Dispelling 8 Lies Of Conservative Statist Migrant Control

By: PunkJohnnyCash | Apr 25, 2010 Conservatism, Libertarianism, Police State, immigration

Why is it when Americans talk about moving abroad to places like Europe or north to Canada we assume we have the right and freedom to do so, but when many of those same individuals hear of people moving north to our country we claim they have no right?

This is an issue of big government and government control as well as liberty opposition to migration comes from a statist mindset.

The basic foundation of the migrant control issue is something that completely flies in the face of the libertarian non-aggression axiom. Murray Rothbard not only promoted the non-aggression axiom, but also he rejected the concept of imagined geographic land boundaries controlled by the state. This would mean that to support the deportation and human control that is promoted by the anti-migrant movement you must throw out both of those basic libertarian principles. To cage and round up people just for being within certain imagined boundaries is to initiate force and it is the crusade of the Neo-Cons. Just because some conservatives say small government when they talk about health care or welfare it does not really mean they really support small government. This is the perfect issue to show that.

1. The Comparison to European Colonization:

Statist Claim: I recently received an article comparing the current wave of migration to the European colonization of America claiming that we would be treated like the Native Americans by the current migrants.

This claim is one I have not heard yet, but amusing. It is however complete rubbish. This is claiming a wave of under-privileged migrants seeking work are comparable to the might of empires who came and conquered Native Americans. Colinization is not migration. Migrants come to partake in an existing society. Colonization brings their culture and society to the other, so the American Indian argument is not relevant.

There have been waves of migration throughout history and all of these were opposed basically because of the similar culture war concepts. This is mostly xenophobia and a fear of cultures. This is one of the most obvious points of racism and xenophobia. It is not too far off from the ideas of groups like the Klan and the Neo-Nazis just termed a little more “acceptable” to the conservative. It is the idea that the preservation of the white or American way of life will be destroyed by the people who are different. This assumes our culture is sacred and superior to the culture of others.

Does anyone really think that some poor people who are struggling to make a living are going to conquer one of the mightiest forces the world has ever known? No, it is a fear of allowing new cultures to merge. This was present with waves of Italian, Jewish, Irish, and Chinese migrants. We even passed laws during those periods for similar reasons. History repeats itself and we will soon look back at this in the same way we look to those migrant waves.

2. Health Care:

Statist Claim: Some are claiming that the health care bill and also welfare are reasons for migrant control.

Okay, this is a straw man. If one wishes to dispute the health care issue feel free. I was against the health care bill that was passed. This is an argument about health care, not against migration. To say that two wrongs make a right is not something I accept. There is also a good deal of misunderstanding in those arguments. Benefits by law are not available to undocumented migrants in most states, and they are limited to legal migrants. Those are common complaints that are not based in reality. I think what I said in my recent post Here also applies to these arguments:

3. The Law:

Statist Claim: They have committed a crime by coming into the country “illegally.”

Well we can use the concept of law as an argument to defend really any law. That could be the health care plan, or it could be Japanese internment camps, it could even be slavery or Jim Crow laws. All of those were laws and they were not right.

As for immigration many so-called constitutionalists claim to believe in the constitution and say it’s not a document that should be left to interpretation or change, but this is an area they change their tune on. The constitution states that if an individual is born here they are a citizen regardless of where mom and dad came from. The country was a migrant country and the constitution was essentially migrant friendly in that aspect. Many of these conservatives that oppose this portion of the constitution call the person born here an anchor baby, and they become critical of what the constitution stated in regards to immigration. This seem to really cancel out most argument from that camp because they are directly contradicting themselves. The conservatives claims to be against statism and then turns around and uses statism as the defense of their actions.

4. Privilege of Birth:

Statist Claim: We were born here so we have rights but other people do not. The state defends our rights others are not privileged to these rights.

This once again goes against the basic principle of territory that Rothbard went on about. Not only that, but it also implies that rights are not natural but one is born with more or less rights depending on where they are born. This same logic can be used to justify any form of prejudice against any group one chooses. We say some element makes this people group less worthy of rights and we say that is just by circumstance of birth. Why if the black man had less rights by simple circumstance of birth could we not just buy and sell him as our slave?

5. Language:

Statist Claim: This is an English speaking language we should force others to speak English.

