Word

“‘Principled’ and ‘small-government’ conservatism has devolved into the cargo cult of our age: small tribes of backwards losers isolated on ideological islands, thinking that as long as they pick a chieftain able to perfectly recite the magic spells while they chant and shake their totems and stick-mounted graven images of the Constitution at the sky, an Amazon drone will swing by a week later and drop it on their doorstep. It’s not that I necessarily desire something different from them, but I at least grasp that society, culture, and by extension government, are ongoing synergistic processes and that we can’t get there from here.”

— ArfCom commenter

38 responses to “Word

  1. The real problem is that libertarian/conservative ideals only work in a system where everyone accepts the same political rules. We are not in a political relationship with the Leftists/globalists/marxists, we are in a culture war with them. You can’t win a war by politicking to a consensus, but by fighting to win.

    • And how exactly do you do that – when the people who should be in opposition (the right and “conservatives”) – either go along with everthing the leftists force into place – or – refuse to go along, but fall back on the ” Ma Constitition!!” argument?

      I’ve been going round and round with “conservatives ” on this shit for a good 15-20 years now most particularly in the realm of gun rights. It’s pretty much universal that they will go back to the “but the Constitution says” argument like a dog returning to it’s vomit.

      Try asking them WHY the Constitution says that – and watch them get all confused and here there you’ll see the occasional exploding head.

      Want to get them really pissed off – go tell them that the Constitution is potentially an organ of big government and is not REALLY there to protect your “rights” – (see Hologram of Liberty and Gary North’s Conspiracy in Philadelphia) – and sit back and watch the fireworks.

      • ExGeeEye

        So far, yelling about the Constitution re gun rights has a positive momentum. See the latest out of Texas and upcoming improvement in Michigan.

        So many on both extreme ends of the spectrum expect instantaneous results and express the desire to “go to the mattresses” if they don’t get ’em. Reminds me of the teen watching “Titanic” and questioning why they didn’t steer away from the iceberg when they saw it.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      “The real problem is that libertarian/conservative ideals only work in a system where everyone accepts the same political rules.”

      The hive mind problem applies to both sides. The Left simply uses force to get everyone on the same page.

  2. Brian S.

    Bolt isn’t closed on yer Mosin there skippy

  3. OODA_Loop

    Great quote. By a tranny. (Not kidding on either.)

  4. Anonymous

    Laugh at the Constitution…

    …Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a symbol of shared ideology and cultural bonds.

    • Since when? At the time it was basically a takeover of the political process by elitists with their own design on how they wanted the country to progress.

    • Spartacus

      “Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a symbol of shared ideology and cultural bonds.”

      Not anymore, it isn’t…

      • It is a shared phenomenon.

        Shared delusion, that is.

        As to its wonders as originally drafted — known otherwise as a civic article of faith: logical folks can ask themselves why there were no enumerated powers restrictions on the executive and the judiciary.

        Or why there were no enumerated penalties for violations of the enumerated powers.

        Kinda moot now.

        Enjoy the Empire while it remains intact.

        The decline is going to be a bitch.

        • Learn to enjoy the decline. As a person ages, the probability of death increases to 100%.

        • Anonymous

          “Or why there were no enumerated penalties for violations of the enumerated powers.”

          The single largest flaw and gaping-wound of the document.

          Simplest solution:

          http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-10/article-1/16-10-1

          Good luck getting a prosecutor to, well, prosecute…

        • alaskapaul

          Concerned American—your mentioning of these two items is spot on!

          “As to its wonders as originally drafted — known otherwise as a civic article of faith: logical folks can ask themselves why there were no enumerated powers restrictions on the executive and the judiciary.
          Or why there were no enumerated penalties for violations of the enumerated powers.”

          That little oversight cost 600,000+ people their lives four score and seven years later. But it also brings up another issue: The Constitution—the bylaws of the republic—would only be successful with citizens of honor and good will, i.e., people who worked with the spirit of the document in their minds. Once you have a significant percentage of citizens willing to game the system, play semantic games, you have lost the intent, and the Constitution starts to decline into irrelevance. With a whole judicial industry based just on semantic games and gaming the system. we’re fooked.

          The decline is going to be a bitch, so we are going to have to change our mindsets to be adaptable in a brave new world, where we can survive and even thrive.

  5. Grenadier1

    Does not matter what rules we write down on paper. PEOPLE have to be honorable enough to live by those rules. When your culture no longer values honor then men will no longer live by any code.

