As anarchists of some stripe, we must endure a barrage of silly rhetoric about the Constitution. It’s a never-ending deluge of “If only we got back to the Constitution…” or “If only the Supreme Court observed the Constitutionality of laws…” We must endure an ever increasing supply of Constitutionalists wishing that if only the citizens, or this group of officials, politicians, or school teachers, etc recognized the divine inspiration that is the Constitution, everything would be better.
Others, such as Lysander Spooner, argued, “the Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
I am going to give an analogy based on the latter part — the “powerless to prevent it” part. However, I argue that it not only has been powerless to prevent our ever growing, ever expanding, ever stealing government; it has incentivized its expansion. What other conclusion could we possibly conceive if we live by a document that allows a small group of individuals the legal right to extort the entire population?
However, the blame never rests with the Constitution itself. The blame is always placed on “the people” for not adhering to the Constitution’s rules. Why blame “the people” for a document that clearly sets up an inevitable conclusion?
Here is an analogy: A high school teacher at a private school has a rather curious policy. This teacher’s policy states that every time they give a test, they tell the students not to cheat, and then they leave the building to go read in their car. At the end of the test, they return back to the classroom to grade the papers. For some reason, the students always do extremely well….
Certainly we all agree that the school would place blame for the rampant cheating on the teacher, not the students. It does not matter that the teacher, upon the leaving the classroom, tells the students not to cheat. She placed matters in an obvious and inevitable path to systematic cheating. And since it is a private school in question, I argue that the teacher would immediately be fired upon the administration finding out about the teacher’s test policy.
Like the teacher who leaves the room during a test, the Constitution has not only allowed the kind of government we have, but incentivized this government’s expansion and thieving. Like the teacher who simply tells the students not to cheat, the Constitution’s “limited” and divided powers are inadequate to prevent massive, systematic invasion of person and property.
I say we place blame where it belongs – squarely on the Constitutions impotent shoulders.
I am a 27 year old voluntaryist living in beautiful Colorado. For fun, I snowboard and race road bikes in addition to my economics obsession. I love the Austrian school in general and Murray Rothbard in particular. 
“The blame is always placed on “the people” for not adhering to the Constitution’s rules”
If the constitution is so perfect how is it that the people are *able* to subvert it?
Clearly this argument is an admission that good government relies, not on parchment, but on people, and as such defeats their own constitution-worshiping arguments.
Just reminding folks of this wisdom: “If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.” – Robert LeFevre
It’s a well-written article, and to be fair, there are problems with some of the ideas expressed in the Constitution. However, I disagree with what I understand to be the central argument of this article (that the problem comes from the document qua document, not from the people) on two points:
The first problem I have with the article is that the author appears to take the stance that ideas are potent in and of themselves. In other words (and I am dramatizing a bit here), humans are passive creatures that amble about, waiting for an idea to implant itself into their brains, at which point they are powerless to evaluate and judge the validity of the idea for themselves, and they consequently shuffle off to follow their new directives.
The fact that these days we seem to have a society built upon such a premise notwithstanding, humans are not built to operate that way.
For example, the existence of amendments to the Constitution lends credibility to the concept of human thought as a volitional activity. If people were truly incapable of exercising judgment (rational or otherwise), they would have been unable to conceive of anything wrong with the ideas they were absorbing (unless of course, the “amendment ideas” were already floating around out there somewhere, which raises a number of metaphysical and epistemological questions that may be relevant, depending on how accurate my assessment of the author’s viewpoint is).
In other words, humans are capable of judging ideas for themselves. The ideas themselves are neither potent nor impotent; they simply are.
My second concern with the article centers around the analogy itself. Actually, I think the analogy is quite apt, and I certainly do not hesitate to compliment the author on his choice of metaphor. However, I think the author drew the wrong conclusion.
The object of the analogy is a rule or principle that makes sense, is based upon rational premises and – if followed – will lend itself to the protection of (in this case) justice. If students refrain from cheating (that is, seeking unearned intellectual rewards by mooching off of the hard work of other students), then each student will earn the grade he deserves as determined by his own effort and ability. The Constitution also describes rules and principles that have the similar qualities to the analogy’s “no cheating” rule.
In the analogy, the teacher lays this ground rule on the table, and then leaves the students to do what they will. In reality, one might compare this with the founding fathers bestowing their new doctrines upon the fledgling country of America, and then departing for one reason or another (to be fair, they died).
