Anarcho-Capitalism

[HuskerJen]

All those prove is that you can convince someone of nearly anything if you ramble long enough and use enough circular logic. Comparing physics to morals is quite possibly the most asinine thing I have ever seen.

 

You mean like liberals and their claim of global warming?

 

(Sorry I know that's off topic but I just couldn't resist.)

claim? liberals? are you kidding?

 

since when is global warming a political agenda, for or against? it's scientifically proven.

 

you just don't want to stop polluting.

 

Thanks for the laugh. Global warming isn't a political agenda...

 

We need to start another thread if you seriously want to debate this topic.

 

Although there is no debate...global warming is a bigger fraud than Hillary Clinton's claim that she evaded gunfire during an overseas trip prior to the '08 election.

[huskerjack23]

maybe for the right who think that the world is finite, bound to end in the next 20 years, justifying any kind of anti-environmental policy.

 

just because you believe in god and the apocalypse doesn't mean you can treat the earth like a hooker.

[sarge87]

maybe for the right who think that the world is finite, bound to end in the next 20 years, justifying any kind of anti-environmental policy.

 

just because you believe in god and the apocalypse doesn't mean you can treat the earth like a hooker.

[huzkerbob]

maybe for the right who think that the world is finite, bound to end in the next 20 years, justifying any kind of anti-environmental policy.

 

just because you believe in god and the apocalypse doesn't mean you can treat the earth like a hooker.

 

[SOCALHUSKER]

1. How can you say that a "government", which is supposed to protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, is not flawed, when the only way that it can come into existence is through coercion, force and a loss of personal freedom. 2. Does that contradiction not sound like a flaw to you? Sure, you could have voluntary collective societies but '"government" is not that. 3. It isn't voluntary and it doesn't care if you disagree. It coerces people into paying taxes to support its very existence and then forces the subjects to abide by it's rules. What about the protection and promotion of liberty? 4. Does government forget it's sole purpose once it's imposed? If that's not flawed I don't know what is.

 

The point is: Is government voluntary? Is government fair/just? Does it protect freedom? Does it promote personal responsiblity? Does it promote morality? Does it promote prosperity? Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Does it even produce anything? If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of government?

 

5. (carlfense- your are right about it being a theoretical system, but unlike socialism, it's a logical theory based on history, praxeology/psychology and sound economics.)

 

1. Who said the sole purpose of government was to protect personal freedoms? Are you forgetting about national security and preserving domestic law and order?

 

2. No it does not. Many governments (unfortunately not most) are chosen by the people they govern. Your scary "coercion, force, and loss of personal freedom" phrase is empty. Provide some facts if you want to argue that.

 

3. Actually, it is voluntary in most places. It's voluntary in that if you don't like the rules of a certain place you have the option to move somewhere that has laws that you prefer. Also, it does care if you disagree, because you can change the government through democracy.

 

4. Again, the sole purpose of the government is NOT to protect personal freedom. That is one purpose, but it's balanced with the other purposes. See number 1.

 

5. That's a weak response. You are essentially saying "Yeah, Marxism (I wasn't talking about socialism) was a theoretical system that didn't work out. A/C on the other hand . . . is also a theoretical system, but this one WILL work out!" Read up on your Karl Marx. He makes a very logical and convincing argument about why his political system will work . . . it just turns out that he was completely wrong. I see A/C similarly. It's a decent idea in theory, but there is no way it would work in the real world.

 

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? A little refresher...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

So yes, its sole purpose is to protect the rights of the people. Some people, like yourself, consent that in order to meet those ends, security and domestic law must be placed in the hands of the ruler. What about the people who don't consent? You say they should move or change the government, but why should they move and what if they have no interest in ruling over others? Is it not coercion to force them to comply your way?

 

All that comes from government is a loss of freedom, definitely not the protection or promotion of it.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I read several of them. They are only obliquely relevant to the questions posed. Do you have any real answers to the questions I asked? Or do you just have more articles about libertarianism? (which is odd because I thought we were talking about A/C) Anyways. I still think that A/C is interesting in theory but not practical or possible. Either way I guess it's interesting.

