Larken Rose
More About: ConstitutionConstitution Party: Worthless
In my last message, I pointed out that the Libertarian Party has watered down its message, basically dumping the principle it was founded on, in order to get votes. Well, while I'm at it, I might as well offend some more people.
The Constitution Party is also worthless. Why? Several reasons:
1) Contrary to the divine holiness some people image the Constitution to have, it really is just a piece of paper (or parchment). While some of what the Founders wrote--the Declaration more so than the Constitution--expressed some pretty darn important and profound concepts, they still ended up creating a ruling class. It was supposed to be a tiny, "limited" ruling class, but they still pretended to bestow upon politicians certain powers that you don't have, I don't have, and none of the writers or signers of the Constitution had. Nice trick.
Sorry, but the term "Constitutional principles" is an oxymoron. The Declaration, for example, stated that all men are created equal, in terms of rights, but the Constitution (in true Animal Farm fashion) then claimed to give some of those "equal" people the right to forcibly rob all the other "equal" people. Yes, the power of "taxation" was supposed to be significantly limited in several ways, but it was still the power to steal. How does that match the notion of everyone being "created equal," and the only purpose of "government" being to protect rights? It doesn't. It is a direct, blatant, glaring contradiction. And working hard to get us back to a glaring contradiction, as the Constitution Party does, is not a good idea.
2) The Constitution cannot consist of unwaivering principles, because it was designed to be amended. If the control freaks go through the official, formal procedure of "amending" out all those pesky limitations, then what? Then totalitarianism will become "Constitutional," and what would the Constitution Party say then? The truth is, instead of being some perfect expression of truth incarnate, the Constitution started as a huge, self-contradictory, illegitimate compromise, between some people who actually wanted individual freedom, and others who wanted to rule.
Sorry, but the term "Constitutional principles" is an oxymoron. The Declaration, for example, stated that all men are created equal, in terms of rights, but the Constitution (in true Animal Farm fashion) then claimed to give some of those "equal" people the right to forcibly rob all the other "equal" people. Yes, the power of "taxation" was supposed to be significantly limited in several ways, but it was still the power to steal. How does that match the notion of everyone being "created equal," and the only purpose of "government" being to protect rights? It doesn't. It is a direct, blatant, glaring contradiction. And working hard to get us back to a glaring contradiction, as the Constitution Party does, is not a good idea.
2) The Constitution cannot consist of unwaivering principles, because it was designed to be amended. If the control freaks go through the official, formal procedure of "amending" out all those pesky limitations, then what? Then totalitarianism will become "Constitutional," and what would the Constitution Party say then? The truth is, instead of being some perfect expression of truth incarnate, the Constitution started as a huge, self-contradictory, illegitimate compromise, between some people who actually wanted individual freedom, and others who wanted to rule.
(It's worth noting that the predictions of the anti-Federalists, who didn't like the Constitution, turned out to be about a zillion times more accurate than the promises of the Federalists, who swore that the beast they were creating would remain small and meek.)
3) People have been so thoroughly trained to believe that freedom must be "legalized" before it is good, that they remain determined to bash their heads against the wall of the "political process" to achieve it. This is true of the Constitution Party and many others. If you believe in inalienable rights, why are you asking the politicians for "legislative" permission to do things? For example, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) describes things that "government" was not supposed to do at all--yet they do them on a regular basis. If your answer is to try to elect people who will change that, you're implicitly conceding that they weren't inalienable rights to begin with. By definition, if you need a "law" to allow something, it's not a "right." So, aside from the contradictions in the Constitution itself, if you actually believed in the "inalienability" of rights described therein, you'd be doing whatever you could--including things the politicians have deemed "illegal"--to defend those rights. Begging the master to let you speak your mind, or to let you be armed, or to spare you from random searches and interrogations, and so on, carries with it the implied message that you need the master's permission to do those things. As a result, trying to regain "rights" via the political process is an inherent contradiction.