Who took away your language? It sounds like someone wants to take away someone’s language but it’s not the migrant taking the language of the U.S. it’s the Speak English or die xenophobia taking a migrant’s language if they have their way. Most other countries have citizens who are intelligent enough to be at least learn a second language. Are Americans really that scared of learning? They want to force the migrant to learn a language because this boundary should be good old fashion white bread America? This is not even remotely a valid argument, this is just xenophobia. Where does it say that your neighbor has to talk to you in the language of your choice? Nope, more mandates and government control pushed by simply those who are not comfortable around others different than themselves. This is just more us vs them mentality. And this is more power of the state to enforce itself on others.

6. They are taking our Jobs, cheap labor Bad for Economy:

Statist Claim: Mexicans are bad for the economy and they take our jobs

That is all myth and none of it is even remotely based in fact. If you repeat a lie enough though it becomes true, at least to those who believe it. These were the same arguments used against the Chinese, Irish, Italian etc… This is history repeating, and the racism of yesteryear happening all over again just a new people group. The reason institute and Cato institute will point out study after study to show migration is a boon for the economy. It creates more production, and thus spreads wealth. It is the free market dream. To deny these people the chance to function in that market will just hinder the free market like any other restriction on the market.

This taking property claim is just completely based in these myths I have pointed out. This looks more at an argument built up on one’s prejudice against a people group more than anything.

Cato has put out some good pro-migrant articles from a more conservative perspective. See Cato’s section on immigration policy Here, and their section on trade and immigration Here.

7. They don’t pay taxes!

Statist Claim: The migrant is “mooching” and not paying their fair share of taxes.

Not true, Undocumented Migrants Pay more in Taxes. There is a myth that the migrant does not contribute and they are a drain on the economy. This is rubbish and a myth. Most undocumented migrants are in lower income brackets. If they were to file their taxes they are of the demographics who would receive more of a refund than they actually put into taxes. (due to family credits and lower income tax credit) Often this can be literally thousands of dollars a year in excess of what was paid out. This means that the legal citizen in this demographic is actually costing more than the migrant. The migrant contributes more in taxes by simply participating in the economy and paying sales tax and other expenses and taxes we all pay. This can also be applied to the welfare and health-care arguments if you wish.

8. What is Right?

Seriously, they can bring up excuses and arguments all day to mistreat people and use force against them, lock them in cages and deport them which all cost tax dollars, but it really comes down to what is right? We can have all the intellectual arguments in the world, but how should I treat someone? Logic can easily rationalize away ethics like “don’t kill” or “don’t hurt” but how do we justify the violence and evil we commit against other people.

ICE is a problem that does not make it to the main stream media often, but many families are being torn apart and people are dying in these prisons they are throwing migrants into. It is terrible what we are doing to people just like you and I. They want to feed themselves, provide for their families, and be with the ones they love. They want safety and security.

These people are being exploited by not just our government but often the Mexican government is taking advantage of them and denying citizenship because they have found ways to profit from people this way. The tyranny there is just as bad here and often people who would be able to enter legally can not because they could not bribe the right Mexican authority. You can do books on this stuff, but I won’t get too far into the ICE & Mexican authorities.

I pointed out before how we blame the other people group in this previous article:

The economy is terrible it’s all those damn lazy (Mexicans/or/Blacks). It’s not all of them just the (Illegals/or/Niggers). I have a friend who is (Mexican/or/Black), he’s not an (Illegal/or/Nigger) so therefore I am not a racist because of this loose brief association. I don’t mind the ones who (insert egocentric perspective of my cultural norms [this cultural norm is often "coming in legally"] ).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Post Published: 25 April 2010
Author: PunkJohnnyCash
Found in section: Conservatism, Libertarianism, Police State, immigration

Previous Topic: An Open Letter to The “Tea Party”

Next Topic: The Constitution

Lgstandarddrive

Ron Paul has stated that were it not for the "magnets" of welfare, public schools (sold to the American public as "free"), and other attractions the illegal "migrants" would not be floading here.

Do you suppose Punk,Johnny Cash, that if " los norte Americanos" began moving in droves, (by the millions) into south American countries, overloading their hospitals (free-loading off private and government hospitals using the emergency units ) and bringing gangs and contributing to the crime rate that they wouldn't organize a "conservative" movement to try to stop this wave of illegal aliens from the north?

