Amen, Larken Rose!
On 9/15/2010 11:55 AM, MJ wrote:
*Constitution Party: Worthless
*09-15-2010
Larken Rose
In my last message, I pointed out that the Libertarian Party has
watered down its message, basically dumping the principle it was
founded on, in order to get votes. Well, while I'm at it, I might as
well offend some more people. The Constitution Party is also
worthless. Why? Several reasons:
1) Contrary to the divine holiness some people image the Constitution
to have, it really is just a piece of paper (or parchment). While some
of what the Founders wrote -- the Declaration more so than the
Constitution -- expressed some pretty darn important and profound
concepts, they still ended up creating a ruling class. It was supposed
to be a tiny, "limited" ruling class, but they still pretended to
bestow upon politicians certain powers that you don't have, I don't
have, and none of the writers or signers of the Constitution had. Nice
trick.
Sorry, but the term "Constitutional principles" is an oxymoron. The
Declaration, for example, stated that all men are created equal, in
terms of rights, but the Constitution (in true Animal Farm fashion)
then claimed to give some of those "equal" people the right to
forcibly rob all the other "equal" people. Yes, the power of
"taxation" was supposed to be significantly limited in several ways,
but it was still the power to steal. How does that match the notion of
everyone being "created equal," and the only purpose of "government"
being to protect rights? It doesn't. It is a direct, blatant, glaring
contradiction. And working hard to get us back to a glaring
contradiction, as the Constitution Party does, is not a good idea.
2) The Constitution cannot consist of unwaivering principles, because
it was designed to be amended. If the control freaks go through the
official, formal procedure of "amending" out all those pesky
limitations, then what? Then totalitarianism will become
"Constitutional," and what would the Constitution Party say then? The
truth is, instead of being some perfect expression of truth incarnate,
the Constitution started as a huge, self-contradictory, illegitimate
compromise, between some people who actually wanted individual
freedom, and others who wanted to rule.
(It's worth noting that the predictions of the anti-Federalists, who
didn't like the Constitution, turned out to be about a zillion times
more accurate than the promises of the Federalists, who swore that the
beast they were creating would remain small and meek.)
3) People have been so thoroughly trained to believe that freedom must
be "legalized" before it is good, that they remain determined to bash
their heads against the wall of the "political process" to achieve it.
This is true of the Constitution Party and many others. If you believe
in inalienable rights, why are you asking the politicians for
"legislative" permission to do things? For example, the Bill of Rights
(the first ten amendments to the Constitution) describes things that
"government" was not supposed to do at all -- yet they do them on a
regular basis. If your answer is to try to elect people who will
change that, you're implicitly conceding that they weren't inalienable
rights to begin with. By definition, if you need a "law" to allow
something, it's not a "right." So, aside from the contradictions in
the Constitution itself, if you actually believed in the
"inalienability" of rights described therein, you'd be doing whatever
you could -- including things the politicians have deemed "illegal"--
to defend those rights. Begging the master to let you speak your mind,
or to let you be armed, or to spare you from random searches and
interrogations, and so on, carries with it the implied message that
you need the master's permission to do those things. As a result,
trying to regain "rights" via the political process is an inherent
contradiction.
4) The American people, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the
cult of statism and the worship of collectivism, don't want what the
Constitution describes. (Neither do I, but for very different
reasons.) By playing the "democracy" game, the Constitution Party is
basically conceding that what the majority wants is what matters. Yes,
they would like the majority to agree with them, but since it doesn't,
why play a game (i.e., voting) that merely reinforces the looney
notion that the majority has the right to rule in any way it sees fit
(or in any way it's duped into supporting)?
5) The Constitution created the monster you see now. No, this is not
what it described, but (just like the theory of communism) that's what
it actually resulted in in the real world. So, pretending for a moment
that there is the slightest chance in hell that the American people
would even support going back to the Constitution, why would anyone
expect it to turn out differently next time?
(Incidentally, the ink was still wet on the Constitution when the
principles described therein were trashed. If you haven't before, do a
little research on the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion, the
Louisiana Purchase, and the Aliens and Sedition Acts, for starters.
Each of the first three "Presidents" trashed the Constitution, and any
principles it pretended to be founded upon. Pretty much every
President since then has done the same, though some more dramatically
than others.)
------------------------------------
Again, I eagerly await the hate mail, since I just bashed what many
treat as infallible, holy doctrine: the Constitution. But before you
tell me how stupid/evil/insane I am, consider this:
There have always been opportunistic control freaks waiting to take
any bit of truth, any righteous cause, any good idea, and turn it into
power and control for themselves. The Founders stated a lot of
profoundly important truths. For example, had they quit after the
Declaration of Independence, I would have had very few complaints. But
the fundamental principles stated by some were immediately hijacked by
others for their own power.
Ironically, we have a fine analogy to study today. The Republican
Party is now going to great lengths to hijack the ideas and enthusiasm
of the "Tea Party" movement, to use as a source of power for itself.
In other words, they are trying to use _the advocacy of freedom_ as a
tool to gain _dominion over others_. This is an exact rerun of what
happened a couple hundred years ago, when a few pro-freedom radicals
(e.g., Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) spoke the
truth and got some attention, and some political conmen hijacked the
results, and used it as a tool for power for themselves. The result
was the Constitution. So before you bash me, make sure you're not
accidentally cheering for the usurpers, thieves, liars and control
freaks, instead of the people (like me) who actually _want you to be
free_.
(P.S. For those of you who think that at least a step /toward/ freedom
would be an improvement, I sympathize a bit. However, when has that
ever actually happened? And why is there any reason to expect it to
happen now, because of any "political" efforts?)
http://bit.ly/9XXgSc
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Your personal email. Anytime, anywhere.
Ridiculously affordable at $19.95. No contracts.
http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html
<%20http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html>
--
*I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal
Government*
*"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson*
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