At this point, I think the author and I arrived at the same conclusion: the rule or principle did not enforce itself upon the students.
Where the author and I appear to disagree, however, is that the author blames the rule for not asserting itself, whereas I would assign responsibility for the perpetration of injustice to both the students and the teacher (note that in this context, I take the teacher to represent the government, not the founding fathers, but the analogy still “works”).
It is the responsibility of the students to observe this rule to the extent that they recognize that it is in their self-interest to attend a school where their rewards are based upon their merits, and not upon their ability to steal, mooch or lie.
Granted, because humans are capable of making up their own minds, not everyone will agree with this premise or even with the idea that not cheating is the best means to achieving the desired ends. Therefore, the teacher (government) has a responsibility to enforce this rule to the extent that it recognizes that it is acting in accordance with the premises upon which that rule is based.
But the rule itself is neither potent nor impotent; it simply is, and the students and teacher have the ability to act in accordance with – or defiance of – the rule. This does not mean that the rule has no right to exist; clearly, it has to exist in some form or else nobody would be able to communicate it.
From my understanding of some of the principles expressed in the text of the Constitution, I am of the opinion that we would have a freer society if people (in general – not just in government) followed the philosophy of our founding fathers. But only people can do that; the Constitution only serves to document, and it never could nor will be able to enforce its principles by itself.
Thank you for taking the time to write this article. I hope my comments add value to this discussion.
Bravo, well put. I had to laugh as I read the analogy for that very thing happened to me while in PUBLIC school. It was advanced calc, that class destroyed my ability the next year. While I never wanted to cheat, one couldn’t avoid listening as others shouted to Tim (who was the smartest of the bunch) for the answers.
Regretfully, the problem with formal schools is their focus. For they merely teach how to take tests and write papers. If their focus was to impart knowledge and critical thinking, there would be more discussions and less lectures. Personally, we home schooled, learning was for the purpose of imparting our knowelge, teaching our children to think and reason out problems, test were for the sole purpose of determining what they didn’t understand. Questions missed where re-reviewed and discussed.
I now run my own business. I have seen a continual decline in skills, both from public and private schools. In fact I have seen a very disturbing fact. Those children with the highest abilities are most likely “labeled” a problem. They maybe distruptive, questioning or bored in class, they are first placed on drugs to make them passive. When that doesn’t work they put them into “special” classes. What a great thing to do with our brightest and best.
I would suggest the writer read “5000 Year Leap”, “The Federalist Papers” and Adam Smith “Wealth of Nations” These go deep into our Consitution and capitalism and the thoughts behind it. You are correct in the fact that “we live by a document that allowed a small group of individuals the ability to extort the population.” But you are wrong about it being a “legal right.”
Adam Smith’s book spoke of how this will/did occur and it was not due to our Constitution. It was due to us, as a people, willing relinquishing our responsibilities to others. We choose to honor the wrong people (those who make millions without understanding how they made them, Madoff, Trump, etc), desiring others possessions (believing everyone has a “right” to things like a house, unemployment, healthcare, etc), and choosing to amuse ourselves with things of little valuse (TV, movies, shopping, etc).
Who should we blame for this? The politicians? I think not. For you choose how to spend your money, where to spend your time, and what you say in public.
Evil things happen when good people remain quiet, too many people have been quiet for too long. Further down in this piece they talk about the right to bear arms, the right to overthrow a tyranical government, the right to have your grievences redressed, the right to life, and the need to have a healthy fear of government.
Today we look to government for way too many things, I bet many on this site wanted the public option… another way for government to control us..
re Healthcare: I figure we can view it one of two ways. Either it’s a commodity, which is only available to healthy people, young people, or people with enough money to pay, or it’s a vital part of our natural and national resources, something to defend collectively as actively as clean water or clean air. Which do you choose? Or do you see it another way?
Personally I’m DISGUSTED at the current bills which threaten to force us to pay money to private corporations just for the privilege of living here — and if we refuse we face fines or jail. You may rail against the Constitution, but the Constitution is the only thing that is going to bring these bills DOWN! Because despite the rhetoric, they are blatantly unconstitutional, according to the 10th amendment. The Feds can tax us, but they can’t require us to pay private entities for services, only states can do that.