The Constitution is not a suicide pack and the 14th amendment was never intended for foreigner mommies getting knocked up just so that they could use an innocent baby to get themselves a free ride to citizenship! The 14th was an amendment written to provide freed Americans their God-given rights. They were born here remember. The illegals are scamming the system. There is a difference even if you can't see it, Punk Johnny cash.

The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and says that rights emanate from the Creator. The "Creator" gives us our rights but we have a responsibility to honor such things as private property. L ook up the Commandments and see if there is one dealing with lying, (falsifying ID cards); one that forbids coveting a man's property like our republic. Why don't they build their own republic and quite trying to contribute to the ruination of ours by bringing their socialistic ways with them across the border?

Punk, Johnny cash, what is sovereignty? Don't we all have it in our persons and in our personal belongings? Isn't America's sovereignty the property of We the People? An elite core of people have been trying to destroy our sovereignty by involving us in the UN,WTO, IMF, etc.. They also have a plan to use "migrants" to destroy our country. The La Raza The Race) spokesmen shout at these illegal alien street fests what they want to do to us. They want to destroy "capitalism." What they mean to do is destroy the republican form of government and institute a Fidel Castro type regime.

America is not for sale! The people have spoken through their representatives that this abuse by the elitiss in DC and the open border "latino" groups who recieve their loot from tax free foundations will not destroy the American Republic!

Illegal aliens pouring into America are not slaves coming across the border on the "underground railroad." They come hear because DC politicians and DC policy makers want to use them to change the political landscape; to cause trouble and to push us along faster toward national bankruptcy. But the primary reason is to have loads of trouble makers enter and set cities on fire. Only a fool believes those entering the US are all agriculture workers and cement finishers who only come here for "trabajos." The term "Other Than Mexican" refers to Chinese, middle easterners and a crap load of other nationalities who have terrorist targets in mind when they arrive. They come to riot and to light the fuse that will provide the DC policy makers the excuse to have a thug from the government stick a bayonet in your ribs. This trick is as old as history. The end result is martial law.
Lee

The problem with an anarchist is that they are as bowling alley pins that are set up to be knocked down by the bowling ball of olicharchy.

Their "usefulness" ends when they overthrow the government they hate, even when that government rightfully belongs to the people as does the American Constitutional Republic. The people created it through their elected delegates and still the anartchists are not happy with that arrangement. Why?

They seek a utopian world that can never come about since they also reject the concept of internal government- that self imposed restraint that only an advanced civilized people can understand. Those internal restraints, if practiced by individauls, would require very little external government. But anarchists are too busy philosophizing about no need for borders of any kind that they forget that "borders" are an internal concept called sovereignty. And with sovereignty comes the concept of private property. Do anarchists have fences around their house to keep others out I wonder?

No one has the right to your property and no one can take it away unless you use your property in a manner that denies others their right to property. This concept of property entails your dreams, hopes, talents, personality as well as your physical self. however, no one person is stong enough to defend his person from those who don't accept his theory of sovereignty and property, so laws are worked out to use the force of law be to defend individuals' God-given rights or the "natural rights " of man as the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

Since most anachists can't accept the entire concept that man's rights are born with him and those "rights" are a gift from the "Creator" as Jefferson said, we must be patient with them since even patience is a gift from the "Creator" and one of those "internal" governmental controls associated with the characteristic of a civilized society. We once called those internal restraints the Golden Rule.
PunkJohnnyCash

Perhaps you should look more into anarchist theories and solutions to such things. Many anarchists build their entire philosophy of anarchy on natural rights and property rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Have you read any Rothbard?
joedog

“Why is it when Americans talk about moving abroad to places like Europe or north to Canada we assume we have the right and freedom to do so”
Probably because they are making idle statements. Americans who actually plan to move to other countries generally begin by finding out what they have to do to move there legally, and then comply with local laws.

I know that to move to Canada, you have to prove that you will contribute enough to the economy that you are considered a good economic risk. Mexico takes a very harsh stand on people who illegally enter their country – even if they are poor people simply trying to enjoy the better economic opportunities that Mexico offers.

