But it was evident to the anti-federalists at the time that it would be. They knew it. That is why they opposed it.
Yeah, inconvenient truths. Better to believe a popular and comfortable myth than to deal in fact and reason.
The Constitution has no authority. Coincidentally, a great Lysander Spooner MP3 by Jeff Riggenbach today, highly recommended.
I think DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse is pretty good at showing how Hamilton was pushing for a power grab from as early as 1780. May I ask, though, why you think his accuracy is questionable?
I have read his book How Capitalism Saved America, and although I thought it was generally pretty good, it was poorly sourced, and a lot of the information was misguiding (although, each individual statement was probably true, the message behind it was not). In that book, the topic was general enough for DiLorenzo to get away with it, and as a primer to a free-market history of the United States I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think I have stated on these forums before, though, that I wished that DiLorenzo provided far more source material for what are very controversial statements.
I haven’t read Hamilton’s Curse, or read anything on it. Most of the criticism of DiLorenzo that I’ve read has to do with his history of Lincoln and the Civil War. Specifically, the reasons for war (some criticisms go to far, because they have an agenda against the Ludwig von Mises Institute [i.e. Tom Palmer, although I read his stuff because if you filter out all the bias, it does contain a lot of good information]).
In regards to Thomas Woods, I actually had a conversation on his book on the Catholic Church and the Free-Market, and most of the criticisms had to do with their portrayal of Catholic thought (for example, Thomas Aquinas). His history, as far as I have heard, is not as accurate as he would like you to believe (I cannot substantiate any claims for myself, though… I don’t know much about any of these topics, which is why I try to read as much as I can … although, it would prob. make sense to read the books, as well). And, I know that both he and Rothbard put too much influence on the role of scholastic thought on later economics (my opinion on Rothbard in this case is based on my reading of his Economic Thought). I am from Spain, and I would love for the School of Salamanca to be seen as a group of proto-Austrians, but I don’t believe that this is reality.
I can’t help but feel somewhat insulted by your comment. My question was about Hoppe and whether he referenced any specific constitutions when making a particular statement. I’m not exactly new to Austrian economics (honors graduate of Mises U 2005, even) and have given my fair share of lectures to people about Methodological Individualism, Methodological Dualism, the Action Axiom, Causality as an inference of action, etc. I don’t see how my knowledge of those things is relevant to the content of my question. My friend has heard most of my praxeological arguments yet asked a specific question that I couldn’t answer to my satisfaction. I’m looking for a slate of SPECIFIC examples to throw around, PRECISELY BECAUSE it is insufficient for me to present praxeological principles or generalities like “every single country in history” in this case.
I do thank Conza (thought it was you at first, my error) for the example of the Soviet Constitution. Much appreciated.
"I can’t help but feel somewhat insulted by your comment. "
Well, if you so choose, so be it, but as I said, offense was not my intention.
“I don’t see how my knowledge of those things is relevant to the content of my question.”
As I see it, it is relevant because fully understood, praxeology [in particular subjective valuation of the individual] makes it blindingly clear why all constitutional systems **,**and all law and law systems[to part-way answer a question posed in another thread [:D]] must/will fail.
"My friend has heard most of my praxeological arguments yet asked a specific question that I couldn’t answer to my satisfaction. "
To me that would indicate that you did not explain the fundamentals of praxeology sufficiently , not that you need to hunt for specific examples of failure to convince him/her with.
Why not go back over your conversations with him/her and see where you might have gone astray, or perhaps left something vital out, or perhaps not made the whole thing personal/real enough for him/her to relate to?
Be that as it may, good luck with your search for more explicit validation of Hoppes quote.
Really all you have to do is look up any constitution at random from say 100 to 50 years ago or less, for any country, and do your own research as to what it supposedly stood for upon inception versus what it resulted in, and where the state concerned is today, versus where its “supposed to be” “constitutionally speaking”[;)]
Have fun. Regards, Onebornfree.