4) The American people, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of statism and the worship of collectivism, don't want what the Constitution describes. (Neither do I, but for very different reasons.) By playing the "democracy" game, the Constitution Party is basically conceding that what the majority wants is what matters. Yes, they would like the majority to agree with them, but since it doesn't, why play a game (i.e., voting) that merely reinforces the looney notion that the majority has the right to rule in any way it sees fit (or in any way it's duped into supporting)?
5) The Constitution created the monster you see now. No, this is not what it described, but (just like the theory of communism) that's what it actually resulted in in the real world. So, pretending for a moment that there is the slightest chance in hell that the American people would even support going back to the Constitution, why would anyone expect it to turn out differently next time?
(Incidentally, the ink was still wet on the Constitution when the principles described therein were trashed. If you haven't before, do a little research on the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Aliens and Sedition Acts, for starters. Each of the first three "Presidents" trashed the Constitution, and any principles it pretended to be founded upon. Pretty much every President since then has done the same, though some more dramatically than others.)
------------------------------------
Again, I eagerly await the hate mail, since I just bashed what many treat as infallible, holy doctrine: the Constitution. But before you tell me how stupid/evil/insane I am, consider this:
3) People have been so thoroughly trained to believe that freedom must be "legalized" before it is good, that they remain determined to bash their heads against the wall of the "political process" to achieve it. This is true of the Constitution Party and many others. If you believe in inalienable rights, why are you asking the politicians for "legislative" permission to do things? For example, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) describes things that "government" was not supposed to do at all--yet they do them on a regular basis. If your answer is to try to elect people who will change that, you're implicitly conceding that they weren't inalienable rights to begin with. By definition, if you need a "law" to allow something, it's not a "right." So, aside from the contradictions in the Constitution itself, if you actually believed in the "inalienability" of rights described therein, you'd be doing whatever you could--including things the politicians have deemed "illegal"--to defend those rights. Begging the master to let you speak your mind, or to let you be armed, or to spare you from random searches and interrogations, and so on, carries with it the implied message that you need the master's permission to do those things. As a result, trying to regain "rights" via the political process is an inherent contradiction.
4) The American people, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of statism and the worship of collectivism, don't want what the Constitution describes. (Neither do I, but for very different reasons.) By playing the "democracy" game, the Constitution Party is basically conceding that what the majority wants is what matters. Yes, they would like the majority to agree with them, but since it doesn't, why play a game (i.e., voting) that merely reinforces the looney notion that the majority has the right to rule in any way it sees fit (or in any way it's duped into supporting)?
5) The Constitution created the monster you see now. No, this is not what it described, but (just like the theory of communism) that's what it actually resulted in in the real world. So, pretending for a moment that there is the slightest chance in hell that the American people would even support going back to the Constitution, why would anyone expect it to turn out differently next time?
(Incidentally, the ink was still wet on the Constitution when the principles described therein were trashed. If you haven't before, do a little research on the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Aliens and Sedition Acts, for starters. Each of the first three "Presidents" trashed the Constitution, and any principles it pretended to be founded upon. Pretty much every President since then has done the same, though some more dramatically than others.)
------------------------------------
Again, I eagerly await the hate mail, since I just bashed what many treat as infallible, holy doctrine: the Constitution. But before you tell me how stupid/evil/insane I am, consider this:
There have always been opportunistic control freaks waiting to take any bit of truth, any righteous cause, any good idea, and turn it into power and control for themselves. The Founders stated a lot of profoundly important truths. For example, had they quit after the Declaration of Independence, I would have had very few complaints. But the fundamental principles stated by some were immediately hijacked by others for their own power.
Ironically, we have a fine analogy to study today. The Republican Party is now going to great lengths to hijack the ideas and enthusiasm of the "Tea Party" movement, to use as a source of power for itself. In other words, they are trying to use the advocacy of freedom as a tool to gain dominion over others. This is an exact rerun of what happened a couple hundred years ago, when a few pro-freedom radicals (e.g., Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) spoke the truth and got some attention, and some political conmen hijacked the results, and used it as a tool for power for themselves. The result was the Constitution. So before you bash me, make sure you're not accidentally cheering for the usurpers, thieves, liars and control freaks, instead of the people (like me) who actually want you to be free.
