The Inviolate Constitution

orion · August 21, 2009, 11:09pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And I definitely am perplexed at LIFTI’s complaint. If anybody has expressed a devout belief in the legitimacy of socio-political life being governed by contracts it’s him. If he disagrees he is free to change the contract via the amendment process. Good thing property ownership - a contract - doesn’t come into question every time a new generation is born. His whole ethos would be in chaos.

You should not be perplexed. You should instead try and understand what a contract is and what it is not.

A contract can only be between specific parties who have voluntarily agreed to it. I suspect that is why the framers called it a “constitution” and not a “contract”. Still, it is implied that it is a contract, nonetheless.

So yes, I still think contractual society is a civilized society – when the contract is followed explicitly. But I also still ask how can this contract pertain to me since I never explicitly agreed to it (barring the fact that I took an oath to it prior to joining the USMC; however, that contract has been fulfilled).

Is it not a dead contract? Politicians only pay lip service to it when it is convenient for their causes. Why should we take it or them seriously?

By your reckoning contracts, regardless of whether it is included therein, are of little to no value upon the death of either or both parties?[/quote]

Dude, try to make a contract with someone that does not even exist yet and then get back to me.

For further reading, Lysander Spooner and Jefferson, I think Virginia letters.

orion · August 21, 2009, 7:12pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Lifticus, why not think of the Constitution not as a contract, but as a corporate charter, which delineates the duties of the corporation vis-a-vis the rights of its shareholders.

The charter can certainly be reviewed from time to time, and amended (according to the process stipulated in the charter), but a new charter needn’t be drawn up every time one of the shareholders dies and a new one is born, or when a board member, or even a CEO, is replaced.

[/quote]

No way, because you join a company and are not born into it.

You cannot simply be bound by previous arrangements just because you came to be or else a constitution is just a weird renaissance of the original sin idea.

Therefore Locke, the real father of your constitution made you an offer at 20 or so. You could take it or leave it. Or so I seem to remember.

Varqanir · August 21, 2009, 7:33pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Lifticus, why not think of the Constitution not as a contract, but as a corporate charter, which delineates the duties of the corporation vis-a-vis the rights of its shareholders.

The charter can certainly be reviewed from time to time, and amended (according to the process stipulated in the charter), but a new charter needn’t be drawn up every time one of the shareholders dies and a new one is born, or when a board member, or even a CEO, is replaced.

No way, because you join a company and are not born into it.

You cannot simply be bound by previous arrangements just because you came to be or else a constitution is just a weird renaissance of the original sin idea.

Therefore Locke, the real father of your constitution made you an offer at 20 or so. You could take it or leave it. Or so I seem to remember.

[/quote]

You’re right, a free man chooses to be a shareholder of a company, whereas all he may be born into is bondage.

Are we, therefore, the shareholders, the employees, or the chattel of our government? John Locke would say that we ought to be free and equal shareholders, who consent to be governed by our elected peers, or so I seem to remember. Is this what we actually have in the United States? Or do we have an oligarchy that imposes its will on an uninformed, disenfranchised mob?

As an aside, I do think that citizenship is too lightly conferred. “Joining the company” shouldn’t be a door prize just for showing up (being born). It should be a conscious choice by an informed adult, who is aware of his rights, his duties, and most importantly, his other options.

I believe Heinlein had a few ideas about this.

Varqanir · August 21, 2009, 7:56pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Limpidity if I ever saw it.[/quote]

Explicitly so.

orion · August 21, 2009, 8:08pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:
orion wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And I definitely am perplexed at LIFTI’s complaint. If anybody has expressed a devout belief in the legitimacy of socio-political life being governed by contracts it’s him. If he disagrees he is free to change the contract via the amendment process. Good thing property ownership - a contract - doesn’t come into question every time a new generation is born. His whole ethos would be in chaos.

You should not be perplexed. You should instead try and understand what a contract is and what it is not.

A contract can only be between specific parties who have voluntarily agreed to it. I suspect that is why the framers called it a “constitution” and not a “contract”. Still, it is implied that it is a contract, nonetheless.

So yes, I still think contractual society is a civilized society – when the contract is followed explicitly. But I also still ask how can this contract pertain to me since I never explicitly agreed to it (barring the fact that I took an oath to it prior to joining the USMC; however, that contract has been fulfilled).

Is it not a dead contract? Politicians only pay lip service to it when it is convenient for their causes. Why should we take it or them seriously?

By your reckoning contracts, regardless of whether it is included therein, are of little to no value upon the death of either or both parties?

Dude, try to make a contract with someone that does not even exist yet and then get back to me.

For further reading, Lysander Spooner and Jefferson, I think Virginia letters.

Even in Austria and northeast Arizona they have this estate stuff.[/quote]

You can empower a third party, yes, but even then they have the right to say no.

You cannot however make as A a contract with B that forces C to do something especially when he is not even born yet.

Otherwise Varqanir and I will make a contract that forces your grandkids to mow our lawns for free.

orion · August 21, 2009, 8:11pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Lifticus, why not think of the Constitution not as a contract, but as a corporate charter, which delineates the duties of the corporation vis-a-vis the rights of its shareholders.

