(stirring up a hornet's nest...) Would you apply these same principles to abortion?
It would seem that (for example) Ron Paul wouldn't, as he said multiple times that it is an issue best left for the states to decide.
Remember, "It doesn't matter if the state or federal government is the one doing the dirty work: aggressing against the innocent is wrong."

In any case, as long as the state is allowed to control marriage, how can they be denied control over adultery?  The real solution is to repeal marriage law.

I think you are missing the point of the Constitution and the rights of State governments to regulate their constituency. They were never intended to create or allow for anarchy to reign in America. Most people (probably all) who support the idea of the Constitution are not anarchists, and don't want anarchy. Your analysis of the Constitution not allowing for freedom just argues that the Constitution doesn't allow for anarchy, which I find to be an entirely separate issue within the libertarian community.

I'm going to take a step here and say that I don't believe that anarchism can work, at least not without massive changes to human conciousness or a depopulation that virtually ensures that there is more than enough land for anyone to take what they want. The intention of relegating the power to the states was to ensure that like-minded individuals retained some semblance of control over their property, and to address the threats inherent to their environment. The decentralization of power ensured that if any state government were to become too dictatorial, that the people could leave and prosper in other states without the same problems. There were methods of establishing new states, and even states leaving the Union when other states became oppressive and misguided. It was a far cry from the kingdoms and empires of previous centuries.

The Constitution isn't perfect, and it never was. Hell, the founders even stated specifically that it was "a MORE perfect union" and that they understood the difficulties that could arise, and so instituted measures to ensure that proper adjustments could be made.

I think it's unfair to broadly label "blind following" of the Constitution with statism without coming out and just saying that you think the Constitution is a statist document. Call the kettle black if you see it that way. Blind following is also a nice buzzword, right up there with "fundamentalism" and the commonly misused "freedom" and "rights" that we all complain about.

Also, one more thing about the Constitution. It didn't ALLOW the states to do anything. It doesn't defend the rights of states to do anything either. It outlines what the states can and cannot expect of their fellow states. The States created the Constitution to bond them together in a social compact to ensure mutual understanding. States were originally free to leave, and the new lands of the west were free to join or not at their own decision.

Once you have a good federal republic going, then you are correct in the issues at large being in state governments. The entire purpose for that was to prevent a larger authority from dictating the rules. Smaller and weaker dictators are better than huge ones, which carried out to the logical conclusion descends to individual liberty. The Constitution was the largest auspice of the necessity for commonality, but the founders definitely viewed power on the smallest possible level as the approach of choice.

The Constitution, along with original intent, are a powerful tool for individual liberty, but we have to remember that it's just a tool. Intent makes the bargain. Saying that believing in the Constitution is statist because it can be misused by statists is like saying that gun ownership is for statists because dictators use guns. Again, as far as "blind faith" in anything goes, I don't think you can make a good argument to blindly follow ANYTHING, so I don't see the point to that language other than to incite opposition.

Good piece Matt.

The Preamble, Seven Articles and first ten amendements (The Bill of Rights) are the original pieces of the Constitution.  It can be amended and has been amended 17 times.  Some of these amendments have abrogated the original liberties protected in the Constitution as originally ratified.  Examples include the 16th amendment which gives the federal government power to take your earnings before you receive them (federal income tax), the 14th amendment which has been used as excuse for unlimited federal authority over the states, and the 17th amendment which established election of US senators via popular vote instead of through the state legislature.

So "Restoring the Republic" via "Respecting the Constitution" is not completely possible.

I have to agree with Preston. I think a lot of the debate over belief in the Constitution is misrepresented, most likely through ignorance. Most libertarian Constitutionalists (ex. Michael Badnarik) are fans of the original incarnation and not so much of the amendments that followed. It's as unfair as holding all women responsible for the overreach of feminism (which I sometimes do when I get frustrated).

"Opposition to the drug war and victimless crimes is bread-and-butter 'minarchism', yet these policies could be enforced by state governments under the Constitution."

Like I said, the Constitution isn't perfect. It probably SHOULD protect people from victimless crime, but that is one of the oversights that the Framer's predicted could happen, and thereby included an amendment process. I do think your opinion in this case is somewhat shortsighted, in that you're arguing that the Constitution isn't a powerful ENOUGH federal document. 

The sentence I quoted seems ambiguous to me. Are you saying that most minarchists support victimless crime and drug prosecution? I don't find that to be the case. I'd also note that the drug war started long after the government stopped caring what the Constitution had to say, and that constitutionality decided by the Supreme Court was at that point basically worthless.