1) Danger to society
“Migrants come to partake in an existing society. Colonization brings their culture and society to the other”
Seems to contradict the author’s complaint that “They want to force the migrant to learn a language”. If you want to partake in an existing society, it is critical that you are able to communicate with members of that society. If you are expecting the existing society to change to fit the customs, language, and social mores of the society you are coming from, it would seem to be colonization or subjugation. Historically, you get one of two outcomes when two different cultures come together – either the newcomers adopt the existing culture (often adding small elements of their own culture to the existing cultural “mix”), or the newcomers replace the existing culture with their own (sometimes preserving small elements of the previous culture).

2) Health Care
“There is also a good deal of misunderstanding in those arguments. Benefits by law are not available to undocumented migrants in most states”
There is a great deal of misunderstanding, especially by some one who thinks that “most states” – “every state”. There is also clearly a misunderstanding of the fact that emergency rooms provide medical treatment regardless of ability to pay, and don’t check your residence status. High emergency room costs are often cited as one of the reasons that healthcare in America is so expensive.

3) Law
“we can use the concept of law as an argument to defend really any law.” It seems that the author is more of an Anarchist than a Libertarian, since he doesn’t believe in the value of law, or of the right of nations to exist.
“The conservatives claims to be against statism and then turns around and uses statism as the defense of their actions.”
The author appears to be using two different definitions of “statism” here. One definition of “statism” is that the state has all authority and controls the economy and virtually all elements of people’s lives. Conservatives and Libertarians tend to reject this. The author’s definition is that “statism” is the belief that nation states should exist, and have any right to control their borders. Conservatives and even most Libertarians tend to support this.
These are very different things, but the author ignores what people mean, and uses his own definition to create a straw-man argument to make his opponents look hypocritical.

4) Birthplace
“Not only that, but it also implies that rights are not natural but one is born with more or less rights depending on where they are born”
Whether or not we like it, it is a fact that different nations recognize different rights for people. Not all rights are “natural” – in fact the only “right” that nature provides us is the right to struggle/fight or die (and sometimes to struggle/fight and die anyway). The natural world does not automatically provide us with food, shelter, medicine, or anything else. The United States Constitution recognizes that there are rights that governments have no business taking away from people (inalienable rights). It never claims the authority to impose those views on other governments or societies.
As to “anchor babies”, if our hospitals didn’t provide treatment for illegal aliens – as the author claims – then there would be no official recognition of any birth by an illegal alien in an American hospital or clinic. No official record of birth means no “anchor baby”.

5) Language
“They want to force the migrant to learn a language”
Again, this seems to contradict the author’s statement that “Migrants come to partake in an existing society. Colonization brings their culture and society to the other”
Immigrants who learn the common language and social mores of their host society are more likely to be successful members of the host society. Those that choose not to do so create barriers to their integration in the society.
America is a land of immigrants – every person in America has ancestors who immigrated here from somewhere else at some point in history. Those immigrants who have successfully integrated into the society have contributed greatly to it. Those who have not have either suffered a second-class existence, or were able to grow in numbers to the point where they displaced the previous society and imposed their own in its place.

6) Jobs / Economy
“To deny these people the chance to function in that market will just hinder the free market like any other restriction on the market”
The author ignores the fact that illegals provide a labor market that doesn’t follow the same rules and restrictions as the regular labor market. While unrestricted free markets may be a dream, most people – even many Conservatives and Libertarians – believe in some restrictions and regulations on the marketplace, to ensure quality, safety, and fairness.

7) Taxes
“Most undocumented migrants are in lower income brackets.”
The author neglects to explain why people would choose to illegally enter the United States simply in order to be poor. When illegal immigrants are driving around in $30k or $40k SUVs and trucks, one has to wonder how they can possibly not be making any money.
Some illegals work in fairly high paying fields. Others make a lot of money through criminal activity, either independently, or through gang affiliations.
There is also the discrepancy between government spending on illegal and legal residents. As an example: high proportion of illegals do not speak English. This means that the public schools provide extensive services to them – with no checking of their immigration status. English Language Learners – students whose families don’t speak English at home – have three to six times as much money spent on them as English speaking students. This places a severe strain on education budgets.
Another example is in law enforcement, court, and incarceration costs. These are higher for non-English speakers.

