Please be as specific as possible…
I think clearly and as short as possible, laying this out will help the libertarian cause.
I doubt that anyone here cares about the Constitution.
One of the faults of being an-cap.
I do. The Constitution proves the point of many Ancaps here. How do you keep a minimal government minimal? The Ruling class will always desire more power, whether it be through spying on “it’s” Citizens, or controlling the market.
EDIT: My point is, just because you do not like something, you should not discount it’s worth. I do not like television, but I recognize that it is a useful tool for getting information out in a relatively quick way. I also do not like Government, but I think it is our biggest ally when ‘converting’ people to Austrian economics and/or an Ancap view point.
I do, it is a beautiful document that guaranties the rights and liberty of a free people.
I think it is a blessing.
I would submit that many, if not most , “hard-core” [i.e “real” and consistent] libertarians would say that it does not violate the constitution per se, but that it DOES violate both the principles of the Declaration of Independence and most, if not all of, The Bill of Rights.
The constitution itself limited very little. The Bill of Rights was the “lifebelt” that attempted to rectify that.
P.S. Sadly, very few current “libertarians” appear to understand any of this - which is one reason I can no longer associate with the “libertarian” “movement”.
the Constitution- the foundation of our great nation and a document that we should get back to following.
The Constitution paved the way for centralized power in this country. If you want a better contrivance, see the Articles of Confederation.
This whole “Return to the Constitution” debate can be truly misleading, esp when the AoC is nowhere to be found.
No, the constitution was designed to protect people’s rights and maximize individual liberty. It was people like Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson (Worst president in American history), and FDR who sent us spiraling into imperialism and socialism.
I was joking.
George Washington approved the First Bank of the United States.
How does a piece of paper protect an individual? Maybe if somebody is shooting spit balls and the paper is used as a shield.
The founding fraudsters were quite happy to gyp the constitution they framed. Power corrupts sooner rather than later.
Zomg! Why do youz do thatz?!
I see it as if the Constitution is suppose to protect rights then I take it that it was a fix to the Articles of Confederation which was somehow allowing for rights violation. There was hardly what can be considered a federal government under the AoC and the Constitution states that it is ready to allow states to make up whatever zanny laws it wishes under the 10th amendment. It seems odd that in order to protect rights violation we need to expand an institution which has a history of rights violation. It is not as if statism is some 19th-20th century phenomena.
I lol’d
The PATRIOT Act violates the 10th Amendment, 4th, and 5th Amendments and maybe the 6th and/or 7th–I forgot what those were. As for the Constitution, it really kind of sucks, because it’s still a government. It’s not even minimal government like the AoC was. The Constitution would be okay if it specifically said no central bank, no borrowing, coining, or printing money, didn’t have the 16th Amendment, limited the rate of tarriffs, banned executive orders, didn’t have the 14th Amendment, and didn’t allow the Federal Government to issue patents and if it said the U.S. couldn’t occupy foreign lands. And if it didn’t authorize the Feds to supress insurrections, or if the 2nd Amendment was more clear in its wording that it was meant to be a check against the Federal Government. And if it’s point about secession was clear enough for retards like Ape Lincoln to understand.