    • …men will live by their own code..

      I propose that amendment.:-)

      • That’s what your enemies are doing right now. No?
        Of course the constitution, in and of itself, cannot stop them.
        Neither can anarcho-capitalism nor any other framework, in and of itself stop them.
        Want proof? Dost thine enemies frolic? well they are obviously frolicking in spite of every view and/or document in existence, including Spooners “no treason”. No view or document in and of itself will stop your enemies. How is that a proof of the impotence of the constitution? No document has intrinsic power. That should be a given. No?

        • A properly-drafted instrument defines what will be considered breaches of the agreement, the processes for addressing those breaches, and the penalties for breach once it is proven.

          There was a roomful of lawyers in the room at the ConCon in 1787.

          The absence of those elements, given the crowd present, makes the document itself suspect in its true intent. At best.

          And as far as the ‘self-enforcement’ cant that you raise, isn’t it funny how the Federal judiciary, one of the branches created under the USC, has “interpreted” the document to limit claims of breach under the “standing doctrine”?

          Background: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/caseorcontroversy.htm

          Key graf:

          “…Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case–or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court–, the requirements for standing are tightened.

          The standing doctrine consists both of constitutionally-derived rules and judicially-created gatekeeping (“prudential”) rules. The Court has found Article III to require that plaintiffs demonstrate injury-in-fact, that the injury in question is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action, and that the injury is one that could be redressed by a favorable decision…”

          So good luck trying to rescue the precious parchment from its own impotence by, for example, asserting that your second amendment rights as a NY citizen have been infringed/violated simply by the passage into law of the NY SAFE Act anti-gun legislation. Both the Federal district courts and the 2nd Circuit appellate courts will laugh at your lack of standing.

          Not personal; just get frustrated with people’s defense of the indefensible.

          • Anonymous

            Scary.

            The intimation, if I’m reading it correctly, is that the omissive nature of said provisions in reference to abrogating agreements / remediation of wrongings-done, was…by design.

            If true: Holy Redpill, Batman.
            If somewhat true: We really are still rightly fucked.

            When CA isn’t running WRSA, he moonlights as a dude in a leather trenchcoat blowing minds.

            • Read Boston’s book:

              Wanna hear something really scary?

              In law school, they don’t discuss the actual language of the Constitution other than incidentally in Con Law class, let alone teach the damned thing and its origins.

              They teach and discuss almost exclusively…..wait for it….what the Supreme Courts over the years have says it means.

              Because they are the deciders.

              Booyeah.

              • Spartacus

                Yep. Our constitutional federal republic is completely prostrate before the whims of any 5-member majority of an unelected, unaccountable, appointed-for-life 9-person committee of people whose work attire looks like they are LARPing as Nazgul. That’s what we call, “sub-optimal.”

              • Spartacus

                Another point about law school: They teach very little about the body of law that developed in the colonies between 1607 (first permanent English settlement at Jamestown, VA) and adoption of the Constitution. Yeah, the Con Law professors yammer now and then about “implicit in ordered liberty” and “rooted in history and tradition” but it’s like ALL U.S. law just sprang forth from the Framers’ brow in 1787. That sure as hell wasn’t true at the state level.

              • Anonymous

                Thanks for the recommendation. Will obtain.

                Frightening, indeed.

                Mrs. Anon is in the legal profession, and constantly barks, “Constitutional Law is a highly specialized area of practice!”

                >Because it’s not taught. Booom!

                BTFO, wife.

                Thanks for today’s redpill, CA.

              • Dat dere precedent. I asked as a freshly minted 1L “What if the precedent is wrong?” ” Well…SCOTUS fixes it obviously. “What about Dredd Scott, isn’t that the prima facia case of human error on SCOTUS?” Yeah, but it was overturned and fixed. “After a war…who says when SCOTUS is wrong?” SCOTUS, sir. “So we just hope they get it right then?” Mr. _____ if you have further questions see the syllabus for my office hours. (rough approximation of how it went down) SCOTUS = God is what I was taught. All I saw was senile crimson alum with bad hair and crypt keeper faces. What do I know thought 🙂

            • Spartacus

              Patrick Henry screwed us all by refusing to attend the Convention. We could have used that cynical bastard’s input there and then.

