Am I the only libertarian who dislikes the American Constitution?

[Einzige]

I have never understood the near-idolization that some libertarians (and paleoconservatives) treat the document with. Setting aside the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation - a document which was far more limiting in what it permitted the Federal government to do - the Constitution was essentially written by the men who were later responsible for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. And it's entirely likely that the Constitution would not have been ratified at all had it not been for the influence of Alexander Hamilton, working through George Washington to placate those States which were hesitant to accept it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Like everything else in life, there is always innovation and (generally) improvement, even if that improvement is often vague or happening somewhere else.

I see the constitution the same way. It was a superior form from earlier societal arrangements and has since been improved by innovations in other countries.

I don't dislike the constitution (it was great at the time) as much as I see the need for it being updated for today.

 

[Einzige]

Like everything else in life, there is always innovation and (generally) improvement, even if that improvement is often vague or happening somewhere else.

I see the constitution the same way. It was a superior form from earlier societal arrangements and has since been improved by innovations in other countries.

I don't dislike the constitution (it was great at the time) as much as I see the need for it being updated for today.

I hold to a very... unique historical perspective. Essentially I regard Hamilton, Washington, and the Federalists as tools of Northern business interests, who at the time of ratification preferred a large, interventionist government to help them compete against the established pseudo-aristocracy in the South and to impose laws favorable to their business interests. I think a case against the Constitution can be made from both a progressive and a libertarian point-of-view.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I hold to a very... unique historical perspective. Essentially I regard Hamilton, Washington, and the Federalists as tools of Northern business interests, who at the time of ratification preferred a large, interventionist government to help them compete against the established pseudo-aristocracy in the South and to impose laws favorable to their business interests. I think a case against the Constitution can be made from both a progressive and a libertarian point-of-view.

Ahh. I will admit, I don't actually care enough about the subject to analyze it to that degree. I tend to look at it from my personal perspective as my primary point of view and the historical aspects of it as not all that important. For me, that age has past and while it may be interesting from an intellectual point of view or for the sake of satisfying curiosity, I don't feel bound by the past or the intent of dead people or see why I should be.

 

[Dittohead not!]

What would we substitute for the Constitution?

Rule of the majority?
Whatever the current Congress/administration wants to do?

what?

The Constitution may not be perfect, but it can be amended. Further, it does contain the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers, both essential to liberty, and worth picking up out of the gutter and placing back as the supreme law of the land.

 

[Einzige]

What would we substitute for the Constitution?

Rule of the majority?
Whatever the current Congress/administration wants to do?

what?

The Constitution may not be perfect, but it can be amended. Further, it does contain the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers, both essential to liberty, and worth picking up out of the gutter and placing back as the supreme law of the land.

Right now? Probably nothing. But I would have preferred that it were never adopted, and had I lived at the time and held to roughly analogous views to those I accept today, I would have doubtlessly been an ardent anti-Federalist.

 

[zstep18]

Right now? Probably nothing. But I would have preferred that it were never adopted, and had I lived at the time and held to roughly analogous views to those I accept today, I would have doubtlessly been an ardent anti-Federalist.

Well, before the Constitution there was the Articles of Confederation, which was anti-Federalist in nature, but the Articles proved to be a failure.

 

[Einzige]

Well before the Constitution there was the Articles of Confederation, which was anti-Federalist in nature, but the Articles proved to be a failure.

They were only in force for eight years. I rather suspect that the difficulties in the early Continental system would have existed regardless - the war debt wasn't going to ever go away that quickly - and that they would have worked themselves out.

 

[rocket88]

I have never understood the near-idolization that some libertarians (and paleoconservatives) treat the document with. Setting aside the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation - a document which was far more limiting in what it permitted the Federal government to do - the Constitution was essentially written by the men who were later responsible for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. And it's entirely likely that the Constitution would not have been ratified at all had it not been for the influence of Alexander Hamilton, working through George Washington to placate those States which were hesitant to accept it.

I doubt it. What really happened is that the term "libertarian" got co-opted by Republicans because it sounds sexier.

So while you're a libertarian, the originalists are actually Republicans who want to use a sexier sounding moniker.

 

[digsbe]

Right now? Probably nothing. But I would have preferred that it were never adopted, and had I lived at the time and held to roughly analogous views to those I accept today, I would have doubtlessly been an ardent anti-Federalist.

Would you support no federal government? What about any kind of legal state unifying document? Or do you support having independent nations of the states?

 

[Einzige]

Would you support no federal government? What about any kind of legal state unifying document? Or do you support having independent nations of the states?

My problem with the Constitution is more the alignment of forces that were behind its ratification. The Federalist Party were 'conservative' in the sense they sought to emulate the established hierarchies of the past, but unlike modern conservatives, those societies they looked towards were the mercantile monarchies of the early Enlightenment period - societies in which an expanded government was used to secure the privileges which 'naturally belonged' to the economic elite. The Constitution was supported by Federalists, and their allies in the business community, for that reason.

I could have supported a 'horizontally' binding compact, one which focused primarily on trade reciprocation and port and road access. But the Constitution is a 'vertical' compact, something I'm already instinctively suspicious of even without taking into consideration the orientation of its backers.

