The constitution is empty

One of the sillier ideas floating around out there is this idea that the “Tea Party Patriots” and the “Ron Paul Republicans” have that the constitution will somehow save them from the state, or can be used to shrink the state. That is a really empty thing to believe. The constitution is exactly what George Bush said it was. A goddamned piece of paper. At least, that’s all anyone can prove about it.

The constitution is NOT written in clear language. It’s actually quite fuzzy, to the extent I even know what is in there. The only thing I can tell you is that the second amendment was fudged with that line about the “well ordered militia”. Whether or not making that line clearer would have made a difference I don’t know, but I doubt it. But why even base an argument for gun rights on some old piece of paper? I’ll give you an argument right here that is airtight.

You can’t take away people’s guns without sending men after them with guns. So then how the hell can can you say that people don’t have a right to have guns?

Done. No need to refer to the constitution at all. Not that this will mean you get to keep your guns. You are going to lose those anyway. But you may keep your integrity.

Click to see just how insane this painting is. This is the mindset of people that buy into the constitution.

You will lose every time by talking about the constitution. Someone with more money, more power, more guns, a fancier degree and a black robe is going to beat you at that game every time. You will be lucky if they don’t tell a man in a blue costume to actually beat you while they’re at it.

When you use the constitution as the principle you work from you are defeating yourself. If you play poli-tricks at all in hopes of shrinking the state or making the state “better” you are defeating yourself. These are all games and traps the state has set up for you. They play these games far better than you ever will be able to, and they laugh at you and mock you in your futile efforts to play along. Do you think the Wise Latina has any intention of letting you keep your guns, no matter what some old piece of paper says? She doesn’t.

The constitution is supposedly the founding document of this particular state. So it either caused or was powerless to stop the state that exists now from forming. Why the hell would “going back” to it create a different outcome next time? The state is perfectly capable of finding some “interpretation” of the constitution that justifies whatever it wants to do. Why is your interpretation any better? And if you use the constitution as your first principle, how the hell can you say they are wrong?

This guy is in jail because he thought the state followed some sort of set of rules.

Try an empirical test. Next time you get a traffic ticket, go to the man or woman in the black robe and try to present your own legal argument as to why you do not have to pay that ticket. Watch the man or woman in the black robe laugh at you. It is easy enough to find some loophole in the laws that you could use. People do it with tax laws all the time, and I’m sure that their arguments are totally right, assuming that the state actually follows some sort of set of rules. If you can’t get some piss-ant thief calling himself a “traffic court judge” to accept your argument over a ticket, why the hell would the people that call themselves “the supreme court” accept anything you have to say about the constitution?

The important thing to remember is that the state operates on the principle of force, not law. The laws are just window dressing for plunder. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to use anything the state has written or created against the state. You will lose, and in doing so you will actually be endorsing the state as some kind of legitimate entity and adding to it’s power. You will be saying that it is the job of the state to solve the problem of the state. So how then can you complain when the state chooses not to end itself? You left it up to them!

Ask yourself this: what the hell is a law anyway? Most people can’t answer that. You’d be surprised how many people that work for the state can’t answer that. I’ll bet the Wise Latina herself can’t answer that. But it doesn’t matter. That’s NOT what the state is about.

Note: This post is mainly directed at the Ron Paul people, for whom I have some sympathy since I was briefly taken in by the whole Ron Paul thing. The “tea party” people are a different story. They are a bunch of militaristic, neocon, statist jerks and when the shit hits the fan they will be the first ones crying for fascism. They are crying for it already. The idea that these animals are interested in your freedom is a joke.

16 thoughts on “The constitution is empty

  1. Joel Sumner

    That old piece of paper still has meaning, not because of the words that were written, but because of the interpretations given to those words by the courts. Unfortunately, the courts have headed down a slipperly slope where the words on that old piece of paper are beginning to conflict with present interpretations. Perhaps it is a fault of the common-law system. Read a summary of the legal tender cases.

    Hepburn v. Griswold
    Knox v. Lee
    Julliard v. Geenman

    Reply
  2. usc

    I think I may not actually be as libertarian as I had thought I was. Because I am not sure I think like you guys do…and if you call yourselves “smarter Libertarians” than I am either a stupid one…or not one at all.

    I take your point about it being a stupid piece of paper, but I have no idea what world you think you can live in that doesn’t have some level of government ensuring and protecting your rights. One man can not protect his rights from 100. He can not morally decide his own moral and legal issues with his neighbors. And at some point he must make a compact with those neighbors so everyone knows what the “rules” are. Those rules will necessarily have to be protected…now you have a government.

    Without one…you have anarchy. Anarchy != Liberty.

    Out.

    Reply
  3. Pingback: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” ~ Thomas Jefferson « USA in Exile

  4. Pingback: Of course the state can make you buy stuff | The Emptiness

  5. Pingback: Bad arguments make the world worse | The Emptiness

  6. Pingback: Politics.Dooglio.NET » What do we replace government with?

    1. Mike P (the emptiness pro) Post author

      Sweet! I’ve gotten about 50 visitors from your site so far. Thanks man! I hope people go and participate in the discussion.

      Reply
    1. Mike P (the emptiness pro) Post author

      Well, it wasn’t so much that anything “turned me off” to Paul. It’s that I was turned on to a better philosophical system. I still like Paul and think he’s a decent guy, I just don’t participate in politics anymore. I accept that there is no way that participation in politics can have positive outcomes either for me or others.

      I also have a moral problem with voting because it is an act of aggression.

      Reply
  7. Douglas Barbieri

    The glaring truth is that the constitution is just a couple of pieces of paper–an unsigned written instrument. It actually binds nothing to no one. Small wonder the Supreme Court widely holds that the government has no duty to protect anyone from anything.

    I, too, used to be a “Paultard,” by the way. He is the only politician that ever made any sense to me, but he still is a statist. I had to come to that painful realization. :-)

    Reply
    1. Debbie H.

      Bob, why no analysis given on this premise of yours that Mike not give up his day job? Can you persuade us that there is truth in the assertion you just presented?

      Reply
  8. Gil

    I believe the smarter Libertarians don’t fall for a “appeal to the U.S. Constitution” argument fallacy. However, for some strange reason a lot do appeal to some piece of paper that is supposed to protect them and was written many centuries ago (e.g. the Magna Carta). Of course, since a consitution is supposed to be document outlining the limits and powers of a government and if you believe a government to be an illegitimate organisation then a constitution is an illegitimate document too. No one would take any notice to a mafia gang who claimed the moral high ground because they have a constitution that’s supposed to control their excessive behaviours.

    Reply
    1. Joe

      Uhm yes they would. Ever heard of European royalty? People forget how they got their power. Every thing that the Mafia is know for and even more. Remember who writes the history books.

      Reply

Leave a Reply