 

Anarcho-Capitalism is libertarianism in its purest form. The reason I posted the articles is because they go much further into detail than what I could sum up in a post. Some of the questions you ask and arguments you refute, require the use of an outside source and research. Why would I not continue to show you the truth in the easiest way possible? If that requires pointing to another's work, so be it. Fair?!?!?

[huskerjack23]

1. How can you say that a "government", which is supposed to protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, is not flawed, when the only way that it can come into existence is through coercion, force and a loss of personal freedom. 2. Does that contradiction not sound like a flaw to you? Sure, you could have voluntary collective societies but '"government" is not that. 3. It isn't voluntary and it doesn't care if you disagree. It coerces people into paying taxes to support its very existence and then forces the subjects to abide by it's rules. What about the protection and promotion of liberty? 4. Does government forget it's sole purpose once it's imposed? If that's not flawed I don't know what is.

 

The point is: Is government voluntary? Is government fair/just? Does it protect freedom? Does it promote personal responsiblity? Does it promote morality? Does it promote prosperity? Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Does it even produce anything? If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of government?

 

5. (carlfense- your are right about it being a theoretical system, but unlike socialism, it's a logical theory based on history, praxeology/psychology and sound economics.)

 

1. Who said the sole purpose of government was to protect personal freedoms? Are you forgetting about national security and preserving domestic law and order?

 

2. No it does not. Many governments (unfortunately not most) are chosen by the people they govern. Your scary "coercion, force, and loss of personal freedom" phrase is empty. Provide some facts if you want to argue that.

 

3. Actually, it is voluntary in most places. It's voluntary in that if you don't like the rules of a certain place you have the option to move somewhere that has laws that you prefer. Also, it does care if you disagree, because you can change the government through democracy.

 

4. Again, the sole purpose of the government is NOT to protect personal freedom. That is one purpose, but it's balanced with the other purposes. See number 1.

 

5. That's a weak response. You are essentially saying "Yeah, Marxism (I wasn't talking about socialism) was a theoretical system that didn't work out. A/C on the other hand . . . is also a theoretical system, but this one WILL work out!" Read up on your Karl Marx. He makes a very logical and convincing argument about why his political system will work . . . it just turns out that he was completely wrong. I see A/C similarly. It's a decent idea in theory, but there is no way it would work in the real world.

 

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? A little refresher...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

So yes, its sole purpose is to protect the rights of the people. Some people, like yourself, consent that in order to meet those ends, security and domestic law must be placed in the hands of the ruler. What about the people who don't consent? You say they should move or change the government, but why should they move and what if they have no interest in ruling over others? Is it not coercion to force them to comply your way?

 

All that comes from government is a loss of freedom, definitely not the protection or promotion of it.

they'd have even less freedom in a free-market system. you said yourself that it punishes those who are lazy.

[SOCALHUSKER]

1. How can you say that a "government", which is supposed to protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, is not flawed, when the only way that it can come into existence is through coercion, force and a loss of personal freedom. 2. Does that contradiction not sound like a flaw to you? Sure, you could have voluntary collective societies but '"government" is not that. 3. It isn't voluntary and it doesn't care if you disagree. It coerces people into paying taxes to support its very existence and then forces the subjects to abide by it's rules. What about the protection and promotion of liberty? 4. Does government forget it's sole purpose once it's imposed? If that's not flawed I don't know what is.

 

The point is: Is government voluntary? Is government fair/just? Does it protect freedom? Does it promote personal responsiblity? Does it promote morality? Does it promote prosperity? Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Does it even produce anything? If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of government?

 

5. (carlfense- your are right about it being a theoretical system, but unlike socialism, it's a logical theory based on history, praxeology/psychology and sound economics.)

 

1. Who said the sole purpose of government was to protect personal freedoms? Are you forgetting about national security and preserving domestic law and order?

 

2. No it does not. Many governments (unfortunately not most) are chosen by the people they govern. Your scary "coercion, force, and loss of personal freedom" phrase is empty. Provide some facts if you want to argue that.

 

3. Actually, it is voluntary in most places. It's voluntary in that if you don't like the rules of a certain place you have the option to move somewhere that has laws that you prefer. Also, it does care if you disagree, because you can change the government through democracy.

 

4. Again, the sole purpose of the government is NOT to protect personal freedom. That is one purpose, but it's balanced with the other purposes. See number 1.