8) “Right”
“It is terrible what we are doing to people just like you and I” Maybe the author should speak for himself when he says that lawbreakers are “just like you and I”. I am not in the country illegally. When I have traveled to, and lived in, other countries, I have always followed the laws – both of the United States, and the other nation. Were I to illegally enter another country, I would expect to be arrested and jailed/deported – as a minimum. In some cases, I might have worse happen to me.

Regarding illegals from Mexico - “often the Mexican government is taking advantage of them “
“often people who would be able to enter legally can not because they could not bribe the right Mexican authority”
Sounds like the Mexican people need to fix their own government. Or is the author actually suggesting that the United States invade Mexico and fix their screwed up and corrupt government in order to fix the problem for the Mexican people (as well as protect their “natural” rights)?
Kangalanatolian

Why is it when Americans talk about moving abroad to places like Europe or north to Canada we assume we have the right and freedom to do so, but when many of those same individuals hear of people moving north to our country we claim they have no right?

Why do you assume that anybody can move to any where they wish? Try migrating to Australia. You will get a rude awakening if your aren't fairly wealthy or have skills they want. A basic understanding of national sovereignty is the right to control immigration.
The true state of affairs is also revealed by the heavily armed southern border of Mexico.

Statist Claim: I recently received an article comparing the current wave of migration to the European colonization of America claiming that we would be treated like the Native Americans by the current migrants.

It is much closer to the experience of the Romans. A rich statist welfare pampered class of people - overrun by a culture of hungry refugees from a corrupt foreign culture, which nonetheless holds their ultimate allegiance through cultural and racial solidarity.

Statist Claim: Some are claiming that the health care bill and also welfare are reasons for migrant control.

Excessive amounts of poor immigrants are why it is such a poor idea to create that socialist situation. Ultimately it is another attack on the dollar, as the government monetizes the resulting debt.

Statist Claim: They have committed a crime by coming into the country “illegally.”

Yes, the only punishment for which is deportation. Would you expect any less from Canada or Australia, etc?

Statist Claim: We were born here so we have rights but other people do not. The state defends our rights others are not privileged to these rights.

All people are born with inalienable rights. The United States of America have taken on the task of enforcing those rights for it's own citizens, and temporarily for those on our soil. This is one of the reasons that it is invalid to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. We have neither the right OR the obligation to create a "democracy" there. That is for them to do if they choose. We can ONLY control what we control - and one of the crucial ways we control that is through immigration limits which will allow immigrants to assimilate, rather than creating subcultures in certain areas of the country.

Statist Claim: This is an English speaking language we should force others to speak English.

If we had actually limited immigration properly, English would have become so important for the immigrant to flourish, they would have picked it up within months. As it is they can submerge into existing subcultures, and only deal with the annoyance that we "racists" want them to learn the language of the country they have adopted.

Statist Claim: Mexicans are bad for the economy and they take our jobs

Most Mexicans are hungry and willing to work hard for low wages. The reason they are here is the nafta trade deals that have destabilized their country - and our PERCEIVED wealth created by the federal Reserve out of thin air.
They are in a situation created through no fault of their own. Yet they ultimately belong in the country that has their allegiance. The reason their parents had so many children stems from the need for more farm hands in Mexico. This has changed, but the new answer is to send them to America to send home the milk money to the family.
At some point we are hoping you can begin to see the pro-American side to all this?

Statist Claim: The migrant is “mooching” and not paying their fair share of taxes.

Just by being low income they pay no federal taxes and little if any state taxes. If everyone was poor like that, we would be even less able to afford the services we have now. "Mooching" implies intent, but the fact is that they add to the overall tax burden.

The days are gone when we can afford to assimilate waves of immigrants. Our goal should be individual liberty for all Americans. We can do this with an eye to a balanced racial assimilation from throughout the world. It is an indication that our culture is in danger of capsizing when our country is so balkanized into separate ethnic camps with a different language and a limited overlapping culture.
Arkady Kamenetsky

I would like to point out that this is the REAL article. Not the big welfare "rubbish" of the original article. Embracing illegal immigrants while calling them migrant workers and accusing us of being statist is so absurd, I cannot believe this "article" is getting any attention. Just a manipulation of language, written by a progressive who is well trained in the art of language distortion.
PunkJohnnyCash

The statist minds are so conditioned that they automatically believe any opposition to their statism is support of another side of their left/right statist paradigm. What part about opposing Healthcare or any form of state aid on this site was "big welfare?"

