Monday, January 22, 2007

The proof is before your eyes

Another post to northeastshooters:
In a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the pure majority does not rule. Even legsilators are constrained by the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution is nowadays ignored often does not condemn the idea of our founding fathers.
Lots of people have great ideas. Sometimes those ideas are implemented well. Sometimes they are good ideas that are implemented poorly. And sometimes those ideas are unworkable. It is commonly accepted that communism is an unworkable idea. But I assert that constitutional republicanism is another unworkable idea... and my proof is the situation we now find ourselves in.

What good are protections that no one can enforce? It certainly isn't in the best interests of government to enforce our rights: they naturally want as much control over us as they can acquire, because it benefits the elite who run it. It is up to we, the People, to do that... but today most people just don't care, so the few freedom lovers out there are forced to live under the same rules as the soccer mom who thinks "guns are just awful" and "we need to do *something* about the poor!"

I certainly judge the founders on the efficacy of their work. And the bottom line is that constitutional republicanism, i.e., classical liberalism, has been shown over the course of the past 150 years to be an abject failure in terms of protecting the liberties of the people, the most important of which are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Incumbent Protection Act and the AWB are but two examples of the many instances of even our most basic rights being stripped from us.

If anarchy is what you want, you best find some other place to look for it. There are some, including me, who will fight all the way to restore our Constitutional Republic and keep it from becoming a socialist hellhole or its opposite, an anarchist's wet dream.
You are fighting for a system. I am fighting for an ideal: liberty. The system you advocate is demonstrably incompatible with liberty. The proof is right in front of your eyes.

I've said it before and I will say it again: I would be perfectly willing to live in the system the founders created. You know the one: where the Union is voluntary, where property rights are respected (i.e., a man/woman's home really is his/her castle), where the feds stick to the explicitly enumerated powers in Article I, where I can give any amount of money to anyone for any reason, where that money is backed by something of real value, where an obscene percentage of that money is not stolen from me under the threat of force... and where I can build/buy/possess any weapon of any magnitude up to and beyond owning my own private Air Force in order to enforce those rights. But I contend that such a system is unsustainable: somehow, some way... we will again lose those rights gradually until we end up right back at the point we are now. I'd rather not give up my natural rights in the first place. That's the only way to really protect them.


1 comment:

mike3 said...

We DO need to do something about the poor, what, you want to leave them poor?