If these are the best candidates the political class can offer, then might as well ditch democracy or government for that matter.
But then so much of the government is run and controlled by the unelected. Voting for this candidate or that candidate only scratches the surface. If all of the elected positions were filled by liberty-minded individuals, we’d still have a mess.
The U.S. Constitution needs to have a provision for all elections where people can vote for “vacant”, along with requirements that any law passed requires a supermajority with the “vacant” spots included in the total. If we had that, I think enough people would push for a smaller, less intrusive government. While not as ideal as anarcho-capitalism, it’s something. Then the focus can turn toward ridding the unelected leeches of our prosperity. Also added to said Constitution - those powers which remain vacant for a period of time shall be returned to the people. Another provision - any past or present law, policy or decision must be passed with a supermajority at the beginning of each session. This would significantly reduce the over-regulation and daily interference of our government. Court powers also need to be redefined much more rigorously to eliminate any legislation from the bench or creative interpretations. The Constitution must also adequately address personal property rights and the legitimate use of force to further protect. This whole thing may be nothing but pushing windmills, but absent anarchy what other choice do we have?
Just for the record, watching someone who professes to be ‘practical’, adopt an end goal that is Utopian, impractical & thus impossible - is most amusing.
Well the state may ultimately transcend its limits but it would be nice if we could actually say that it has now with Obamacare. It’s arguable that it hasn’t. I mean the commerce clause and the power to tax and the idea that Obamacare falls within the task of ensuring the “general welfare” gives Congress a hell of a lot of leeway. I think it’s very possible SCOTUS will uphold the individual mandate (if it even gets there) with Scalia and Thomas voting for it on the grounds that it’s constitutional under the commerce clause.
But I don’t have an end goal, I don’t know what you mean.
It has limits albeit arbitrary ones. It doesn’t act autonomously, people are in the government and it requires popular consent to act. If the people care about the Constitution then the people in government will care about the Constitution. So if the Constitution is strict then at least the people who care about it can say “hey, this isn’t supposed to be allowed.” Right now, it’s hard to say whether or not Obamacare is unconstitutional. I mean I think it is but that’s because I place a lot of weight on the 10th amendment whereas liberals place more weight on the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Scalia and Thomas are strict constitutionalists and its not clear that they’d vote to strike down Obamacare.
The state is a means of protecting some people’s property but to do it it has to violate everyone’s to some degree. It’s just a trade off like anything else. A price some are willing to pay.
The state cannot protect private property. Private property rights must be protected from the state.
An ideal constitution, if one exists, is one that leads to the elimination of the state. It should be structured so that the state acquires little or no power to begin with, while making it very easy for the state to lose power. A constitution is a loan of power from the people to a government. At least this is the concept.
The founders established the U.S. Constitution to define and limit the powers of the State - something they erroneously agreed was a necessary evil. Jefferson even stressed that a revolution every once in a while was a good thing (and then he proceed to expand the power of the state). Over time the Constitution became this monster - a toy for the State to play with or ignore. Gone is the original concept.
Is the constitutional concept flawed? Certainly. Based on the actions of the State, the orginal intent of the U.S. Constitution is practically null and void. About time for some good old fashioned nullification talk. But since this thread was on voting within the structure of the current system, one can come up with reasonable arguments to attempt to take back from the State what it has stolen. At least until the State shows its heavy hand.
to believe that paper can have some “authority” is to be retarded. Does bible protect children from pedophile priests? Constitution, just like any other religious document is a JOKE for gullible and ignorant.
It’s true, it’s just a piece of paper. But laws are just words written down on pieces of paper. The question is “will people choose to honor the words on the pieces of paper or not and what will happen to them if they don’t?”
*This one is difficult for me since I don’t think RP would be able to make any meaningful change in the State, but I don’t see anyone other than him who can actually do something to bring about real change. I would prefer not have to suffer through the death throw’s of a dying state, but rather shrink it into oblivion no matter how unrealistic that may be.
As history has showed us, the answer is simple - “no”. Well, unless, in my opinion, you have state schools, indoctrination camps and other propaganda to make ordinary people BELIEVE that Constitution is some magical document which protects their rights while violating then at the same time. But even then who gonna stop some outsider to go into politics and do what he wants and interpret Constitution as he wants? If this guy gets a support of majority of the senate or whatever, then… we have what we have now.
I have nothing against personal contracts between individuals, but Constitution is not even a contract. Even if it was, every generation has to re-invent Constitution, as it only binds those who has signed it.
It seems to me that the Constitution was initially sold as a voluntary agreement between the federal government and the individual states. However, once it was ratified, as was proven by the events of the Civil War, it became a situation in which states were held hostage against their will by force.
It seems that the threat of peaceful secession by a state or group of states would have been a powerful check on the federal government’s efforts to expand its own power, but that course of action was taken off the table by a military campaign.