 

[Paschendale]

What's the difference between an oppressive state government and an oppressive federal government? Most of the civil rights battle in this country, which has been opposed by people who didn't like federal power, has been forcing the states to abide by the bill of rights. I do not understand the anti-federal, pro-state group that wants less government. The federal government is one of limited powers. It has no power except that which is authorized in the constitution. State governments do not have that limitation. Their constitutions list specific prohibitions, not enumerated powers. The only thing that keeps these governments of near ultimate power in check is that they can be overruled when they specifically violate the federal constitution. How can anti-government people want the states to be free of this restraint, and produce a government MUCH more powerful than the current federal government?

You want a good example? Romney's healthcare vs Obama's. Federal healthcare had to be examined under the commerce clause. A state law doing exactly the same thing has no such limitation. If any state had passed Obamacare, including when Massachusetts did, all of the constitutional arguments against it wouldn't have been valid. For everyone who thinks its an overreach of government power, and claims that the federal government doesn't have that power... state governments do! Why would you want to weaken the check on those powerful governments? What you are effectively left with is a stronger government with more power to control your life. It was only in the last few decades that the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination was extended to the states. Got that? In the 50s, if you were asked to confess in court, and you weren't in a federal court, the jury could legally convict you for refusing.

Weakening the federal government's ability to check the states gives government more ability to control you, not less.

 

[Einzige]

I don't actually disagree with you, Paschendale. I certainly realize that state governments are not only often oppressive, but often more oppressive than the Federal government. We need only look at the long, dark history of civil rights in the South, or the way that certain of the states treat homosexuals today, to see this. I agree with you.

My problem isn't with the Federalization of the States per se. It's with the interests who supported and championed it in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and how they benefited from it - and how their descendants continue to benefit from it today.

 

[Matt Foley]

No you are not the only hypocrite who dislikes the Constitution but still uses it in arguments.

 

[Goshin]

No you are not the only hypocrite who dislikes the Constitution but still uses it in arguments.

Moderator's Warning:

That will do, Mr. Foley. Ad-homs do not add to the discussion.

 

[Sarcogito]

It is a pretty impressive document given the year in which it was drafted. By today's standards it is certainly far from perfect. But I sure as hell don't trust today's batch of politicians to improve on it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It is a pretty impressive document given the year in which it was drafted. By today's standards it is certainly far from perfect. But I sure as hell don't trust today's batch of politicians to improve on it.

I fully agree. A constitutional convention in 2012 would end in disaster.

 

[Wiseone]

I have never understood the near-idolization that some libertarians (and paleoconservatives) treat the document with. Setting aside the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation - a document which was far more limiting in what it permitted the Federal government to do - the Constitution was essentially written by the men who were later responsible for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. And it's entirely likely that the Constitution would not have been ratified at all had it not been for the influence of Alexander Hamilton, working through George Washington to placate those States which were hesitant to accept it.

From your wikipedia article"

A new U.S. federal government began operating in 1789, following the ratification of the United States Constitution. The previous government under the Articles of Confederation had been unable to levy taxes; it had borrowed money to meet expenses, accumulating $54 million in debt. The states had amassed an additional $25 million in debt.[2] Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, sought to use this debt to create a financial system that would promote American prosperity and national unity. In his Report on Public Credit, he urged Congress to consolidate the state and national debts into a single debt that would be funded by the federal government. Congress approved these measures in June and July 1790.[3]

A source of government revenue was needed to pay the bond holders to whom the debt was owed. By December 1790, Hamilton believed import duties, which were the government's primary source of revenue, had been raised as high as was feasible.[4] He therefore promoted passage of an excise tax on domestically distilled spirits. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product.[5] Although taxes were politically unpopular, Hamilton believed the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax the government could levy.[6] In this, he had the support of some social reformers, who hoped a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[7] The whiskey excise act, sometimes known as the "Whiskey Act", became law in March 1791.[8] George Washington defined the revenue districts, appointed the revenue supervisors and inspectors, and set their pay in November 1791.[9]

The articles sucked...

 

[Matt Foley]

Moderator's Warning:

That will do, Mr. Foley. Ad-homs do not add to the discussion.

Oh I get it, crypto-Anarchists using the Constitution in arguments isn't hypocrisy.

Libertarians being the sacred cow, the new hip thing to do, see almost everyone has it in their signature.

 

[Matt Foley]

I fully agree. A constitutional convention in 2012 would end in disaster.

It would be fun as hell to watch though.

 

[Einzige]

No you are not the only hypocrite who dislikes the Constitution but still uses it in arguments.

I have never referenced the Constitution to support a political position, and I think it's an appeal to authority whenever anyone does it.

 

[Goshin]

Oh I get it, crypto-Anarchists using the Constitution in arguments isn't hypocrisy.

Libertarians being the sacred cow, the new hip thing to do, see almost everyone has it in their signature.

Moderator's Warning:

It is not permitted to dispute moderator warnings in-thread. The proper venues for this are PMs, Contact Us feature, or Binky. This is considered a serious rules infraction.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I fully agree. A constitutional convention in 2012 would end in disaster.

The Bill of Rights would require 50 reams of paper, and no one would have any idea at all what it said.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The Bill of Rights would require 50 reams of paper, and no one would have any idea at all what it said.

so it would be the dakstatution?

 

[Matt Foley]

I have never referenced the Constitution to support a political position, and I think it's an appeal to authority whenever anyone does it.

And I would have responded, "Good, I wish more Libertarians did the same thing and bought a clue," if I weren't banned by the globalist moderators.