 

5. That's a weak response. You are essentially saying "Yeah, Marxism (I wasn't talking about socialism) was a theoretical system that didn't work out. A/C on the other hand . . . is also a theoretical system, but this one WILL work out!" Read up on your Karl Marx. He makes a very logical and convincing argument about why his political system will work . . . it just turns out that he was completely wrong. I see A/C similarly. It's a decent idea in theory, but there is no way it would work in the real world.

 

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? A little refresher...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

So yes, its sole purpose is to protect the rights of the people. Some people, like yourself, consent that in order to meet those ends, security and domestic law must be placed in the hands of the ruler. What about the people who don't consent? You say they should move or change the government, but why should they move and what if they have no interest in ruling over others? Is it not coercion to force them to comply your way?

 

All that comes from government is a loss of freedom, definitely not the protection or promotion of it.

they'd have even less freedom in a free-market system. you said yourself that it punishes those who are lazy.

 

Yes, I suppose if you considered accountability and self responsiblility to be punishment you could say that. However, since this is the basis of your argument you must also agree that it is ok to both steal and kill. Since in order to feed, clothe, and house the lazy in any society, the fruits of labor must be stolen from others to pay for it and if you resist you pay with your life. Now that sounds like freedom to me!!

[carlfense]

1. How can you say that a "government", which is supposed to protect and promote the freedoms of individuals, is not flawed, when the only way that it can come into existence is through coercion, force and a loss of personal freedom. 2. Does that contradiction not sound like a flaw to you? Sure, you could have voluntary collective societies but '"government" is not that. 3. It isn't voluntary and it doesn't care if you disagree. It coerces people into paying taxes to support its very existence and then forces the subjects to abide by it's rules. What about the protection and promotion of liberty? 4. Does government forget it's sole purpose once it's imposed? If that's not flawed I don't know what is.

 

The point is: Is government voluntary? Is government fair/just? Does it protect freedom? Does it promote personal responsiblity? Does it promote morality? Does it promote prosperity? Does government do any job that cannot be done by the free market? Does it even produce anything? If the answer is no, then what is the purpose of government?

 

5. (carlfense- your are right about it being a theoretical system, but unlike socialism, it's a logical theory based on history, praxeology/psychology and sound economics.)

 

1. Who said the sole purpose of government was to protect personal freedoms? Are you forgetting about national security and preserving domestic law and order?

 

2. No it does not. Many governments (unfortunately not most) are chosen by the people they govern. Your scary "coercion, force, and loss of personal freedom" phrase is empty. Provide some facts if you want to argue that.

 

3. Actually, it is voluntary in most places. It's voluntary in that if you don't like the rules of a certain place you have the option to move somewhere that has laws that you prefer. Also, it does care if you disagree, because you can change the government through democracy.

 

4. Again, the sole purpose of the government is NOT to protect personal freedom. That is one purpose, but it's balanced with the other purposes. See number 1.

 

5. That's a weak response. You are essentially saying "Yeah, Marxism (I wasn't talking about socialism) was a theoretical system that didn't work out. A/C on the other hand . . . is also a theoretical system, but this one WILL work out!" Read up on your Karl Marx. He makes a very logical and convincing argument about why his political system will work . . . it just turns out that he was completely wrong. I see A/C similarly. It's a decent idea in theory, but there is no way it would work in the real world.

 

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? A little refresher...

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

So yes, its sole purpose is to protect the rights of the people. Some people, like yourself, consent that in order to meet those ends, security and domestic law must be placed in the hands of the ruler. What about the people who don't consent? You say they should move or change the government, but why should they move and what if they have no interest in ruling over others? Is it not coercion to force them to comply your way?

 

All that comes from government is a loss of freedom, definitely not the protection or promotion of it.

 

The Declaration of Independence does not outline our governmental system; the Constitution does. Of course the Declaration is going to emphasize personal liberties (actually referencing taxation) because that was our primary beef with GB. However, the actual formal outline of our government is provided by the Constitution and not the Declaration. The Constitution does not claim the solitary purpose you highlighted in the Declaration. The preamble states:

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

That is hardly the "sole purpose" that you claim for the existence of the US Government. You can't pick and choose your citations and maintain credibility...particularly when the document cited is not directly relevant.