As Rothbard says, The Emperor has no clothes, and you statist neo-cons look silly standing there with your tally-whackers hanging out.
Reyes Torres

NICE
Mac McCarthy

Nice!

Not as crisp and polished as it might be, but I'm glad somebody's tackling this head-on. You said many good, true things here. Thanks.
NoThanks

Your head is in the sand. You won't find many libertarians among illegal immigrants.

"Undocumented Migrants Pay more in Taxes" - dream on.

"Most undocumented migrants are in lower income brackets. If they were to file their taxes they are of the demographics who would receive more of a refund than they actually put into taxes. (due to family credits and lower income tax credit) Often this can be literally thousands of dollars a year in excess of what was paid out." Yes, that's what mooching is and it's legal.

Illegals are great - if you live in Texas and need yard work done. Cato loves cheap labor.

Illegal immigration is good for liberal politicians. No libertarians among them either.
ruffedge

If I, as an American citizen were to travel into either Canada or Mexico I would be required by the laws of all three nations to produce a passport or some other form of legal documentation in order enter into their countries and also to reenter my own.

I have no problem with Mexicans entering this country be it through proper legal channels. I do have a problem with any foreigner, regardless of ethnicity, entering this country illegally and engaging in crime that can possibly harm native born or naturalized citizens. You can call it racism should you so desire but the fact is that the objection is a matter of rule of law and not race.

As a side note, I wouldn't be offended or felt that my rights had been violated when asked to produce proof of citizenship as I did reenter this country.
PunkJohnnyCash

I see you missed #3.
Horizon3

No you missed item 3.
The Constitution purports no such claim as you make.
Maybe you should read it before shooting yourself in the foot.

The only truth I have found in this article is the date, as you have no clue whatsoever about what you yammer on about.
PunkJohnnyCash

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
joedog

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If a person has entered the country illegally, they have clearly demonstrated that they do not feel that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are also not legally residing in either the United States, or any given state. This means that they have no legal status for this Amendment to apply to.

Of course, if illegals weren't being treated in our medical facilities (as the author claims) there would be no way to get a birth certificate (with Doctor's signature etc.) for an illegal's child. There would be no legal proof of where the child was born, and the assumption would have to be that they were not born in the United States.
Horizon3

Yep, that's what it says, that doesn't apply to persons born of non-citizens.
The 14th Amendment was written as a knee jerk amendment to protect freed slaves and their children, against the Democratic enacted Jim Crow Laws, not to provide an avenue for anyone who wants to become a citizen. Do your research at the LOC and read up on the debates and actions that brought about the amendment.

Are your toes hurting yet?
PunkJohnnyCash

Oh, I see now it makes sense. When it says "All persons" it does not mean that. It means something it does not say. It actually means what whatever you are now claiming it should mean as opposed to what it says.
Horizon3

Dude,
You can't cherry pick the Constitution, each article & amendment depends on the previous ones to a) be understood, and b) to be authoritative.
And yes if you don't know why the law was written, you have no clue on how to enforce it.
And you shoot yourself in the foot again, if we go by your premise, the commerce clause which legislators from both sides abuse constantly, would no longer be valid for 99.99% of the laws they have written using it as an authority.
And the 14th amendment would have been totally unnecessary if the Dems in the southern states had obeyed the 13th.
PunkJohnnyCash

It's not authoritative it's a piece of paper that we should have ripped up when those that signed the contract died.

It is not valid. Have you read anything on this site? This only points out the hypocrisy of your constitutions and claims. All you Democrats and Republicans are the same. Same arguments to support your tyranny over the people. Anything but liberty. Here I'll make the next post just for you.

All amendments are unnecessary. The point was that your defense with a constitution is riddled with contradictions as seen in your current argument.

No matter what a constitution says any argument that needs that paper to support is essentially invalid.

http://www.gonzotimes.com/1492/the-constitution/
DaleW

You are a tautological joke. All self-reference and student union BS chic.
Horizon3

Real Genius we have here, that piece of old paper is what guarantees your right to post such drivel.
Not only are you ignorant of your rights and duties as a citizen, but you evidently lack the brainpower to even discuss it.
X X

What guarantees his right to 'post such drivel' is the will to do so. The constitution was written by and for upper crust landowners as a way to keep themselves and their ilk in power, but do so in a way that looked more legitimate than the monarchy that they were rebelling against. It was a power grab by one set of rich, white, landowners from another set of rich, white, landowners.