(P.S. For those of you who think that at least a step toward freedom would be an improvement, I sympathize a bit. However, when has that ever actually happened? And why is there any reason to expect it to happen now, because of any "political" efforts?)
(P.S. For those of you who think that at least a step toward freedom would be an improvement, I sympathize a bit. However, when has that ever actually happened? And why is there any reason to expect it to happen now, because of any "political" efforts?)
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
Flote
LRN.fm
DLive
Live Chat
Telegram
Telegram
12 Comments in Response to Constitution Party: Worthless
Dear Larkin: I have been following your for some time now and have prayed for you and family. There are many different levels of awareness in regard to our history and present political situation in America. While I would, whole heartedly agree with you in regard to the Constitution, I would like to add that the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party and other parties are much better than the present Rockefeller controlled Democrat and Republican parties. After all, the first Republican President murdered over 500 hundred thousand Americans and they are still murdering people to this day. I am all in favor of a Confederation as we originally had and as Patrick Henry so valiantly supported. There are only two ways to change this current fascist regime and that is either by awakening one family at a time, or outright revolution. I dare say that freedom has never been kept or gained without the spilling of blood. Evil men have no qualms about sending your sons and daughters to die for their gain. God bless and with out our complete submission to our Creator we are doomed.
Larken,
I saw your "rob" vid a few weeks ago and it totally woke me up to question the Constitution. I wrote the blurb below about a week ago.
Suggestions and criticisms are welcome. play this while reading ... Muse The Resistance - Uprising There is much talk of the Constitution. http://www.uaff.info/theconstitution.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution Most are taught that it protects us, that it restates, in writing, our God given unalienable rights. But, be aware, that is also states that Congress shall 1) have the power to make laws (argh) 2) have the power to lay and collect taxes (Article 1, Section 8) Is Congress' power to make laws and to TAX, legally binding on us, the people ? Magic Ink and Altered Morality (it is ok to rob you ... I put it in writing)http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/900.htm l The Constitution of the United States was written in secret by the Founding Fathers and was never presented to the Colonists for a vote. http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/09_Global/090805.Matrix-US%20.Constitution.pdf Some scholars assert that the Constitution is binding because it was adopted by States' legislatures [ The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People". ] and that the people of the state are then bound to it by "social contract". I found an excellent video explanation of social contract at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU The speaker is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain radio http://www.freedomainradio.com/ I agree with Stefan, of course, that this social contract argument is baseless. Stefan explains further on page 41 of his free book titled "Everyday Anarchy". http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_4_PDF_Everyday_Anarchy.pdf Possibly one is part of that social contract when one signs a voter "registration". I have repudiated mine without any incident or argument. Poll workers tell me that one CAN vote without having a voter registration card.
So what are my rights if stopped by a "PEACE" officer ? IMHO, it boils down to Civil or Criminal, and thus ... contract or injured party. If some agent of the Police or City or County or State confronts you .... ask
Is your complaint Civil or Criminal ? Civil ? Show me the contract.
Criminal ? Show me the affidavit from the "injured party", the warrant signed by a judge, or prove that I breached the peace.
You have neither ? Then I suggest you leave me alone ! Every freeman/woman must make sure he/she is not part of any contract, hidden, implied or otherwise and that one conducts one's self with honor befitting a sovereign and does no Harm to anyone else. That being said and done, one may travel, as a Freeman.
And, remember, public officials take an OATH to uphold the Constitution, so the terms ARE binding on them, in any case !
Zorro That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law ought not to be obeyed http://constitution.org/as/dcg_311.htm No Man comes to command many, unless by Consent or by FORCE. http://constitution.org/as/dcg_111.htm Lysander Spooner asserted, it was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/trial_by_jury/trial12.html#p222 Executive Orders, "states of emergency" and martial law in Florida http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/flaconstp.pdfLarken, Ernest and myself are birds of a feather and feel the same about most things. I`ve thought long and hard about this ~ why not just let the boat sink and create a new country with a different name? I propose that the country be named "Bopland" in honor of the rockers who created R an R, as they were either snuffed, slandered, humiliated or robbed.
