Re: Food, Clothing,Shelter should be controlled by government.
No More Parchment Worship!
by Jeremy Sapienza
Iím sick of hearing debates about the Constitution! It protects us from government abuse, itís a social contract, itís a living document, itís not a living document...
Who cares? Itís a set of conduct forced on Americans by fiat, no different from any other. Itís simply a matter of degree. Is a government "controlled" by a document such as our Constitution better than one based on Communist ideology? Sure, no debate. But they are similar still because they are both governments; they are both institutionalized force. The very concept of a controlling document, a set of laws to be foisted upon a people in a geographic area by an empowered elite, is so obscene to me that I can see no moral difference between the basis of one government or another. The governments of both Cuba and the United States are equally illegitimate in my eyes.
Now, I wouldnít mind having a government that actually adhered to the principles in the Constitution, but this is just because it would be a lesser evil. Constitutionality and liberty should not be used as synonyms, just as "freedom from fearí is not a freedom. Most of the principles in the Constitution are perfectly valid, and are just the outline of the natural rights of men. These need neither moral defense nor codification; they are rights, no matter how and by whom they are enforced. The American Constitution in this instance is redundant, and unnecessary.
But even if Americaís founding documents were absolutely flawless in their framing of human rights, how are they to be morally enforced? Since Iím an anarchist, I have to say that no code should be forced on anyone against their will, except to act with decency toward and respect the rights of their neighbors. So the Constitution is again shown to be a redundancy, a scrap of paper used by intellectuals and bureaucrats to control the masses, and which serves as a vessel for the future growth of totalitarianism.
I also believe, as did Lysander Spooner, that the Constitution is not a binding contract. As someone who works in real estate, I know that a contract is not valid without both a signature, and a set of dates (start and finish).
The signature is of incredible importance because in order to be bound by a contract, you need to place yourself in a responsible position, accepting all terms of the contract. No other person can give you a responsibility, you have to place it upon yourself. Therefore, an original signature is required to prove that you have agreed to and are binding yourself to a set of rules, obligations, or principles. The Constitution has not been signed by anyone living today.
A contract must have a start date and an end date in order to be valid. It is impossible to draw out an automatically renewing contract because all binding documents have a time period during which their terms are active. This time period may be from one point in time, to the end of one partyís life, or even beyond. But a period of time for the validity of the contract must be set out. The Constitution has no beginning date and no end date.
The Constitution is invalid. And because it has no date, it didnít even bind the few men that did sign it.
So knock it off with all the self-righteous blathering about our "lost" Constitution. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and every other political group is guilty of this stupid parchment-worship.
And even if I agree with many of the principles in the Constitution, this doesnít mean that we should all be ruled by the edicts of a bunch of rich men from the 18th century. Conservatives and libertarians shouldnít be agonizing over the Leftís hijacking of the Constitution. By its nature as a government fiat, it is susceptible to perversion by the group whose ideology most relies on the strength of the State.
Itís frightening that the dominant paradigm in the conservative and libertarian movements views the Constitution as the moral value, when it should instead be freedom itself.