It’s all about the cons. The cons, the currency, passing port and learning at a young age how to write spells (spelling). 
@liberty student
Take cash money. Are you claiming cash money has no value? Not in the sense of not being backed by gold this day in age, but I mean to ask: do you believe cash money has no value? Do you have a job where you earn this (possibly) worthless paper or electronic symbols showing up on your bank account symbolizing a certain amount of money that you earn? How about this: do you have any cash in your wallet? If so, how do you justify saving it? Sentimental purposes as we merely have some form of sentiment with the Declaration of Independence, as you claim? Do you use this paper with ink, symbols and pictures of former presidents on it to barter? If so, can you justify your claim that it has no value whatsoever? If so, how exactly are you defining value, unless you can’t since you claim it doesn’t exist. Am I understanding your claim correctly?
Would you agree that you, too, are delusional by believing you can barter for some desired object by exchanging a certain amount of your cash money for it? Do you keep the silver colored, metallic objects that a cashier hands back to you, or do you argue with her over the delusional methods by which she holds value in what you initially gave her since paper with ink symbols is without value? I think not. However, as always, I’m always open to being proved wrong in light of proper evidence.
Brutus, since value theory is not a common ground for us, let’s stay on topic.
I don’t value the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. You may. You may even believe they are authoritative in some way. I have already asked LeeO, how did they gain any authority?
You wrote;
The Declaration didn’t “grant” anyone, anything. It can’t, Jefferson didn’t have the authority to speak for mankind, or all Americans, or to claim the highest knowledge of the relationship between men and their God. It’s all nonsense.
Brutus, have you read the excellent piece called Myth of Rule of Law? It’s written by a lawyer and professor of law and you’ll find it to resolve most questions you have here.
I was tempted to repeat some of the arguments from it the moment you made this thread, but I realized they would all be incomplete if not taken altogether. So I’ll have to make a rather imperfect suggestion that if you want to understand the source of human law, you may (or may not) read an article that changed my mind and has changed minds of others here.
Mr LeeO, from where did this authority come?
I suppose other people granted the framers authority because they were rich, white, intelligent men who had the right political connections.
They are just paper bro. You can use them to start a fire, and that might be their most productive use.
Does this idea apply to all paper? Are books in general most productive as fuel for fire? Ideas have consequences, and people write ideas down on paper. I’d rather read the paper than throw the pages in the fire.
De Jasay correctly frames the debate by placing the burden of proof on those who would disturb liberty. Instead of declaring how free we are (and in the process enslaving us to some conception of government and rebellion) simply ask those who would rule you, those with the authority, from where their authority and right to rule comes from.
That’s a good way of putting it. I like how De Jasay cuts through to the heart of the issue. The problem is that most people are perfectly happy to grant others the authority to rule them, making it easy for rulers to justify their existence. Why presume liberty when slavery has always been the norm, and will continue to be for some time?
The piece of paper is just a piece of paper. It’s not a contract.
What makes contracts different from other pieces of paper?
Do you have proof that the framers were granted authority? Who were they?
If someone has granted authority that is theirs to give, then that does justify rulers.
Why presume the earth is round when flat earth has always been the norm and will continue to be for some time?
@liberty student
I have a unique question that’s not related to our previous discussion. Do you believe the earth is round or flat? I’m not being sarcastic, either; I mean to say that relativism has always intrigued me, and in philosophy classes we discussed such things. Just curious to see your take.
I’ve found that relativists are frequently eager to avoid committing to such things that people take for granted, though according to many of your comments on the forums, you don’t like when people beat around the bush with answers. Perhaps a more appropriate question would be, what do you believe in? Are you a nihilist?
I’m an absolutist on many things, though usually only things concerning science and ethics (though not 100%, of course, so maybe not so much an absolutist, lol). I believe the earth is round, I believe in God, I believe that theft and cheating are wrong, et cetera, so I’m certainly not a nihilist. Just curious.
Newton’s works on gravity did not create gravity, they simply described something that was already in place. Put it in a way for people to understand it.
In this respect, the Declaration of Independence simply states the obvious, built upon the writings of other people. It was a document written to be delivered to the King of England, essentially telling him that his services are no longer required.
Truth described within a document is not created by that document. The document holds no authority over truth. In fact, it’s the other way around.
Authority comes only from people who submit to it, usually in the form of one person or group attempting to claim authority over another person or group, and most often with aggression. The documentation is irrelevant except in giving the aggressors the emotional support to continue in their aggression.
In the case of the United States, authority comes via the gun or threat of imprisonment, not the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws of the United States are involuntary.
As a ruling document for organization, the United States violates or ignores the U.S. Constitution every second of its existence. Even in the minds of the willing the Constitution has little or no authority. This nation is ruled by guns and men and the willful ignorance of its populace rather than a few pieces of parchment.
Do not put faith in paper documents, but in our birthright to be free.
Contracts are mutual, voluntary agreements recorded for the purpose of resolving disputes after the agreement has been made. The contract describes the agreement being made by the idividuals involved. The agreement is real. The paper is just an image of the agreement at that particular point in time. Should the parties entertain revision in their agreement, then they may alter the contract or ammend it. Both the original agreement and any changes could have been made without a formal written contract, and be legitimate. Whereas a contract without the original agreement is just a piece of paper. This is why contracts are signed, witnessed and notorized.
The Declaration of Independence is not a contract. It’s simply a declaration.
The U.S. Constitution is not a contract. It’s a document defining the structure and powers of the U.S. Government. There are some who worship it as a contract.