Anyway, do you believe there is NO validity to a common pool of resources to achieve common goals? There is nothing wrong with taxes PER SE. The question is whether or not our representatives represent *us* instead of special or corporate interests. And if they do, then presumably we have been convinced that taxes for a real purpose, and the terms and conditions regarding them are okay, like a contract, and we agree to them. But unless that happens, no.
As you might guess, my preference is for the ideal. That special and corporate interests DON’T have power, and that we discuss the terms and parameters regarding healthcare services openly, and most importantly HONESTLY. Then we realize that our health is a natural resource and should be supported and defended just like our environment and borders. Personally I like looking at the Post Office and Fed-Ex as a concept. The Post Office is staffed by civil servants, who do an amazing job overall, delivering letters and parcels EVERYWHERE to EVERYONE in the country, every day, for not much money, and with a great deal of reliability. Fed-Ex also thrives as a premium service for people who want to pay more and get more. I think we should have a basic community clinic everywhere, maybe even *in* the Post Office! (just kidding, but you get the idea) Where people could go with a cut, a runny nose, or to get a routine test. Another good model for this would be paralegals vs lawyers. Both exist, but it’s really convenient to be able to go to a paralegal and get basic services quickly and easily, or get a referral to a lawyer if needed. The higher and more specialty services could happen under a for-profit insurance model. But nobody would be denied basic, simple screening or care.
The only other option is to think of ourselves as cattle or revenue-producing-units for the corporations, or else accept a narcissistic society where nobody shares or is willing to be *one* country, because everyone is a country unto themselves and screw everyone else.
I have to disagree. The blame for an action rests with the moral agent that performed the action. The students are to blame for cheating because they cheated. It doesn’t get much more simple than that. The teacher didn’t have a gun to their heads forcing them to cheat. In order to determine what the teacher did that was wrong you would have to determine his or her responsibility. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the teacher is responsible for maintaining order. The teacher would then be blamed for not maintaining order. While the children would be blamed for cheating.
Either way, the argument fails for the constitution as anything more than four pieces of parchment salvaged from the toilet paper factory. It’s real nice and all, let’s just not fetishize it.
Analogies with gaping holes in the logic, like where to place blame, just make the oppositions job easier.
Agreed.
I used to be a Constitutionalists. As time went on, and I read more, I realized that all government is force. The American revolution was a revolution of the gentry, which decided why pay taxes when we can collect them. It didn’t take long either, a tax was put on spirits and President George Washington declared Marshall Law to raise an army to put down the refusal to pay the tax. This was the Whiskey Rebellion. The long history of America and freedom is a myth which has been perpetuated in the school system. We are all serf’s and a conquered people and most don’t even know it.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison
Each generation should be made to bear the burden of its own wars, instead of carrying them on, at the expense of other generations.
James Madison
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
James Madison
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
James Madison
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
James Madison
The class of citizens who provide at once their own food and their own raiment, may be viewed as the most truly independent and happy.
James Madison
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
James Madison
The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.
James Madison
The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.
James Madison
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.
Thomas Jefferson
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Thomas Jefferson
Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.
Thomas Jefferson
History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
Thomas Jefferson
I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.
Thomas Jefferson
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson
I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.
Thomas Jefferson
One man with courage is a majority.
Thomas Jefferson
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
Benjamin Franklin
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.
Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” Ben Frnklin
I would agree that the Constitution is inadequate for creating utopia, but its “limited” and divided powers are intentional. The Founding Fathers distrusted pure democracy because in such systems the majority or ruling power always oppresses the minority or the little guys. The Constitution is an attempt to balance that out somewhat, so that minorities can halt or pause being simply mown down. So my question is, if both democracy and constitutional republicanism are inadequate, then what *is* adequate? The unspoken implication behind this article is that benevolent dictatorship, ruled by a central, supposedly well-meaning power, is the best way. It *is* more efficient, but I wouldn’t agree that it’s best. It’s a royal, imperial, or Soviet view, and relies on the characters of the ruler or ruling body while making everyone else into sheep. A smaller scale version can be seen in a family, where the parents are the (supposedly) benevolent dictators over the children. But often it doesn’t work out, like when the children are abused or neglected. If there were no family services or laws *above* the abusers, the children would have no hope. They would just be instruments of their parents, not people.
