Ron Paul exposes the neocons.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see any benefit to the whole "constitution" meme that is going around right now.

That isn't a new phenomena. It has been raging for ...almost 200 years. The first big fights over "stick to the constitution" were had between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Since then, arguments have abounded in spades. The first significant "stick to the constitution" argument heard by the Supreme Court was Chisholm v. Georgia. Someone (I forget the family name...but it wasn't Chisholm) was trying to sue the state for money spent on the American Revolutionary War. It was article 3*, iirc, that the SC justices used in their ruling on the case in favor of "Chisholm" (the plaintiff). The backlash of this "stick to the constitution" was the 11th amendment.

The problem is obviously things like "White, Land Owning, Males are the voters". Constitutionalists/Strict Constructionists have been around for ages since the beginning and in spades. I cannot remember a single election, since the 1988 when George Bush won, that did not have some sort of "appeal to the constitution". My parents say that Reagan pushed it when he ran. My grandparents say Nixon pushed it when he ran.

*Looked it up and I was right. It is Article 3, section 2:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, I get the appeal of Paul on a civil rights or certain things about the economy, but this is because he has ideas that I think are good, which is the way it should be. Not because he follows some document that we change when we figure stuff out better anyways.

But some of his ideas are good BECAUSE they come from that constitution he practically "bible thumps". We have gotten carried away with interpreting the law: "Original Intent" my *ss. He also wants to repeal a couple (or more?) amendments.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm going to clarify my position a little here. My point isn't that there are no good things in the constitution, but as I said above, these are good independent of the fact they are in the constitution. The constitution has many bad ideas in it too, or failed to express ideas we all essentially take for granted today. That it can be amended is almost my point. Policy needs to be set based on what is pragmatic, and thus, there are ways to change what is contained in the constitution such that it comes in line with, again, what are good ideas independently of the fact they are now included in the constitutional document.

In fact, this idea makes the appeal to the constitution essentially moot. Policy and positions need to be good independently of their inclusion in the constitution, and if they are at odds with what is contained there, the constitution is changed.

The constitution works very well at preserving rights so that citizens can use the judicial branch of government to oppose violations by the state, I don't see any benefit to the whole "constitution" meme that is going around right now. Like, I get the appeal of Paul on a civil rights or certain things about the economy, but this is because he has ideas that I think are good, which is the way it should be. Not because he follows some document that we change when we figure stuff out better anyways.

I hope you are not saying that the concept of constitution is of no value. I for one do not want anarchy. We must agree, and then hold that agreement up high. Just because we write it on paper, and then hold that paper up high, does not mean we have fallen in love with the paper.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hope you are not saying that the concept of constitution is of no value. I for one do not want anarchy. We must agree, and then hold that agreement up high. Just because we write it on paper, and then hold that paper up high, does not mean we have fallen in love with the paper.

What do you mean by "hold it up high"? Because it sounds like you're making a semantic argument to me.

And what's this anarchy BS?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I agree with ini, the Constitution is nothing more than a historically important piece of paper that outlines the basic ideas of our modern system of government.

What do you mean by "hold it up high"? Because it sounds like you're making a semantic argument to me.

And what's this anarchy BS?

Respect it, or honor it, or ...

It may not be important to you, but I think it is important to society, as an American.

I think what inimalistis is implying is that people worship it, and no one is doing that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Respect it, or honor it, or ...

It may not be important to you, but I think it is important to society, as an American.

I think what inimalistis is implying is that people worship it, and no one is doing that.

You don't need to suppose something has magical powers to worship it. Just show inordinate devotion to it. Which is what Constitutionalists do

And back to the anarchy thing. Substantiate that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But some of his ideas are good BECAUSE they come from that constitution

That's an absolutely horrifying mentality and it's a large part of the reason why I don't vote for Ron Paul and am completely opposed to the American Libertarian movement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's an absolutely horrifying mentality

😆 😆 😆

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
and it's a large part of the reason why I don't vote for Ron Paul and am completely opposed to the American Libertarian movement.

What is truly horrifying is you have the right to vote*. Luckily, it doesn't mean anything.

*I can assume you're all for suppressing the rights of women, homosexuals, and minorities if you're completely opposed to the "American" libertarian movement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
😆 😆 😆

What is truly horrifying is you have the right to vote*. Luckily, it doesn't mean anything.

*I can assume you're all for suppressing the rights of women, homosexuals, and minorities if you're completely opposed to the "American" libertarian movement.

...I can understand you're against roads and fixing the economy if you're completely opposed to the National Socialist movement.

there, Godwined.

