no one thought The Constitution was perfect. It was a harrowing struggle, a series of messy compromises between warring factions, and finally, a triumph over small-minded regionalism and anti-federalist fear. It was the best they could do under the circumstances. None of the delegates were particularly proud of it, some of them hated it, and many refused to sign it, but in the end it served them, and The Republic well. But now it is buckling under the weight of issues beyond its capacity. The Constitution was written by people who didn't know what an atom was. How can it be expected to cope with the threat of nuclear war? Or climate change, or population growth, or partisan politics, or the internet, or corporations?
Why are we as a nation so afraid of change? The Founders created the best government for THEM. Now it's our turn. We must create the best government for US. We must remember that the men who made America were not the pious, stately demi-gods of John Trumbell paintings. They were strange, brilliant, fanatical, flawed human beings. There words are no more sacred than ours. The Constitution is A form of government, not THE form of government.
Anyway, very pretty stamp. I intend to use it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Itβs a shame that a stamp like this is needed, as it should be assumed that every American is a fan of the very document that gives them freedom, but sadly, that is not the case.
Great job!
π: 0 β©: 1
and thank you for the comment!
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>