Very true, Justin, the bemoaning from many people in the US is that were the Constitution rigidly adhered to then all would be well in this country. The cries of “Return to the Constitution!” are heard/read regularly, and have been for many years. I wrote on this very subject myself over 6.5 years:
From the last paragraph of that same article:
The entire article, “Return to the Constitution??!” http://selfsip.org/focus/returntoconstitution.html
Yes, the Constitution is flawed – fatally so, and that is what those who cry for its return as it was written, or in some modified form, need to realize.
Very true, Justin, the bemoaning from many people in the US is that were the Constitution rigidly adhered to then all would be well in this country. The cries of “Return to the Constitution!” are heard/read regularly, and have been for many years. I wrote on this very subject myself over 6.5 years, “Return to the Constitution??!” http://selfsip.org/focus/returntoconstitution.html
Yes, the Constitution is flawed – fatally so, and that is what those who cry for its return as it was written, or in some modified form, need to realize. This is what I emphatically pointed out in that article, with its links to in-depth examinations of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation as well as the Constitution’s Preamble and Bill of Rights.
A self-ordering society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit, each with the goal of maximizing hir lifetime happiness (the purpose of each whether or not s/he recognizes that fact), is possible, even though the vast majority of the current world’s populace thinks that governments are a necessity for any order to exist. Individual self-order *without* rule by others is the social system whose members are humans who have become *fully* adult. Just as people can become physical adults, so can they become social adults – if only they are allowed (and even required in the sense that they will not achieve their desires unless they do) to socially mature sufficiently… The US Constitution, just as all other similar documents, does not nor ever did provide an environment for such social maturity.
Most people in this country are more concerned with football than freedom.
I’m not sure how one can argue the point Mr. Long has in the way I am reading it.
He writes that the Constitution is flawed because it, a piece of paper, cannot enforce its rules upon the government? It seems illogical, purely and utterly so. No one, Founding Father, contemporary Constitutionalist, or whatever political junkie, in my opinion can be taken seriously with such an argument and, indeed, I have not heard the idea before.
I do, however, like the analogy Justin puts forth. There are different ways to read it, as Phoenix has illustrated, and mine in thus: the students are the government in all of its various bodies, and the teacher (it doesn’t hold together entirely in the context of this analogy, but bear with me) is us. We, as Americans, wrote the Constitution as a way to limit government from being the tyrannical overseer that government is so keen to be, but we’ve gone out to our car, haven’t we? Mr. Long (rightly so) blames the teacher for going out. Blaming a document/rule for the inadequacy of the person simply does not stand up logically.
And that’s what it’s about, isn’t it? If we think about it, Justin’s article should be titled An Analogy Illustrating the Inadequacy of the People. The Constitution is a meaningful and useful set of parameters to limit what tyranny is allowed upon the people, but it requires people to enforce it and protect themselves from the burgeoning tyrannies that eke themselves out of the woodwork.
Thus, we find ourselves in this monumental, governmental conundrum that is America today. The constitution is not heavenly mandate, it does not have supernatural powers, but it does set guidelines and limits to the amount of bad rulers can do, and that makes it the best means with which to govern ourselves.
thanks,
fc
I agree with you, flag. An inadequate people wrote an inadequate document, which obviously has needed a few amendments these last 200+ years, but which overall is a pretty good guideline for avoiding the messes people can get into colletively if they have no framework at all — ESPECIALLY when power is involved and the benefits of some depend on the oppression of others. It’s not a magic document, but we can amend it, or, if we can agree, write something completely new!! The only other option as I see it is for everyone to be their own country, and who cares about personal/imperial ambitions, screw your neighbor, drive drunk, dump your litter in the river, who cares?
It also might be worth considering that some of the objections to the Constitution may stem from the fact that our proto-roots are in English common law as opposed to Napoleonic code. If, as in English law, everything is allowed until it isn’t, then you *could* see the Constitution as the first law marking a slippery slope to more and more limitations. (and of course now we have buildings-full of law…) Whereas someone with Napoleonic sensibilities, where nothing is permitted until the law says it is, would view every law as a breath of freedom and fresh air, the Constitution being the first among those welcome liberations.
I believe the Articles of the Confederation were pointed more in the right direction. States determined how to distribute what little power was given to the nearly insignificant central authority. The federal system came about as the result of Shaye’s Rebellion. A federal system allows for easier control of the populace. With that being said it is a wise idea to examine the many virtues of the constitution and accept it as an ally in an arduous struggle against oppression from appointed powers