wrote:

Dude,
So how, specifically, am I wrong? ****, I agree with most of
what you posted. But you're the one who said individual liberty was the
prime directive. I simply ask you to explain how that is consistent
with contradictory evidence from the founding documents and history or
our nation. Nothing you have posted has addressed those issues. It's
not that my skull doesn't want to be cracked....to the contrary, I find
it to be a liberating experience....it's just that, so far, you haven't
really tried.



"[T]he Constitution which the new American nation was to give itself was
definitely meant not merely as a regulation of the derivation of power but as a
constitution of liberty, a constitution that would protect the individual
against all arbitrary coercion."
-- F. A. Hayek, _The Constitition of Liberty_, p182


You don't need to believe Prof. Hayek, Abe Lincoln, Prof. Levy, Prof.
Barnett, or me. In the end you must convince yourself--you need to crack your
own skull--before a mob-o-crat does it for you. I've pointed to material
that I think is quite good for evaluating the question raised. While I'd like
to go on and on (simply to annoy Ken, if for no other reason), I think this post
is the end for me here.



1. There is no "contradictory evidence." The entire structure of government
outlined in the Constitution was for the explicit purpose of checks and balances
and to *limit the powers of government*. Why do you think this was so
(limits)? Could the FF's just have wanted to be assholes and make things hard
to do--hard to get things accomplished? The Constitution *reeks* of liberty
when you look at the structure of government it creates, and it says so right in
the preamble that is what they were doing. Why do you think that the FF's again
and again stated (for example in the Federalist Papers) that they were forming a
*free* government, a *limited* government. Again, *free government* means a
government created _by the people_ for securing their freedom. If you think it
is something else, you need to say what it is. The *limited* government is a
fact of the document: that is what the Constitution created. It is limited for
a specific reason: to sustain freedom as best possible by limiting power. _It
reeks of freedom_. (And then there are those troublesome Bill of Rights,
including that dastardly 9th, Madison's comments about it, and the entire dialog
regarding whether or not they should be enumerated.)


2. The history aspect is a red herring. Of course the ideals weren't practiced
to fidelity through time. The Constitution was not perfect in laying them down
(the FF's weren't perfect) and nor are/were the people making laws and
interpreting them thereafter--that's life, people aren't perfect. Basically,
history proves people have problems. So what else is new?

Also, the history argument can cut the other way to: our people are quite free,
all in all after 200+ years--so the Constitution has worked fairly well, even
with problems acknowledged. In some ways, freer now than 200 years ago. Many
have the political liberty of voting, who didn't 200 years ago. Some peoples
were enslaved 200 years ago, but none now.

3. The Declaration and Federalist Papers "don't count" because they aren't the
Rule of Law themselves, is again misleading. Of course they aren't the law--but
to say they "don't count" flies in the face of actual fact. You can probably
find 100 Supreme Court cases where the Declaration is mentioned in the
decision. (That doesn't say anything about the actual understanding of it
expressed in those decisions--remember, people aren't perfect.) The Federalist
Papers are studied (by lawyers and Supreme Court justices) for the express
purpose of understanding the Constitution, when determining constitutionality of
*specific* laws--laws subordinate to the general law of liberty. As a more
extreme example of history and constitutionality questions, note that in Roe v.
Wade history of abortion in ancient times was presented as evidence!: "Our task,
of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of
emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do,
we have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and
medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward
the abortion procedure over the centuries. ... 1. Ancient attitudes. ... We are
also told, however, that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the
Roman Era, 9 and that 'it was resorted to without scruple.'" There was also
historical consideration of "the quickening," and this had nothing to do with
the constitution in any explicit way. You can look it up. In short,
documents such as the Declaration and Federalist Papers most certainly do
"count" in constitutionality questions, even though they are indeed not "code."

I'm not making a judgment of the "rightness" of these historical studies in any
specific way; I'm simply saying that constitutionality questions may in part be
considered by historical study rather than some explicit coding requirement
(which you seem to hinge on). And again, history post-Constitution may indeed
contradict the notion of liberty--this does not change the precept, but instead
simply calls out judicial and legislative error. I claim a loss of this
fundamental notion of liberty would destroy the Consitution and the free
goverment that it built, by definition. Professor Barnett is in agreement with
me and he wrote an entire book on that subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If US citizens don't know what they inherited, they will lose it. The nation
was founded upon the precept of liberty. It would be unfortunate if folks had
to learn the hard way (again) how liberty *promotes* the causes of peace and
prosperity. Let's hope folks can crack their own skulls (figurative) before a
tyrant does it for them (literal).



"Of all checks on democracy, federalism has been the most efficacious and the
most congenial.... The Federal system limits and restrains sovereign power by
dividing it, and by assigning to Government only certain defined rights. It is
the only method of curbing not only the majority but the power of the whole
people, and it affords the strongest basis for a second chamber, which has been
found essential security for freedom in every genuine democracy."
-- Lord Acton, _History of Freedom_, p98


"Another recurring feature which to present readers will appear to be no more
than a rhetorical flourish but to the men of the time was very important is the
appeal to 'the fundamental principles of a free government' which several of the
constitutions contain and the repeated reminder that 'a frequent recurrency to
fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessing of
liberty.'"
-- F. A. Hayek, _The Constitition of Liberty_, p183


If nothing else, think about it for a while.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Preemptive Pappy training tune strike:

"In a world where people have problems," as if there was a world where they
don't. LOL


NO COMPASSION -- Talking Heads


In a world
Where people have problems
In this world
Where decisions are a way of life
Other people’s problems they overwhelm my mind
They say compassion is a virtue, but I don’t have the time

So many people...have their problems
I’m not interested...in their problems
I guess I’ve...experienced some problems
But now I’ve...made some decisions
Takes a lot of time to push away the nonsense
Take my compassion...push it as far as it goes
My interest level’s dropping, my interest level is dropping
I’ve heard all I want to, I don’t want to hear any more

What are you, in love with your problems?
I think you take it...a little too far
It’s...not so cool to have so many problems
But don’t expect me to explain your indecisions
Go...talk to your analyst, isn’t that what they’re paid for
You walk, you talk...you still function like you used to
It’s not a question...of your personality or style
Be a little more selfish, it might do you some good

In a world where people have problems
In this world where decisions are a way of life
Other people’s problems, they overwhelm my mind
They say compassion is a virtue, but I don’t have the time
(here we go again)