What I think everyone is alluding to but not hitting directly is what the US Constitution was designed to do. As stated in earlier comments, it was designed as a pact between the states to create a federal government. Though I know I will catch flac for this, but it is very similar to the idea of the UN. Soverign states cede portions of their powers to a body that is comprised of their representatives.

The problem only arises in the interpretation. For example, for about 200 years it was generally accepted that the federal government could not legislate economic decisions other than directly express in article 1 section 8. It was understood that generally, that one of the powers the federal government had economically was to enforce contracts, and that part of your 14th amendments liberties included the liberty to contract for what ever labor under any conditions. This was known as the Lochner Era.  Yet with the rise of the elected monarch FDR the supreme court under political pressure changed that by expanding the interpretation of the commerce clause, and once the flood gates were open it seemed as if we cannot stop the overflow of government influence in the economy.

Again I could ramble on and on about the Unifide Executive theory or Alcohol prohibition, but I'm sure you all have heard these arguements over and over again. So the problem lies not entirely with the document, despite its flaws, but with those who have been elected or appointed to interperete that document.  We have allowed a group of 9 people with a simple majority vote determine what our countries most important document means. These people are appointed by the head of the nation, so we should not be surprised that they tend to fall on the side of tyranny rather than liberty. This is by far one of its most dramatic flaws, it doesn't give instructions on how to use it. There is no part that states the SCOTUS is the final authority of the constitution, that was just carved out by them.  Its like giving a lego set to a child without the instructions on how to build the spaceship. If you let the child try it on their own, I doubt a spaceship will come out of the random set of pieces he sees. Therefor it is our faults for not being the watchful eyes, for not understanding this document, and for allowing those with silver tongues lully the giant of the American individual asleep with promises of gum drops and candy canes.

As the old Lysander Spooner quote states about interpretation, "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." I do not believe it needs to be abolished as Spooner believes but he does point to the big picture about the constitution. It has allowed the rise of out current government whether by its design or its mishaps. For a government of, for, and by the people, as we are lead to believe, it is because of the peoples lack of understanding of this document that has allowed levithan to grow. Its too bad not everyone can attend a Badnarik class.

There are a few other issues to deal with within this topic as well. Under a complete confederal system, where states had the power during the reign of the Articles of Confederation, the colonies faced issues of self-defense and having enough unity to be a formidable power on the world stage. This is where the constitution came in. If we had stayed in this status, what would have happened to our country? Would we have been able to defend ourselves against world powers? With a lack of national unity, would states have been at war consistently?

While states rights was a central issue to the Civil War, so was race. In the south, an entire group of people was treated as less than human. If states were given more power than the federal government, this very well could have stayed this way. If states have the final say on abortion, gay marriage, etc., then wouldn't they have the final say on things like race and slavery?

Don't take this personally, just playing devils advocate. I'm just wondering what would happen if states were left to govern themselves with minimal federal intrusion. What kind of evils could they succumb to? The idea is that with the states having more power, people could influence their government more than if it was the over-arching power of the federal government. But what if all the people like the idea of killing homosexuals?

The Constitution did establish rules for the states to follow regarding the life and liberty of their citizenry. The Bill of Rights outlined these requirements for the protection of individuals. I think the issue of abortion is comparable to slavery, but gay marriage is something altogether different. 

With our nation's founding, the humanity of blacks was in question enough that their status was not guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Constitution was intentionally left vague enough that they could be included later. The "right to life" movement is similar in this respect, as unborn children are viewed as individual lives by some, and as a potential inconvenience by others.  Until their humanity is established, Constitutional protections are not afforded them.

Gay marriage is a ridiculous problem stemming from the ridiculous call for marriage licensing originating in giving state permission for interracial coupling in the mid 1800s. Homosexuals are asking for the right to have their partnerships equally infringed upon by government, which I find laughable, as do some of my gay friends. Perhaps there's some value in society accepting your personal quirks, but I see state validation of gay marriage as about as important as a state decree stating that Star Wars is better than Star Trek (which it is). Even I agree with the sentiment, it's still asking for more government intrusion in our personal lives. Ask and you shall receive.

I would like to recommend Stephan Kinsella's "What Libertarianism Is" because it refocuses some of our discussions on how libertarian philosophy is not an either-or choice between state and chaos.  Anarchy, unlike one of the posters above, simply means "no ruler," and is not synonymous with chaos.  

The idea that we need somebody else to enforce our rules on others is in violation of Kinsella's discussion of the non-aggression axiom, which simply means that one ought not (moral, not legal, proscription) to use force (direct, through physical violence, or indirect, through representational violence) to deprive another person of their life, their liberty, or their property without just cause...

