Can anyone help me out and list some of the Constitutions that failed, as per the excerpt in a Rockwell article:
[Hoppe] argued that [the US Constitution] represented a vast increase in government power and that this was its true purpose. It created a powerful central government, with the cover of liberty as an excuse. He used it as a case in point, and went further to argue that all constitutions are of the same type.
Did he have specific historical constitutions in mind? If so, which? I can’t seem to find the answer on Google, and it would be very helpful in an e-mail exchange I’m having, where my friend states:
You use "always" a lot, when really we don't know how constitutional
democracies play out historically because we're in the beginning of
the age of them, like how 2000 years ago they were in the midst of the
age of empires and it would have been ridiculous to talk about "what
empires always do."
Thanks fellas!
They all have failed, and they all [ie new ones] will fail- its just a matter of time.[:D]
A thorough understanding of the principles of Austrian praxeology [ie methodological individualism] , as outlined in the first sections/chapters of Human Action , will reveal all.
I haven’t read Hoppe, but I don’t think that the U.S. constitution was written with the intention to use it as a way to veil a growth in government. I think the intentions when it was written were honest. It’s just clear that government has a natural tendency to grow, and so it was naïve to believe that the government would exercise “good judgment” when it came to using the elastic cause. Although Hoppe does a good job pointing out that democracy does not necessarily mean liberty, from the quote above it seems as if they are trying to pinpoint constitutions as failures. This may be true, but the more accurate statement is that all governments have failed.
Jonathan, compared to the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution represents a massive increase in the size and scope of government. I think that is what he was arguing.
[p.s.- with all due respect, I believe that if you really did understand the praxeological concepts involved, you would not be asking your question in the first place- no offense intended[:D] ]
“The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country”.
…
Critics of Soviet Constitution
Several professionals criticized the project of the Constitution of 1977[1], but such critiques were not taken into account and were not published in time; during the Brezhnev stagnation, only publications in favor were allowed.
I have read both, and own books by both. I am a quasi-fan of them, but especially in regards to the former his accuracy is questionable. I haven’t really taken sides, although I read both very carefully, because the criticism they’ve received is from fellow libertarians (Misesians, not the Cato group, mind you).
What he’s arguing is that the constitution was used as a façade to justify government expansion, while proclaiming “liberty”. Hoppe, without a doubt, is correct when seeing that this is what actually happened. But, the way it is written in the quote in the opening post, it seems as if he is suggesting that was the original intention, and I am not sure that is correct (although, I have to concede that not all the signatories of the constitution were limited government politicians).
Then just take Woods. How can you possibly think the intentions of the Constitution were noble? The Federalists wanted to establish a powerful central government, and the weaker anti-federalists got them to water it down. People like Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution outright and wanted to stay with the Articles of Confederation.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. While he may have been wrong in the implementation of his ideas (catastrophicaly so), I think Hamilton saw himself as a Catonian who was genuinley sincere about mob rule being the worst threat to liberty, a genuine supporter for a limited govt, as well as thinking manufacturing and a more cosmopolitan society would be preferable to an agrarian society.
I admit that I don’t know as much as others when it comes to early U.S. History, but I’m not sure you are making your case. You are right that the U.S. Constitution was a blatant increase in the power of a central government in the United States, over the Articles of Confederation, but that’s not what I am arguing against. It’s clear that the U.S. Constitution established a central U.S. government, but I don’t believe the idea that the U.S. constitution was designed to be breached as often and as blatantly as it ultimately was.
According to this, a constitution is a set of rules for government. It specifies what government is forbidden to do, but government has been able to refuse to abide by any such restrictions as long as people do not rebel, by twisting the meaning of the words like a malevolent genie, and/or working the system for maximum power.
There are too many examples to count of a failed constitution, just pick a country on the map.