            • Jimmy the Saint

              Of course, the concept of standing has changed quite a bit over the years. Back when, all actions had to be made to fit into what were called “forms”. Regardless of the merit of your claim in terms of justice, if you couldn’t get the facts right to get that claim into a form, tough titty for you. However, if you could manipulate your case to fit any one of the given forms, you pretty much had standing to bring it. (Yes, that is very much a Cliff’s Notes version of how it all worked.)

              There’s always been something that serves to limit access to the courts for redress of grievances.

          • You make very fair points regarding some critical weakness in the USC.

            My main point was to try and illustrate why the popular (among many commenters here) argument “x injustice occurred therefore y document sucks” is a non-sequitur.

            I have thought about the lack of defined penalties/recourse in the USC. I figured it was merely a screw up. I had never considered the fact that it was put together by a bunch of lawyers, that would almost universally seen that glaring problem immediately. Hmm.. I admit that it would appear to be, more likely than not, intentional in light of that information. Of course I haven’t dug around the history enough to know off hand whether or not any of the founders fought over that matter. In that area I’m currently ignorant.

            For the record I believe Spooner makes a strong moral (via contract law) case against the USC. But his argument would apply to literally every known form of human governance ever tried.

            Up to now in human history I see the USC as the best thus far (or least bad). I honestly don’t know how we could proceed as a civilization without some type of government. To be fair folks made that same case for the divine right of kings yet the founders proved them wrong. So just because I cannot fathom a better way forward doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I would like to see the world throw off all forms of collectivism and honor individual liberty, but I don’t know how to have Anarcho-Capitalist purity that survives the first existential threat from some crappy collectivist nation or group.

            • The USC is likely a good place to crib concepts from (e.g., three branches fighting with each other — actually 5, if you split legislative into its House and Senate functions).

              But there’s a lot of fixin’ to do (e.g., term limits, the assassination clause [it is an affirmative defense in any homicide trial that the defendant shot the dude or dudette cuz he/she was breaking his/her oath of office], prohibition of martial law (a/k/a military dictatorship at the whim of the executive), prohibition of administrative agency lawmaking, elimination of the Federal Reserve, etc.).

              And then there’s the challenge of folks who say fuck the government. Frankly, the only purpose for a federal (supra-state) gubmint is national defense, and that likely could be done (sorry, MIC!) on a regional treaty basis. Get a robust space lift capacity to hold the space high ground and such a thing becomes even more rational. So the FTG guys and gals have a point.

              Let me tell a true story. That fancy 4G LTE smart phone you have? You know who governs ALL of the technology (other than RF spectrum, which is handled by national govs historically, but could also be done on a standards basis with robust enforcement provisions) that makes all of that fancy shit possible, seamlessly sending high-speed data (soon to include voice as a data stream) across the wireless-capable world?

              Voluntary agreements between carriers, handset vendors, network equipment vendors, chip manufacturers, and software writers.

              Food for thought, eh?

              • Spartacus

                Privatize government. The difference between protection rackets and government is that you can always invite a new protection racket to move into your neighborhood, and negotiate a deal in which you actually GET services for the protection money you’re paying.

              • Pete,
                I know you are a trained lawyer and have been around the block once or twice. I realize you spend plenty of time aggregating articles, beyond that I don’t know what your day to day is like and I don’t want to come off as demanding of anything from you. With that said I would like you to consider writing a full piece(s) of your own on some of these things. I throw that out there, not with expectation of your time and efforts but merely as something to consider as you are fairly efficient with your wording i.e. You are good at cutting to the chase.

                Many would benefit and appreciate some “fuller” treatments by you on these topics.

                Thanks

      • Well until people get tired of all the bloodletting and start forming groups and then gov will be the name of the game again…

      • Grenadier1

        Yes I agree, I just wanted to avoid a long post.
        I would point to a line from one of my favorite book series (The Saxon Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell) Ragnar Ragnarson says to Uhtred “if a man cant remember all of the laws, then you have to many laws”
        Very relevant series of themes covered in these books.

        • Understood.

          I still want to get with Dirk and see if we can write all of the real crimes on two typewritten sheets of paper.

          Believe it can be done.

          • Jimmy the Saint

            Avoid prong tests, penumbras, and emanations, and it should be relatively easy.

  6. Airplane decoy…
    They want to get one to land to eat it.

  7. The Usual Suspect

    Didn’t Shakespeare say ” kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight ” ?
    Wait ! maybe it was Don Henley.