[huskertim]

Just to add my 2 cents. Wouldn't the decentralization of power to the various states be a de facto endorsement of a "free market'" or competitve choice mechanism in regulation? Seems to me the founders of this country weren't afraid of a little competition to big brother.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

The Declaration of Independence does not outline our governmental system; the Constitution does. Of course the Declaration is going to emphasize personal liberties (actually referencing taxation) because that was our primary beef with GB. However, the actual formal outline of our government is provided by the Constitution and not the Declaration. The Constitution does not claim the solitary purpose you highlighted in the Declaration. The preamble states:

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

That is hardly the "sole purpose" that you claim for the existence of the US Government. You can't pick and choose your citations and maintain credibility...particularly when the document cited is not directly relevant.

 

First of all, nobody was arguing about the outline of our governmental system, rather the purpose of government. Secondly, the grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence were about a lot more than taxation, if that's what you think maybe you need to read or re-read it. Were the contents of the Declaration of Independence, and the King disregarding it, not the “primary beef” for starting the revolution; leading to the founding of our country and the creation of the Constitution? If anything using that document calls into credibility those you created the documents in which the founding government of this country was based upon. Did the founders not write and sign both documents? Is not the purpose of every single one of the reasons for establishing the government (a perfect union), as outlined in the Constitution, to ensure the preservation of the rights of the individual? Let’s take a look.

 

1. Establish justice = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

2. Insure domestic tranquility = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

3. Provide for the common defense = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

4. Promote the general welfare = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

5. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity = Do I even need to mention what this means?

 

If the Constitution was created for any other reason but to ensure the preservation of individual liberty doesn’t that call into question the credibility of those who wrote and signed it? This also brings about the bigger question of how can a document claim to preserve the rights of individual freedoms, when the only way it can be implemented is through the loss of freedom? When you can answer that with any logical and non-contradictory reason please feel free.

[huskerjack23]

 

The Declaration of Independence does not outline our governmental system; the Constitution does. Of course the Declaration is going to emphasize personal liberties (actually referencing taxation) because that was our primary beef with GB. However, the actual formal outline of our government is provided by the Constitution and not the Declaration. The Constitution does not claim the solitary purpose you highlighted in the Declaration. The preamble states:

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

That is hardly the "sole purpose" that you claim for the existence of the US Government. You can't pick and choose your citations and maintain credibility...particularly when the document cited is not directly relevant.

 

First of all, nobody was arguing about the outline of our governmental system, rather the purpose of government. Secondly, the grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence were about a lot more than taxation, if that's what you think maybe you need to read or re-read it. Were the contents of the Declaration of Independence, and the King disregarding it, not the “primary beef” for starting the revolution; leading to the founding of our country and the creation of the Constitution? If anything using that document calls into credibility those you created the documents in which the founding government of this country was based upon. Did the founders not write and sign both documents? Is not the purpose of every single one of the reasons for establishing the government (a perfect union), as outlined in the Constitution, to ensure the preservation of the rights of the individual? Let’s take a look.

 

1. Establish justice = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

2. Insure domestic tranquility = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

3. Provide for the common defense = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

4. Promote the general welfare = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

5. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity = Do I even need to mention what this means?

 

If the Constitution was created for any other reason but to ensure the preservation of individual liberty doesn’t that call into question the credibility of those who wrote and signed it? This also brings about the bigger question of how can a document claim to preserve the rights of individual freedoms, when the only way it can be implemented is through the loss of freedom? When you can answer that with any logical and non-contradictory reason please feel free.

which means that you're an anarchist. the founding document that gave any human on this planet the most freedom it can possibly have from a centralized government, and you say that it doesn't give enough.

 

you are a religious zealot, and your god is the invisible hand of the free market.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Just to add my 2 cents. Wouldn't the decentralization of power to the various states be a de facto endorsement of a "free market'" or competitve choice mechanism in regulation? Seems to me the founders of this country weren't afraid of a little competition to big brother.