I don't think he's against all the principles that Libertarians at least sometimes advocate (I've known Libertarians who really only advocate these things on principle but personally don't give a damn, which I don't see as a good thing because I'm Aristotelian in that way) just against the movement as a whole.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would disagree.

You don't need to suppose something has magical powers to worship it. Just show inordinate devotion to it. Which is what Constitutionalists do

And back to the anarchy thing. Substantiate that.

No one is showing inordinate devotion.

Substantiate what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one is showing inordinate devotion.

Substantiate what?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That not "holding high" the Constitution leads to anarchy.

Anarchy is the back drop. If we do not agree, or we do not honer our agreement, then that layer of society vanishes. It's not that society is replaced by anarchy, but anarchy is always there. Society is what lifts us out of that, and society is based on the agreements that we honer.

I have a gut feeling that you don't understand when people like Ron Paul talk about the Constitution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anarchy is the back drop. If we do not agree, or we do not honer our agreement, then that layer of society vanishes. It's not that society is replaced by anarchy, but anarchy is always there. Society is what lifts us out of that, and society is based on the agreements that we honer.

I have a gut feeling that you don't understand when people like Ron Paul talk about the Constitution.

I have a gut feeling you don't understand a lot of things.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So essentially a social contract isn't enough, we need to have a sacred piece of paper...

So, you are still focused on the paper? Now I see why you don't get it. It is the agreement. Paper has nothing to do with it. I said that earlier... but maybe you didn't read it.

The constitution is the social contract.

So, let me make this clear; when people say we should return to the constitution, they are not saying we should go back to a piece of paper. What they are saying is we need to return to the original social agreement.

It is commits like above that reinforce my belief that you don't understand. Perhaps you don't want to understand. I guess that is ok.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you are still focused on the paper? Now I see why you don't get it. It is the agreement. Paper has nothing to do with it. I said that earlier... but maybe you didn't read it.

The constitution is the social contract.

So, let me make this clear; when people say we should return to the constitution, they are not saying we should go back to a piece of paper. What they are saying is we need to return to the original social agreement.

It is commits like above that reinforce my belief that you don't understand. Perhaps you don't want to understand. I guess that is ok.

"Commits"?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Returning to the original social agreement and the original paper is the same thing...

"Commits"?

What about stone? Or computer files? Or some other medium that hasn't been invented yet?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about stone? Or computer files? Or some other medium that hasn't been invented yet?

It's not the physical object itself that's in question, it's the idea that the concept of the constitution needs to be worshiped that I find objectionable. The piece of paper and the original contract are the same thing. I would want a constantly evolving contract to match a constantly evolving world.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're missing my point.

It's not the physical object itself that's in question, it's the idea that the concept of the constitution needs to be worshiped that I find objectionable. The piece of paper and the original contract are the same thing. I would want a constantly evolving contract to match a constantly evolving world.

No one is worshiping the constitution (ok there are a few nuts in the world who do, but we are not talking about them), and holding up high is NOT worship. It is a poetic way to express an idea. Do you have reverence for your mother? If you do, then do you worship your mother?

So, you are focusing on the physical object? You need to stop that. The constitution is an agreement that is held in the minds of people. The physical object is just a reminder.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I hate to Godwin this but...

...I can understand you're against roads and fixing the economy if you're completely opposed to the National Socialist movement.

there, Godwined.

I don't think he's against all the principles that Libertarians at least sometimes advocate (I've known Libertarians who really only advocate these things on principle but personally don't give a damn, which I don't see as a good thing because I'm Aristotelian in that way) just against the movement as a whole.

He did not mince any words, at all. He specifically said "completely" against the "American" libertarian movement. One of the major commonalities among multiple groups of libertarians is...liberty of the individual: equality in marriage, equality for the minorities, etc. That's fairly central to what it means to be "libertarian." Sure, they approach those topics differently, but he is explicitly against the movement, completely. Consider how complex the movement is and covers so much type of governing that he is left with..what?...Fascism? That should be scary as **** for any reasonable person.

if you aren't a libertarian you are a fascist?

Originally posted by inimalist
if you aren't a libertarian you are a fascist?

That's what the whole rhetoric of the movement is built to convince followers of. They're taught that non-Libertarians are fundamentally evil.

Consider "The Harm Principle" which is supposed to be the basis of Libertarian ethics (lol). In reality such a principle is at the center of all ethics and we recognize that people disagree about what is harmful. By calling their system just "The Harm Principle" they're teaching new recruits to believe that other people are arbitrarily malicious. There's a reason American Libertarianism breeds nothing but frothing at the mouth fanatics.