Okay, I’ve had my fun and let my hair down, in my previous post, and made fun of candidates’ names while criticizing their policies, and so on. But now it’s time to get serious again. It’s Christmas (as George H.W. Bush once said).
In a post on the Mises blog, Ryan McMaken says that the Bill of Rights is the only good part of the U.S. Constitution. However, the wording of some of the Amendments is terrible and vague, in my view. He gives a suggestion for a one-paragraph Constitution, and even that I disagree with. I don’t even think there should be a federal government. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe pointed out, smaller states are better than larger more centralized ones. Centralization is a very bad and dangerous thing. Statists and collectivists tend to favor larger, centralized regimes to rule over them. That’s because they like being slaves and prisoners of the central-planning criminal bureaucrats.
One big problem with Ryan McMaken’s suggested Constitution is that it would seem to presume that all those living within the jurisdiction covered by such a Constitution would be in voluntary agreement with it. As I wrote in an article in 2010, Lysander Spooner observed that the U.S. Constitution’s “contractual obligations” applied to only those who actually signed it. And even if it applied to all those living in the U.S. at the time (albeit some involuntarily), it couldn’t have applied to those of future generations. Spooner noted that
only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now…. It is not only plainly impossible…. that they Could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them…. the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity…
I actually don’t mind requiring the government and its employees to operate under the Constitution. However, I think that also what Spooner should be referring to here are the legislative diktats being fabricated by corrupt sleazebags in Washington and forced on the people who do not consent to such intrusions imposed on them.
But if anyone MUST obey the U.S. Constitution, it’s the aforementioned bureaucrats and their enforcers. They swore an oath to obey the Constitution. Even though the Constitution’s rules are regarding the federal regime in Washington, even local police and state government bureaucrats swear an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution as well as their state constitutions. I will not get into just how many government “workers” no longer actually obey the U.S. Constitution. Bureaucrats such as FBI, NSA and so on constantly rationalize how their criminally breaking the law of the land is necessary to “protect the people,” such as from terrorism, from drugs, from this or that. But the Constitution they swore to obey doesn’t give exceptions to its rules. If you want to search someone’s person, property or effects you must have a reason to suspect him of something illegal, and you must be specific as far as what you are looking for, and you must get a warrant signed by a judge. But no more. The bureaucrats and their enforcers now act criminally against the people, and with impunity.
I’m for total decentralization and privatization of everything. In that way, no one will be above the law, as currently government bureaucrats and their enforcers are. In the current situation, government bureaucrats and their enforcers ARE the law. Not good for the rest of us schleps.