Hell, at least a monarchy is honest in saying 'fuck you, you live and breathe at my whim' to the people's neck it's standing on. The constitution gives a way for people to do the same, but more subtly, under the pretense of some bullshit 'social contract'.

That 'piece of paper' no more guarantees the author's rights than the Bible guarantees the existence of God -- writing something down, than deifying it ex post facto doesn't make it a fact my friend.

Oh, and I'd love to 'opt out' of this social contract - only when I try I'm told I'm breaking the law. Right.
William Hinds

Your acid words convey the truth. The constitution was the 18th century PATRIOT act, it hijacked the country and placed it in the road to ruin we see now. The actual founding document that the rebels fought and died for was the articles of confederation, the constitutional convention was basically a successful counter-coup staged by the federalists on behalf of the mercantilist landed gentry.

This is something conservatives ignore unless you confront them with it in real life. In person they have to admit that it is the truth or admit that they lack the requisite information of pre-constitutional America. If they do have any knowledge of the original articles, it is usually limited to Hamiltonian slogans like; "it didn't work" or "it needed to be replaced". Damned if they can tell you how or why it didn't work.

Naturally this is all beside the point, because the same argument of Lysander Spooner applies both to the constitution and the articles. The paper has no authority on later generations, those who where not there to be a part of the contract.
Horizon3

Yeah, I can see you're another student of non-history, until you read and understand the hows & whys the Constitution was written, you have no authority to debate.
And you have the ability to opt out anytime you wish, it's called a freedom to leave at your pleasure.
Although I doubt you will have much luck finding anyplace that doesn't have laws, be it by man or nature, you will follow them or suffer the consequences.
X X

So I'm a 'student of non-history' because I'm talking about things you don't like to hear? Read something other than an 8th grade textbook on the founding fathers, the constitution, the motives behind revolution.

Contrary to popular history books, the revolution was the brainchild of the topmost wealthy merchants, bankers, etc of the colonies who were tired of not being in the 'inner circle' with the Crown that the very few people who were even richer then them enjoyed. They wanted access to the millions of acre's of land that were concentrated with that very top elite (whom history labels 'monarchists'), so they stirred up populist sentiment against the crown among the poorest classes, in order to foment a revolution that would benefit them. The poor that were driven to fight in the war were used mercilessly, even though there was very little that benefited them about it (even after the war, very few of the class that actually did the fighting and dying were granted land - most weren't even paid). Once it was all said and done, the constitution was created with great fanfare, setting up a government that was supposedly there to give every citizen control of their own destiny. Only problem was that it excluded half the population (women), didn't allow for anyone who was non-white, and generally maintained the status quo that had already existed under the Crown.

Only now, the same taxes that were decried as being unjust were going to the 'founding fathers' rather than the Crown.

Jesus man, open your eyes. Read about the Whiskey rebellion, and the reasons for it. Read the private letters of those framing the constitution, out and out admitting that they were purposely crafting something that would placate the masses. Read about how, once the revolution was stirred up and the people really started realizing it was the wealthy who were their enemies, the same people who had started the revolution started panicking, worried that the status quo might change to much.

Read ANYTHING beyond popular history.
William Hinds

Damn, every time I hear about the Whiskey Rebellion I have to mention one of my favorite novels. The Probability Broach by L Neil Smith. If you are an anarchist and want to read some good fiction, try it out. In the book, the protagonist is blown sideways through time into an alternate earth in which the major turning point was a successful Whiskey Rebellion beat the feds and then turned and marched on the capitol, where they put Washington against the wall for the traitor he was.

One has to turn to fiction to find a revolution that was not hijacked by the statists; be they aristocrats, mercantilists or the nomenklatura.
William Hinds

No authority to debate?

The final bastion of a charlatan, claiming that the author of opinion has no right to their opinion because of a perceived lack of authority that would have to be granted by the individual who made the claim of "no authority". This is the exact intellectually dishonest claim that has been made since the dawn of this republic by politicians and others who would wish to be the sole interpreters of the law for their own disgusting goals.