I don’t know whether it is round or flat. I am a skeptic. And I am not being sarcastic either. In a court based on facts, I would not be able to testify about the shape of the earth, because I have no personal first hand knowledge of it. Most of my knowledge of the world is hearsay.
I believe in rational self-interest.
I care less what you believe, and more why you believe it. Everyone has preferences, everyone makes value judgments. I am trying to figure out how to improve mine by emulating others who I feel have a better understanding than I do, when I am unable to deduce these things for myself.
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at, but I have come at you pretty good a couple times, and you’re probably entitled to ask me a few questions and receive responsive answers in return. You’re welcome to pursue this a bit further if you like.
If that is a valid argument don’t be shocked if it used against mystical austrian economics and free market papers
It is a valid argument. No Austrian should be appealing to the spiritual power of Human Action.
Do you have proof that the framers were granted authority?
I’m not sure. They created the US Government after the Revolutionary War, so chances are they were granted the authority to do this.
Who were they?
The people who wrote and signed the Declaration, and the delegates at the Constitutional Convention.
If someone has granted authority that is theirs to give, then that does justify rulers.
So what you’re getting at (I think) is that authority isn’t anyone’s to give, so rulers are not justified…hmmm, interesting. Authority is not given - it is taken with force. And nobody is justified in taking authority through violence.
Why presume the earth is round when flat earth has always been the norm and will continue to be for some time?
Reasoning and logic, which reveal the truth.
Authority comes only from people who submit to it, usually in the form of one person or group attempting to claim authority over another person or group, and most often with aggression.
Does authority come from the people with the guns, or the people who submit to those with the guns?
In the case of the United States, authority comes via the gun or threat of imprisonment, not the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws of the United States are involuntary.
I think that answers my question.
Would you agree that the authority to impose the involuntary laws of the United States ultimately came from victory on the battlefield?
Contracts are mutual, voluntary agreements recorded for the purpose of resolving disputes after the agreement has been made. The contract describes the agreement being made by the idividuals involved. The agreement is real. The paper is just an image of the agreement at that particular point in time. Should the parties entertain revision in their agreement, then they may alter the contract or ammend it. Both the original agreement and any changes could have been made without a formal written contract, and be legitimate. Whereas a contract without the original agreement is just a piece of paper. This is why contracts are signed, witnessed and notorized.
The Declaration of Independence is not a contract. It’s simply a declaration.
The U.S. Constitution is not a contract. It’s a document defining the structure and powers of the U.S. Government. There are some who worship it as a contract.
Thanks for answering my question.
What do you mean by the word “legitimate” when you say that agreements can be legitimate without a formal written contract? Isn’t the paper necessary for the agreement to be recognized by a judge, jury, or arbitrator attempting to resolve a dispute?
By whom?
Rulers are justified if they have authority. If you say, “I want to form a government,” and I agree, and we elect Brutus to be our President that is fine.
If you say, “I want to form a government”, and I disagree, and you choose Brutus to rule both of us, that is not fine.
Consent is necessary to form a government.
Precisely. So please don’t appeal to tradition or history.
It’s not victory on the battlefield that establishes authority of one group to rule over another. It’s the use of force or the threat of force against any who would not accept that authority under conditions where force or coercion is not utilized. The state’s dependency on the individual to submit to such aggression is what is required. If enough individuals resist, then the state cannot function regardless of any piece of paper that they may cite grants them authority over others. This is why the gun or the threat of imprisonment are the only tools of the state to coerce people to accept their authority. That authority exists only in the minds of those who have accepted it, and ends the moment people stop accepting it. Authority is a fabrication of the conscious mind, and nothing more.
The American colonies were given a broad range of home rule by the British. The power structure in America was in place long before the American Revolution. This power structure was formed by the use of force or coercion, and there were several attempts by individuals and groups to break free of it. Read Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty for more on that. The American Revolution was a dispute over the monopoly of force in the territory which became known as the United States. This was a state vs. state conflict. The states continued to rule as they had done prior to the military conflict, albeit without the taxes to the crown and restrictions on trade. The Constitution was an agreement among the states on the formation of a federal government, and was created to centralize power and provide opportunities for the politically affluent.
The use of aggression or fraud to achieve a means to an end is not legitimate.
Excellent.
Here’s a quick run-down on the alleged “authority” here:
After explorers discovered and explored coastal North America, England (among other countries) granted charters to certain groups to found colonies. Since the colonies were chartered, that meant they were under the legal domain of England. The colonial governments that were established existed at the mercy of the English Crown and Parliament.
When the War for Independence came, the notion used in justifying independence was that the authority of the colonial governments had actually come from “the people” of those colonies. In a strict legal sense, this does not follow. The colonial governments had no authority that did not derive from the English government. Now where did the English government’s authority come from? History shows that it comes from the Norman Conquest of 1066. The argument of the revolutionaries would have been stronger had they appealed to the illegitimacy of the English government’s claims of authority, as those claims were (and are!) ultimately based on conquest.
My point here is that the colonial governments had no independent authority by any standard aside from that of pure fiat. Of course, the entire issue hinges on the definition of “authority” being used.
Anyways, in the aftermath of the War for Independence, the former colonial governments usurped sovereignty (and the authority it was presumed to entail) for themselves - they declared themselves to be “free and independent States”. They also drafted an agreement for mutual aid called the Articles of Confederation. When that proved to be too limiting and inexpedient for the powers that be, they formed a convention to reform the Articles. That turned into a revolution within a revolution, leading to the U.S. Constitution. Less than a century later, the “free and independent States” found that the authority they had usurped for themselves had been in turn usurped by something that was now outside of them.
So where did the authority come from, again?
That’s the gist of it. Of course, no one can prove any such justification. It’s a matter of belief.