(read more at my blog!)

“Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.”

-Murray Rothbard

I tend to agree with Rothbard. Hence my problem to the constitution. I feel that our founding fathers had the best intentions at heart, but were too blinded by monarchistic life to envision a truly free society. The constitution serves as a good platform against monarchy and dictatorships, but we should take it a step further. We don't need government or a piece of paper to tell us how to come together in a voluntary society. This happens naturally. Force, coercion and monopolistic control of govt only hurt the voluntary order humans naturally are guided towards. Economic law creates incentives for us to work together and increase standards of living for all even if we are after our own selfish ends.

I can understand the views of Minarchist as I use to be one myself. After reading about anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, free market anarchy, I realized that my constitutionalist views were also somewhat misguided and limited by tradition and belief in propagandist views that I was indoctrinated with in public school. Most of our founding fathers were not the freedom lovers I once thought they were. They were too blinded by the traditions of monarchy/dictatorships to envision what a truly free society is.  Less than five years after the ratification of the constitution all hope was lost with the debate between Jefferson and Hamilton on central banks.  I think this shows the short-sightedness of our founding fathers (with the exception of Jefferson and a few others). The constitution failed to protect us from statism. IMO it led us down the road of statism less than five years after it was adopted.

The problems start rising when there IS just cause, but individuals lack the ability to enforce the defense of their own property. In the same way that other nations do not strike the U.S. for our incursions in small, unallied nations in the Middle East, in an anarchist society the sins of the strong on the weak will not be opposed.

The non-aggression principle will only be successful in a society where everyone follows the rules, and does so without fear of retribution. In such a society, the government would stagnate and die from disuse and people would demand it's abolishment. This, however, is not the case. Many people support government, and I don't expect this to change in my lifetime, or probably in 10 lifetimes from now. At best, an idea for an orderly anarchic society should be reasoned out and shelved as a contingency plan for when it's called upon by a significant amount of the population, at LEAST a majority. Until such time as that organization can be processed, the power of a superior state will destroy any free people.

For a real world test, go create a free state (or nation, or organization, or whatever you call your society). Before you get excited about a compound in upstate New Hampshire, lets lay out a few ground rules, that make sense even to people who want governance. You benefit from the statist military protection while inside these borders, whether you like it or not, so that's a bad philosophical test. Instead, choose a country that already has next to no government. Set up your society, free from requirements of governed civilization, and pretty soon, if you're right in your predictions, everyone will want to be like you. As for my predictions, once you have attained anything of value, it will likely be stolen by those who would like to have it, so unless you are all willing to personally die for your beliefs or are willing to outfit and pay soldiers full time wages (which really amounts to much more than you think) your society will be plundered, quickly (and without moral right! for shame!) and surely. 

I dig anarchism, in theory. Communism sounds pretty good in theory too. The problem is, both can be successful, but only if you have near total compliance to the doctrines proscribed. Communist nations have "solved" that problem by killing anyone who didn't comply, but as of yet anarchists haven't reasoned out a way to ensure compliance without force, and so do not have the society they wish to have. Some people will say "but anarchism has happened! and it worked!" but then fail to mention that those nations no longer exist, because they were dominated, murdered, or enslaved sometime (usually soon) thereafter. Their principles did not save them, and they lacked the tenacity to defend their beliefs with their lives. Freedom breeds decadence, and decadents tend to take the approach that half at the barrel of a gun is better than death, which I see as perfectly reasonable. Much better to define that gun on your terms, if at all possible.

Actually I was referring to the Polish/Lithuanian Golden period where they dismantled their military, vetoed basically every act of their impotent government, only to be conquered by forces from the outside. 

Also, I'm all for an opt-out clause being issued to people. If I were a state governor, I would call for  all people not wanting government services to announce themselves, and allow them to stop paying taxes. You'll have to pay a fee to use government roads, and will be required to install a GPS tracking device to measure the miles of use. I would also place at the edge of your property a sign stating that no crimes committed against you or your property will be punishable by law. Theft, vandalism, arson, even rape and murder will no longer be punishable by government. Even when you leave your property, the government will not prosecute attacks on you, though in state controlled areas you will be required to relinquish your firearm, as you are not a citizen of the state in question, and are not on your own property. You will otherwise be free to live your life as you wish.

For the rest, they must sign an agreement to sell* their property to the state, and outline a permanent leasing program wherein they agree to pay all taxes and fees or face eviction. Once the government essentially becomes the legally contracted land owner of all property, what validates the claim that they are violating your freedom? They would now be exercising control over their own property. We can now move past the problems of who owns what, and set out to make the government as positive as we can. 