You revoke his authority of debate? what gives you that authority? Are you a tenured constitutional scholar of a prestigious university? No, no authority is needed because we are reasonable persons who can discuss the law as it was intended by those who wrote it. We need no priest class to tell us who can read and discern the very nature of the words on parchment.

You would know this had you read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers, Jefferson and Washington's letters, etc. My examination of the constitution sits in the same place as PunkJohnnyCash, and I have approached the matter from a legal and exegetical standpoint to better understand the "spirit of the constitution". My opinion counts, same as everyone else here.

I used to be like you, but instead of blindly following I decided to go my own way. I opened my eyes.
Horizon3

Read the whole thread before you stick your nose in other peoples conversations, And the Federalist Papers are supposed to mean what? they are nothing but historically interesting documents nothing more, they are the diary entries from SOME of the people that attended the Convention and are in no way shape or form law reference, most of which were set to paper years after the convention. The end result of the Convention is the finished Constitution, and is the ONLY document of reference.
And you put a lot of self importance to yourself in assuming you know my thoughts on the Constitution, as I have not expressed many here. As well as your feigned knowledge of my political persuasion.
And I follow no one save my own conscience, knowledge and faith, I need no leader as I am my own leader.

And yes an opinion that is not based in fact is just that an opinion, I disputed the basis of his opinion not the content.

As a purported anarchist you should be more than happy if the Constitution would be adhered to, instead of being abused by leftists and statists of both parties, to expand stupid freedom encroaching laws and regulations. Had the document been adhered to you would not have to pay income tax, we would never have inflation or economic depressions and the only folks that would be unemployed would be the ones that can not or will not work, and those would be very few in number, you would not pay property tax and you would never have to worry about the government taking your property, except in the most severe circumstances. And any number of ridiculous laws that are on the books.

You should re-examine the Constitution based on the reality that it was intended to be the outline of limitations on government, not as a means for the government to put limitations on the people and the peoples states in which they are citizens.
PunkJohnnyCash

I fear the right more than the left. At least the left wing good government myths don't only promote physical aggression, the militarized police state and caging human beings.
William Hinds

I feign no knowledge of your political persuasion. If you believe my mention of conservatives is a slight against you, you might need to reevaluate your understanding of the English language. I cannot be held responsible for hallucinatory projections and leaps of logic that are solely yours and yours alone.

Your thoughts on the constitution have no bearing on our conversation until you state them. I have only and will ONLY continue to respond to things you have stated here as a commented response to this article. It keeps it simple if I do not have to attempt to read your mind, I have enough trouble reading your run on sentences and improperly formatted paragraphs.

As for facts and opinion, you do not have the authority to dismiss fact as merely being opinion, which is exactly what I had stated earlier. We can and have read the history, and you are the one distorting it and making outlandish claims. You have done this throughout the entire comments section here, which you dishonestly claim I have not read.

Now I have to respond to your most asinine paragraph regarding your beliefs and how I as an individual should feel based on your beliefs about the constitution. This historically revisionist rhetoric is no different than any number of false claims as to how history would have played out had x replaced y at z. It takes a serious stretch of the imagination to assume that the worst problems of the federal government would never have happened had the constitution been followed. Not only is there no historical precedence to make an educated guess, but I assume as well that you also lack a time machine to verify your bold assertions.

It has become exceedingly clear that your perception of reality is not quite whole, as elucidated by your final non-sequitur. If the constitution was a document of negative rights - as you claim - it would not need to replace the articles of confederation which most certainly (according to Hamilton) hamstrung the federal government. That much is obvious if you look at the history of how and why the document was crafted in the first place, which by the way is INCREDIBLY important when attempting to understand a historical document.

You cannot simply take something out of context and expect it to have a stand alone meaning, unless you are engaged in the intellectually dishonest debate tactic of sloganeering.

Just because you simply wish to ignore the facts and call them opinions doesn't make it so.
PunkJohnnyCash

Do you realize you are using "Law" as a defense on an Anarchist Website?
Horizon3

Yes, even Anarchists have laws and rules my friend, your very existence as an anarchist affirms it. And your discussion of it, it validates it. Your last quote confirms it.

Authors

Recent Comments