Regarding the fact that the framers of the U.S. Constitution had to write ten amendments that repeatedly state “Congress shall make no law…” ; doesn’t this support the libertarian contention about the nature of government? The need to amend the Constitution like this implies the framers seemed aware that government is, by nature, violent against the individual. Yet, they went ahead and created the government.
I am not implying the framers were in any way libertarian. I am simply pointing out that, at the start of the U.S. experiment in “limited” government, there was an awareness of the violent nature of the beast they were creating. Obviously, the experiment has failed miserably and the beast has grown Omnipotent: We the People Now Serve It.
I disagree, I don’t think the government has grown omnipotent. Politicians still have to pander to the masses. It’s just that in times of crisis, the masses become much more receptive to promises of free stuff. It will change.
Because they get their power from the consent of the governed. The day they no longer have to pander is the day the government is omnipotent. People’s economic status will change and they’ll want to keep their stuff.
I used to believe that. I don’t any more. All we have to do is look at the way they act. Look at what they have done to us. Clearly, we did not give them “consent”. True, we voted for them, but we did not give them consent to bankrupt us, destroy the economy, take our liberty, etc. We gave them power, but only because we are ignorant.
Do you mean that people’s economic status will decline or increase? I don’t follow. If you think status will increase, how so? Everything that is being done will destroy the economy. If you think economic status will decline, then why will they want to keep stuff? They will want stuff, and look to the government to provide it.
We gave and still give them consent to govern. What they do with their power is another thing. But unless people are willing to physically throw them all out of office and start a new government, they’ll still be in power. Right now, the masses are being placated. But they still fear us.
Yes, I think some people will benefit from all this government spending. And they’ll want to keep their money. If, however, people really become impoverished because of the actions of the government, they may look to government to give them more or they may become disillusioned.
Either way, I am not a fatalist. I do not believe that the Founders created this nation with the intent of having it fail. But I think they understood how quickly things could fall apart if the government weren’t restricted. It’s not the founders who failed or limited government that failed, it’s the people who were supposed to protect limited government. We, as a nation, have made choices that have lead to where we are now. Humans are responsible for this, not systems.
They get their power from superior organization. The day they can no longer maintain superiority, either because a better organized society has arisen or their own system has collapsed, is the day their rule ends.
Then what went “wrong”? The government obviously was not restricted. I no longer believe in limited government. I was a strong believer until about a year ago, the bailout and “stimulus” sealed it for me. Now, I know there is no such thing as limited government. Look at the headlines. Look at what they are doing to us. It’s good you’re not a fatalist. To me though, the facts are inescapable; the government has enslaved us, and the founders suspected it from the beginning. They thought they could tie the beast down (the Constitution, the Ten Amendments). They were wrong. The experiment has ended.
I would disagree but only in a way that may be totally semantic; the masses don’t necessarily consent so much as some consent, some tolerate, others oppose. There’s just a general balance of consent and toleration that opposition can’t gain enough support to change the government. And generally speaking I would say the tendency for any government is to progressively victimize more and more people such that eventually the balance does shift and then there’s some sort of revolutionary change which usually isn’t motivated by a general desire to restrain government because the masses view it as evil, but rather enough people are disatisfied with the current way it is handling itself at the time of revolution. When they reestablish the government, which always seems to happen, it will generally reflect what ‘the masses’ want in terms of freedom and enablement, traded off against what the most powerful special interests behind the establishment of the new government want for themselves. It’s still the same institutionalized, violent, thieving apparatus, just one that’s more agreeable for the times.
Eventually too many people try to get on the net gain side of government largess, meaning fewer for the net loss side, meaning more victims en toto of government violence which eventually leads to a large scale push to get things more in line with what the population wants, will tolerate, and what the remaining few who oppose can’t effectively argue or mobilize against. So the Bill of Rights consequently isn’t an acknowledgement that government is bad or evil, it’s just an incidental list of those freedoms which at the time people felt powerfully enough about to get included in some sort of official list. I mean, quartering soldiers? Sure, a problem back then and I’m sure most people would object to it now too, but I don’t see it as a real potential nuisance coming down the pike. But, in their current interpretations, free speech, the right to bear arms, to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses, to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., are still more or less valued by enough people, to some extent, for them to be upheld.
The Bill of Rights is, like the rest of the constitution and every other written constitution, a historic remnant of the balance of power at the time of its writing. The ideas behind those ammendments are sound and are affirmed by natural law and what not I would say, libertarian theory, etc., but the BoR itself isn’t proof of anything other than enough people cared about the issues framed in Ammendments 1-10 at the time to get them included despite opposition.