 

It would, if there was a decentralization of power. However, this doesn’t currently exist and the question arises of how much decentralization is needed to ensure competition, choice and prosperity are maximized? The free market only works when all are fully maximized, any attempts to regulate, by any means of the government, means it is not a free market. Therefore, the only way to maximize the prosperity and liberty of the free market is to have no ruler, but only the regulation of the market. This would mean no government but only individuals making choices for themselves.

 

Don’t kid yourself into believing the inclusion of the 10th amendment to the Constitution in any way means this country is not a monopoly run by the federal government. Sure the federal government allows the states to run a little tax side business, but that’s in no way any competition to what the federal government has its hands in. In what ways are the states of any competition to federal power? From the military, to the economy, to education, to what is considered justice; the federal government runs everything. If that’s not a monopoly, than what is? It might not have been intended that way, but as with any government, growing and seizing power is done with little or no regard for past limitations on power. History proves this.

 

In the short history of this country have you actually see any decentralization of powers to the states from the federal government? Absolutely not!! If anything thing we’ve seen a pull in the opposite direction. Washington and Hamilton set the precedence right away by employing federal troops to squash the Whiskey Rebellion. Lincoln went even further during the Civil War. There is absolutely no historical evidence to prove any government relinquishes power. They go broke, they are conquered, or a revolution, peaceful or bloody, occurs. What makes you believe the US government is any different, because we have a Constitution? You only need to look at the loss of freedom that has occurred since its inception to verify it doesn’t and hasn’t worked.

 

Any freedoms conceded for the preservation or security of liberty, means you have no liberty of freedom at all. Until we realize this, we will continue down the same road, making the same mistakes, asking the same questions, voting for the same rulers and never truly living free. You jokingly brought up my affiliation to a doomsday cult, but it seems to me the only “cult” is the culture of fear, force and coercion we perpetrate with government in this country.

[carlfense]

 

The Declaration of Independence does not outline our governmental system; the Constitution does. Of course the Declaration is going to emphasize personal liberties (actually referencing taxation) because that was our primary beef with GB. However, the actual formal outline of our government is provided by the Constitution and not the Declaration. The Constitution does not claim the solitary purpose you highlighted in the Declaration. The preamble states:

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

That is hardly the "sole purpose" that you claim for the existence of the US Government. You can't pick and choose your citations and maintain credibility...particularly when the document cited is not directly relevant.

 

1. First of all, nobody was arguing about the outline of our governmental system, rather the purpose of government. Secondly, 2. the grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence were about a lot more than taxation, if that's what you think maybe you need to read or re-read it. Were 3. the contents of the Declaration of Independence, and the King disregarding it, not the “primary beef” for starting the revolution; leading to the founding of our country and the creation of the Constitution? If anything using that document calls into credibility those you created the documents in which the founding government of this country was based upon. Did the founders not write and sign both documents? 4. Is not the purpose of every single one of the reasons for establishing the government (a perfect union), as outlined in the Constitution, to ensure the preservation of the rights of the individual? Let’s take a look.

 

5. Establish justice = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

6. Insure domestic tranquility = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

7. Provide for the common defense = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

8. Promote the general welfare = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

9. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity = Do I even need to mention what this means?

 

10. If the Constitution was created for any other reason but to ensure the preservation of individual liberty doesn’t that call into question the credibility of those who wrote and signed it?

 

11. This also brings about the bigger question of how can a document claim to preserve the rights of individual freedoms, when the only way it can be implemented is through the loss of freedom?

When you can answer that with any logical and non-contradictory reason please feel free.

 

1. Who said that the declaration enumerated the purpose for the US government? It merely listed our grievances against the current ruling government, England. As far as I can recall (and I'm going from memory here) it didn't make any mention of a purpose for a new government in America, it merely stated while we were unhappy with the status quo.

 

2. Absolutely there were more grievances listed in the declaration than "taxation without representation." However, that particular grievance (taxation without representation) was absolutely the bulk of the colonists complaints. All other grievances were mere accessories to this primary complaint. Think about the purpose for the declaration. If you do that you will realize that the writers' purposes were best served by listing every single grievance they could think of, whether or not it was a huge issue to the colonists. The longer the list of grievance (real or imagined) the more impressive the document as a whole appears to the King of England and the world at large.

