..but it’s a pure fiction, guys! It has no “power”, it’s a piece of paper with some writings by old men, just like a Bible. I feel embarassed when even outspoken anarchists on this site appeal to this crap and say: “here it is, where some random politician violated this and that.”
FUCK this bullcrap, I say. you are either an anarchist, or a slave to illegitimate authority (a statist).
/end of rant. Discuss.
I agree that it cannot be used as a response to “what prevents abuse of government power?”
However, it is useful to use to point out the hypocrisy of statists who believe in the “rule of law.”
Plus, it makes for a good talking point when addressing non-libertarians (as Ron Paul uses it).
The point is that the Constitution is a contract.
Between some 70 people who lived 200 years ago. Do continue.
The constitution has greatly limited the power of government and the ease with which the apparatus of government can be abused in favor of tyranny, that much is undeniable, and therefore any libertarian must at least appreciate the constitution for what its alternative would be.
I don’t need your arrogant bullshit man. That is what it’s supposed to be. Whether it’s legitimate for those 70 people to have entered the rest of the country into such a contract is another issue. The fact that the rest of the country does somehow see it as legitimate is an interesting topic as well. Obviously, not everyone at the time did nor do they now. The point is that that is what it’s supposed to represent.
It could just be strategic, like voting for Ron Paul for POTUS.
Even if you don’t think that you even have a contract (I agree that you don’t), it’s still worth pointing out when the other party violates this hypothetical contract’s terms to the point of voiding it. It’s a plea in the alternative, and it makes them look very, very bad.
Libertarians don’t “appeal” to the Constitution, they use it as leverage in an argument to make a point. If I’m talking to a statist of any stripe I can use it to make a point, seeing how many people still “believe” in it, even though they disregard it through the policies they support. You show the inconsistencies with their actions and what they believe and they can question their own stance. When it comes to minarchists who already have a constitutionalist position, then I can begin to take it apart piece by piece. It all depends on the audience.
As stated it shows the inconsistencies of government, this is what they suppose to follow, but don’t, so why continue to put faith in government when what suppose to restrict them doesn’t? Again, it’s a nice tool to use in a debate.
The fact that neither you nor I consent to it is a good reason, but it also was never meant to protect liberty.
I get what you’re saying guys, but that wasn’t my point. It’s all good to talk about US Constitution when showing to a random statist his inconsistent views, however, many “anarchists” I encountered even BELIEVE it to be legitimate document and get quite defenssive arguing with statists who do not hold the same view and think that State has all the right to interpret it as they wish and so on and so on.
Furthemore, it’s important for anyone (in my humble opinion, of course) talking about consitutions in general to mention that they are all fiction and has no legal power. They are not contracts, but even if they were proven to be, they are dead contracts and still has no power. That’s all I wanted to say with this thread.
By the way, americans (even anarchists) tend to be very emotional on all the “america stuff” going on, what I keep in mind is that they get angry if someone doesn’t think US is a “greatest nation” of all, or when some anarchist dares to compare it to USSR or Nazi Germany. Personally I’m not american, but I noticed similar emotional “explosions” during the anniversary of an event that is “very important” to “law abiding citizens” of Lithuania.
Still, americans in general are almost fanatical about such issues and it a little bit scares me, as I consider moving to the States at some point of my life..
Maiku: ..but it’s a pure fiction, guys! It has no “power”, it’s a piece of paper with some writings by old men, just like a Bible. I feel embarassed when even outspoken anarchists on this site appeal to this crap and say: “here it is, where some random politician violated this and that.”
FUCK this bullcrap, I say. you are either an anarchist, or a slave to illegitimate authority (a statist).
Sectarian fallacy. It is a compared to argument. You know… one of the most BASIC understandings in philosophy.
Your rant is fundamentally demented.
I still can’t believe they actually managed to force through a constitutional amendment to allow for alcohol prohibition…
Or that they apparently haven’t needed one for drug prohibition. 
What everybody else said. It’s funny sometimes to point out that others aren’t even following the rules of their so-called “social contract.”
This is kind of off-topic, but nobody who advocates a political system advocates a political structure full-stop. People who call themselves Constitutionalists are just arguing for a mode of procedure. I’ve seen people arguing that, given a polycentric legal system, it could have unlibertarian outcomes. And sure, it could. But you could throw that back at them and say that 51% can vote for 100% of the 49%'s money given our Constitutional Republic. This just goes to show you that the political structure is relatively irrelevant and that, whoever is in charge or however they come to be in charge, it is the policy prescriptions that count. Democracy, constitutionalism, monarchy, etc. are all granting the policy prescription of taxation being legal. Polycentrism does not grant that taxation is legitimate, and thus is superior in that regard, hence why I’d argue in favor of polycentrism. No polycentrist is beholden to 100% of the outcomes that result based upon a society’s adoption of polycentrism. It is the people who make up society and their moral attitudes that will shape the legal system anyway.
/ of my rambling thoughts