It’s an emotional reaction, where no choice is involved. I mention it because I think it’s important that people understand how such comments are received, despite your qualifier. It’s not sticking in my craw, by any means, but I’ve had trouble with the way I’ve phrased things in the past having this effect on others, so my comment is more of a PSA, so to speak.
It might also indicate that my friend is exceedingly stubborn. I have found it useful in the past to change tactics when what I’ve previously tried has been ineffective. You may be correct that my explanations were insufficient, but frankly I have been praised (often) by others (some in this forum) who value my clear, concise, logical arguments on these matters. I’m just pointing out that it would be polite to make the assumption that doesn’t involve error on the part of the person you’re conversing with, else these emotional issues might crop up. In fact, I’ve often thought that, due to my familiarity with my friend, I may have erred by chiding him personally for inconsistency, which causes him to reject my arguments on emotional grounds.
The problem is that my friend asserts that the Constitutional Era is too new to draw such conclusions (again despite my praxeological arguments), which is why I thought it might be helpful to present him a long list of failed Constitutions going back many centuries. I did do some cursory research, and this post is part of it, as I hoped some of my Austrian colleagues would have this information readily available.
[Edit: I don’t know why this part is in bold, I can’t seem to change it. Please pretend it’s not bolded]Look, I don’t really want to continue down this road. Obviously, you roused an emotional response in me because I’m spending time defending my ability to disseminate rather basic Austrian ideas instead of gathering data that I could use to help convince my friend. Frankly, if you’d like to help, you could answer my question instead of just advising me to reread Human Action chapter 1.
BTW, I have continually pointed out how his utilitarianism involves unmeasurable subjective valuations and therefore it ends up, as a practical matter, as simply an imposition of the interpretation of leaders imposed on others who disagree. In fact, just today I got him to contradict himself by citing an interesting thought experiment that originated in this forum, which posited a villain having tied 5 people down to train track A and 1 person on train track B, sending a train down track A about to kill the 5, with you (me, whoever) in the control booth with a button that could divert the train down track B. Of course the NAP dictates no action (I say “of course” but the thread was actually quite contentious and interesting) but he claimed that was silly because obviously 5 lives are more valuable than 1. But when I asked him if he would sacrifice his own life for 2 strangers (as would be consistent) he said he would not. He does NOT see this as inconsistent (offering IMO silly justifications). I mentioned that this wasn’t much different from a quote he sent me stating that “a liberal is someone who will give away everything he doesn’t own”, and this really pissed him off (he considers himself a libertarian and hates liberals).
I cite this anecdote to show that one doesn’t always deal with the most logical or consistent of people. And I guess to defend myself because I feel like I’m damn good at disseminating Austrian economics and don’t like to be accused of being otherwise.
"Frankly, if you’d like to help… "
First of all , just give up on trying to win over your friend .
In my experience, the biggest mistake you can make is trying to “win” an argument to prove you are right and they are wrong.
Just walk away- its not that important in the end. So what if he thinks constitutions “work”, that’s his/her lookout and responsibility - who cares?
Better yet, stop trying to convince anyone, that you are right, and they are wrong- about anything[!]
After all- you can “lead a horse to water- but you can’t make them drink”.
But if you insist on convincing your friend [perhaps soon to be ex-friend? [:)] ], just gather a list of every constitution under the sun that you can find , and dump it in his lap and tell him “these all failed” - I’m sure you yourself are intelligent enough to be able to see plenty of reasons for any one failure , regardless of who wrote it , and when. Have fun.
p.s. Thats all the help you get from me I’m afraid.[:P]
On second thoughts- more help: DRINK MORE BEER [:D]
A bad question. Why do you insist on us providing you examples of constitutions that “failed”, when the passage you reference nowhere uses this term and when it has been explained that the US constitution did not fail. It succeeded in its goal - to grant the central government more powers than it enjoyed prior to its passing.
Do you really want more examples of constitutions which were designed to increased the power of the central government and which did so? Is that really a “failed” constitution?