The charter can certainly be reviewed from time to time, and amended (according to the process stipulated in the charter), but a new charter needn’t be drawn up every time one of the shareholders dies and a new one is born, or when a board member, or even a CEO, is replaced.

No way, because you join a company and are not born into it.

You cannot simply be bound by previous arrangements just because you came to be or else a constitution is just a weird renaissance of the original sin idea.

Therefore Locke, the real father of your constitution made you an offer at 20 or so. You could take it or leave it. Or so I seem to remember.

You’re right, a free man chooses to be a shareholder of a company, whereas all he may be born into is bondage.

Are we, therefore, the shareholders, the employees, or the chattel of our government? John Locke would say that we ought to be free and equal shareholders, who consent to be governed by our elected peers, or so I seem to remember. Is this what we actually have in the United States? Or do we have an oligarchy that imposes its will on an uninformed, disenfranchised mob?

As an aside, I do think that citizenship is too lightly conferred. “Joining the company” shouldn’t be a door prize just for showing up (being born). It should be a conscious choice by an informed adult, who is aware of his rights, his duties, and most importantly, his other options.

I believe Heinlein had a few ideas about this.
[/quote]

Locke too.

Jefferson thought that ever generation or so a constitution loses its power because more than half who supposedly agreed to it were dead, and how can the dead enslave the living?

forlife · August 21, 2009, 8:15pm

Damn push, I never realized you had that many posts until just now. You’re giving PX a run for his money.

SteelyD · August 21, 2009, 8:15pm

[quote]borrek wrote:

The Constitution is the very framework under which our government has become so out of control.[/quote]

Minor point here, but I would offer that government has become out of control in spite of the Constitution.

I mean, just look at the Socialized Medicine debate going on. The Democrats are resorting to obscure procedural methods to get this passed in spite of the opposition rather than taking it to a vote in the spirit of the Constitution:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-split-over-best-way-to-push-health-agenda-2009-03-26.html

[i]Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have a major disagreement over how to handle healthcare reform, one of President Obama’s biggest priorities.

Baucus wants to win Republican support for an overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system but Pelosi is willing to ram it through Congress with only Democratic votes.

The difference boils down to an arcane procedural issue known as budget reconciliation. Handling healthcare reform under reconciliation would protect it from a GOP filibuster in the Senate.

The procedure was set up originally to make it easier for lawmakers to balance the budget but it has since been used to pass major legislative initiatives only tangentially related to fiscal housekeeping, such as the Bush tax cuts of 2001.
[/i]

SteelyD · August 21, 2009, 8:29pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
borrek wrote:

The Constitution is the very framework under which our government has become so out of control.

Major point here, but I would offer that government has become out of control in spite of the Constitution.

Fixed. Don’t screw up again!

[/quote]

THANK YOU, SIR! MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?

Varqanir · August 21, 2009, 8:33pm

[quote]orion wrote:

how can the dead enslave the living?

[/quote]

You can do it, but only if you’re an undead Romanian prince with a legion of gypsies bound to serve you for generations.

orion · August 21, 2009, 8:45pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

how can the dead enslave the living?

You can do it, but only if you’re an undead Romanian prince with a legion of gypsies bound to serve you for generations.[/quote]

Do you know how many ways there are to impale a person?

I looked it up, just to know what method he chose.

He preferred to impale them anally, that way they lived for days and potential invaders had to ride down a road that was fenced in with moaning, dying wannabe invaders.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · August 21, 2009, 8:57pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

how can the dead enslave the living?

You can do it, but only if you’re an undead Romanian prince with a legion of gypsies bound to serve you for generations.

That guy was such a sucker.[/quote]

Oh shit, I just got it…

HG_Thrower · August 21, 2009, 8:59pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

how can the dead enslave the living?

You can do it, but only if you’re an undead Romanian prince with a legion of gypsies bound to serve you for generations.

Do you know how many ways there are to impale a person?

I looked it up, just to know what method he chose.

He preferred to impale them anally, that way they lived for days and potential invaders had to ride down a road that was fenced in with moaning, dying wannabe invaders.

[/quote]

I’m totally going to do that on my front lawn. That oughta keep the door-to-door salesmen away. If I could only figure out a version to deter telemarketers, I’d be set!

orion · August 21, 2009, 9:05pm

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
orion wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

how can the dead enslave the living?

You can do it, but only if you’re an undead Romanian prince with a legion of gypsies bound to serve you for generations.

Do you know how many ways there are to impale a person?

I looked it up, just to know what method he chose.

He preferred to impale them anally, that way they lived for days and potential invaders had to ride down a road that was fenced in with moaning, dying wannabe invaders.

I’m totally going to do that on my front lawn. That oughta keep the door-to-door salesmen away. If I could only figure out a version to deter telemarketers, I’d be set![/quote]

Think bigger.

What you really want is impaled zombies in your front lawn, because they would not just hang there but moan and constantly try to grab and eat people.

Plus they last longer than the average impaled living person so impaling zombies is probably more efficient.

conorh · August 21, 2009, 9:08pm