See my blog for the full skinny on this and much more = jukit.wordpress.com "the word of mouth rock and roll rebellion"
There is strength in numbers
We will beat them
all these idoit parties are gay. If you dont like our country move to a island in the south pacific and start your own. were you can run around with guns all day and be parinoid at your own liesure and expence.... I am of no party just for the " for myself no one else party".
Hey, if what you say is true then, I probably need to revamp my DVD project and come up with some new titles, if I am to save the world with one dollar DVDs.
Larkin, please, review my list of DVDs and tell me what must go and what can stay. Seriously, would you mind.
Ron
OneDollarDVDProject.com
The only problem with the Con-stitution Party is the Con-stitution.
You leave out one important detail. God first and then country.
In the case of LP, you strongly asserted that taxation is robbery. You want a recreation of America, the world’s biggest economy, without a central bank [the crucifixion of Federal Reserve, right or wrong], without taxes, and without a government because you believe the government is the devil’s anathema to your individual rights, among many other delusional ideas you brought up, high up there in cloud nine.
Let the Constitution Party fall where it may. But what you are doing to LP [and who knows what you will do more to other political parties] you are doing the same to CP, this time with your constitutional diatribes that give a picture to the American public of yourself -- that with your disagreement with what CP stands for [and with your condemnation of the “rotten” System in general, i.e., today’s changing social and political realities], you have in fact projected yourself as a sadistic person, especially when you said in the opening of your attack that “I might as well offend some more people …” as if you derive an indescribable pleasure by offending people.
However, for the sake of curiosity, let’s look at the contradictions, absurdities and irrationality of what you are saying. You wrote that the Declaration “give some of those “equal” people the right to forcibly rob all the other “equal” people.” Where in hell did you get this idea that “to rob” is a right given by the Declaration of American Independence? You repeatedly say that the power of taxation is “the power to steal”. Where in the Constitution did you read that? If this is hallucination, is this not therefore sheer madness?
“[I]f you need a "law" to allow something, it's not a "right … that’s what you posited.
Although it is not a perfect act of Congress [the U.S. Legislature is not a house of perfection, no need to stress that], The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is considered a landmark piece of legislation in the United States. It outlawed major forms of discrimination and it ended racial segregation. Before the law was passed, the right of the individual to be treated as a person not as a property by those who still think they are slave masters that own men and women as part of their property inventory, is inherent in the fundamental law of man [Constitution] and of God. We did not create this law “to allow something” as you obliquely disparaged it … that’s a cross-eyed way of looking at it. We needed the law to catch those who violate this inherent human right and haul them to jail. With this law we delivered a blow to bigotry, and crushed the medieval castle of prejudice erected throughout the land. We did it by law, with due process, which is totally different from your anarchy or perhaps by just shooting them dead to satisfy a sadistic feeling …an act of insanity, and for no other reason.
No hate mail here Larkin. I agree with you fully. And nice end run in avoinding the "A" word and still making your point. :-P
I am waiting for the one on the republicrats! The solution is a non hierarchical system Bob Podolsky references.
Always hard to dispute you on logical terms Larkin. It was pretty difficult to register GOP to support Dr. Paul, and while we know (popular) presidential votes to be a sham, I guess we were all going with the "gateway drug" theory. Hoping a little truth would get people hooked. It worked pretty well until Glen Beck and the Teaocons stepped in to hijack the thing.
Now before asking the obvious, who's next on the list? The LaRouchites? I found some options here.
Now the blindingly obvious: ok so what next? Reform an existing party, start another or abandon the process in favor of....
-------------------------------------
Libertarian party: worthless
Constitution party: worthless
Oyate's parties: priceless.
Nice post. I agree completely. I think the Constitution is probably a lot better than what other countries have, but it doesn't go far enough to ensure freedom. I agree with Lysander Spooner that ethically in order for a contract to be binding, I have to voluntarily agree to it and I didn't. It is only a binding agreement among those who signed it. Also, the Constitution Party is not really as concerned with freedom as much as they are concerned with pushing their religion on everyone. I am concerned that their only motivation for reducing the power of the federal govt is to make it easier to impose their religious agenda in the States. As an atheist, these people scare the poop out of me.