 

3. No. Absolutely not. The colonists complaints did not start with the declaration. The Declaration of Independence was a result of public opinion; public opinion was not a result of the Declaration. The Revolutionary War did officially begin after the Declaration, but the grievances and the threats existed long before the Declaration compiled them. What you are saying is akin to claiming the US entered WWII because FDR declared war on Japan . . . without mentioning that FDR's statement was a result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

4. NO! 1,000 times, no! Absolutely not. The Constitution (combined with the Bill of Rights) lists specific rights of the individual that are to be protected. Nowhere does it guarantee absolute personal freedom. There is no US founding document ANYWHERE that guarantees absolute personal freedom. (I challenge you, find me one, and I will support everything you are saying here even the things that I have previously argued. Good luck sir. It does not exist.) The Constitution combined with the Bill of Rights lists the freedoms that are protected by those documents; freedoms outside of those enumerated exist only with blessings of the state.

 

5. Establish Justice - A simple statement of this is that the US government will try to protect individuals from private wrongdoers. As in punish/imprison those who break the laws of the US. This requires an inherent loss of freedom for those wrongdoers. Let's go with a simple analogy: A man takes another's personal freedom by murdering him. That murderer in turn loses his freedom (assuming the justice system functions correctly). Therefore, "justice" in most cases limits freedoms to protect the specifically enumerated freedoms provided for in the USC.

 

6. Ensure domestic tranquility - see above #5. (How do you propose to establish justice and ensure tranquility without limiting freedoms in some way? i.e. punishment/fines/incarceration)

 

7. Provide for the common defense - Again . . . the base purpose of this may be to protect the freedoms listed in the constitution and bill of rights . . . but how can you fund a military that will accomplish this goal without taxing the citizens? This necessary function (defense of the people) again requires the partial relinquishment of financial freedoms of the people. We all must pay through taxes for our common defense.

 

8. Promote the general welfare - See #7. Promoting the general welfare will general require funding of some sort. Government cannot function in a vacuum. Even the most basic functions of the state will require taxation. (police, vote collection and counting, etc.)

 

9. Agreed. The Constitution is set to preserve the rights listed therein. Those rights will almost always require the relinquishment of some liberties to preserve the ones listed.

 

10. Not at all. The writers realized that the preservation of the all important rights listed in the USC and Bill of Rights required limiting or even relinquishing some other freedoms.

 

11. See above. (4-8 in particular.) The preservation of the specific rights listed in the USC and the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc. etc. etc.) The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights. There is no contradiction. The rights listed are sometimes protected at the expense of those rights not listed.

 

There is no such thing as absolute freedom SOCAL. It simply does not, and cannot exist. Even your latest poster child of anarcho-capitalism acknowledges that. (AC replaces a rule of law with a rule of finance, rather than being limited by the constraints of a democracy, AC would replace those with the constraints of financial ability.) We don't each live in a vacuum. We share the US with each other. Let's run through a quick AC example: Person A owns a tract of land. A, exercising his freedom to use the land as he pleases, builds a fence around the land. Person B wants to go onto Person A's land. Person A's fence prevents Person B from entering Person A's land. Person B's freedom is limited by Person A's exercise of his freedom to use the land as he sees fit.

 

The US Constitution functions similarly to that example. The rights listed are protected. Sometimes this protection comes at the expense of rights that are not listed in the Constitution.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

which means that you're an anarchist. the founding document that gave any human on this planet the most freedom it can possibly have from a centralized government, and you say that it doesn't give enough.

 

you are a religious zealot, and your god is the invisible hand of the free market.

 

No way, what gives you that idea!!!!????!!!!!!! And I don't even need to refute your argument because you've said it best already. "The founding document that gave any human on this planet the most freedom it can possibly have from a centralized government." So, if this document gives the max freedom possible from a centralized government, what about the freedoms under no government? I mean the freedoms we have today are soooo great, but what about the freedom to not be murdered, stolen from, coerced, lied to, and enslaved? Oh those are just too much to ask for, huh???

 

A religious zealot of the invisible hand free market god? That's funny, never heard that one before. As everyone can plainly see, you are resorting to name-calling because you have no legitimate, logical, or rational argument against my claims. That's fine, you're free to do as you see fit, but don't expect your arguments to be read with any amount credibility, because they have none.