You can make a claim for legitimate ownership of allodial property in some areas, but take the Louisiana Purchase and the following land claims by the United States. They issued an offer of 40 acres and a mule for Americans to settle that land, and required that those people BE American (read: social contract) and work the land to improve its value. They made an agreement. What invalidates that agreement today? Technically, most land West of the Mississippi is perpetually owned by the government, unless a prior claim can be made. Also, before anyone gets up in arms about Native Americans, remember that they were constantly at war for land (not for fences and traditional borders, but for hunting grounds and water rights) and that their claim is really no more legitimate than any other "might is right" force.

*Note: This is all based on the belief that you actually OWN the property you now claim, and that your claim is more valid than the government's claim to that land. I think most governments view all land as inherently belonging to the government and the occupiers of said land to be permanent lease holders. 

"Roads have been in existence long before government. To say that only govt can provide roads is historically inaccurate."

- I didn't say that you couldn't build your own roads. Go right ahead. However, in this situation, the government would require you to follow their rules (as property owners) of said roads in order for you to utilize the ones already in existence. If you don't like the statement that the government "owns" the roads, then consider the government a property manager from this point forward. As to the government's behavior of tracking you, that's the cost of doing business. The compromise for freedom is that you can opt out if you don't like the rules. If you agree to an oppressive contract, that doesn't invalidate the contract.

"If I opt out I do not loose the right to seek damages to my person or property."

I totally agree. You have the right to seek damages to your person and property. However, by opting out, the government is no longer responsible for providing those services, and the sign at the edge of your property is simply to notify those still under the aegis of government that you are not, and are not afforded the same protections that citizens of the nation are afforded, like state police and courts. You retain the right to protect your property in any way you see fit, so long as it does not interfere with the nation or its citizens.

"Reliquishing my property to the state means that you think the state grants people rights."

Not true. The state doesn't grant you your rights, those are natural, or God-given, depending on your background. However, the state does afford you certain privileges of citizenship, namely police forces and courts. No one is naturally responsible for giving you a fair trial, because without government or contracts there would be no authority for a court system.  People must treat you fairly as individuals and should not seek to impose their will on unwilling people. Only when you violate another's rights (even if the person has given those rights to someone else to protect, ala government) can you be held accountable for your actions by another.

"How can govt be positive if it continues to use force and coercion? How can it be positive if it violated individual rights? How can it be positibe if it does not allow for individual free choice? Sounds like you think government grants individuals their rights. "

The government's actions prior to this procedure are immoral, in that they use force and coercion to make people submit to the government system. However, once an option to leave the system is arranged, and remaining relies completely upon a new social contract to which each person must agree, then your rights have not been violated. You have either agreed to leave the auspice of government operated territory, or you agree to stay, and sign a contract. The government doesn't have to afford you any privileges if you refuse to take responsibility for providing for those privileges. In the same way that you must pay for insurance if you expect them to cover your expenses, and that once you are afforded credit you are expected to pay it back, signing on to the government's privilege plan requires certain costs and conditions to be placed on you. You have a free choice. If you don't like the contract, THEN DON'T SIGN.

You accused me of thinking the government grants rights to people three times. I'll say it explicitly, no government grants rights to anyone. As property owner, government is afforded certain rights of ownership, and as renters citizens give up some of their rights in order to be afforded certain privileges. This would be both the motivation and the justification for the government requiring transfer of allodial title (which they technically already have in almost all cases) and an issuance of title to citizens, which is virtually ownership in every way save for their requirement to abide by their social contract. 

"If I improved my property with my own labor, am I not entitled to keep that property from my own use?"

Yes, you are entitled to keep the property that you improved with your own labor. On the other hand, if you improve the property of someone else, you are NOT entitled to keep the property. It was never yours. The fact that you added value to it MAYBE implies that you have a stake equal to the added value, but you don't own the original property. I say this because in the United States, the definition of who owns what property and under what conditions is GREATLY in question. If I sell you property that I don't own, do you really own it? Who determines the true owner? I pose that for a majority of our nation, that fact is in dispute. You may claim to own your property, but the government may claim it as theirs as well. This is a question I have asked may voluntarists and anarchists, without receiving adequate response, so please answer it if you can: 

How do we determine what property belongs to what person, and what justification do you claim for the authority to make that judgement?

You are so right about this. You cannot get caught up in this debate. There is definitely too much going on with this to debate it.

Florida Answering Service

This is the first time that i ever heard of something like this. There definitely needs to be more changes with this in the future. This will work with the right people.

network services orlando florida