CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Olde Europe]

And no, you haven't proposed that this "situation be corrected via the Constitution". Instead you are proposing tearing down the existing constitution and replacing with a Libertarian fantasy that you refuse to examine in detail because it cannot withstand scrutiny.

I fear I have to disagree with that. Foxfyre has put his proposals, Libertarian fantasy or no, out there to be examined, shot down or supported, and he mostly does a tremendous job of defending his turf. Does he want his thinking and convictions reflected in the Constitution? Of course, who wouldn't? It wasn't any different back then, 250 years ago. Of course, if any Constitution were to be written today, it would be a compromise between all the ideological factions that make up the political landscape of the U.S. of A. (which also is a major reason why I hope none will be written and ratified - in the real world - these days).

If we achieve nothing here other than exercising our minds, thinking about "Constitution", the foundation of the Republic, for a few hours, and if we find nothing more what a tremendous document this was and still is, and what an enormous effort it would take to put something in writing that would match any aspect thereof, I'd say, praise to Foxfyre, more power to him. Compared to most of the rest of this asylum... er, forum, even more so.

 

[BlackSand]

The burden of proof is on those who make the charge -- dopey

I have done nothing to change the definition of theft ... Dopey.

.

Your Anarchistic ramblings aside, who is your US Rep?

Representative John Fleming ... All indications that has anything to do with the definition of theft aside.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And no, you haven't proposed that this "situation be corrected via the Constitution". Instead you are proposing tearing down the existing constitution and replacing with a Libertarian fantasy that you refuse to examine in detail because it cannot withstand scrutiny.

I fear I have to disagree with that. Foxfyre has put his proposals, Libertarian fantasy or no, out there to be examined, shot down or supported, and he mostly does a tremendous job of standing his turf. Does he want his thinking and convictions reflected in the Constitution? Of course, who wouldn't? It wasn't any different back then, 250 years ago. Of course, if any Constitution were to be written today, it would be a compromise between all the ideological factions that make up the political landscape of the U.S. of A. (which also is a major reason why I hope none will be written and ratified - in the real world - these days).

If we achieve nothing here other than exercising our minds, thinking about "Constitution", the foundation of the Republic, for a few hours, and if we find nothing more what a tremendous document this was and still is, and what an enormous effort it would take to put something in writing that would match any aspect thereof, I'd say, praise to Foxfyre, more power to him. Compared to most of the rest of this asylum... er, forum, even more so.

hmm...

agree again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The burden of proof is on those who make the charge -- dopey

I have done nothing to change the definition of theft ... Dopey.

.

Your Anarchistic ramblings aside, who is your US Rep?

Representative John Fleming ... All indications that has anything to do with the definition of theft aside.

.

actually this whack-a-doodle: Murray Rothbard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Derideo_Te]

The intention to help someone does not ensure success nor excuse failure ... Especially if it requires confiscating resources and infringing on the rights of responsible citizens.

What exactly has been "confiscated" of yours and which of your rights have been "infringed"?

A resource is anything that provides assistance in achieving a goal. Confiscation is the ability to seize what belongs to another. Individuals have the basic right to secure what is theirs and a responsibility to use it wisely.

.

In other words you haven't had anything of yours "confiscated" and none of your rights have been "infringed".

Got it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Taxes are not theft. Do you agree?

Taxes in general are not theft ... But it can be altered with intention or final use.

Taxes to pay for a fire truck are not the same as taxes paid for research on mountain lion habitat. I don't have to dislike mountain lions to think it is not the responsibility of government to fund their research.

Taxes for the purpose of redistribution used to sustain the minimum are theft ... Intention is no excuse for failure to promote advancement.

.

"Taxes for the purpose of redistribution used to sustain the minimum are theft"

Prove it.

Prove it isn't.

.

The onus is on you to substantiate your allegation. That you can't means that you are just parroting meaningless rightwing "talking points" without any merit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And no, you haven't proposed that this "situation be corrected via the Constitution". Instead you are proposing tearing down the existing constitution and replacing with a Libertarian fantasy that you refuse to examine in detail because it cannot withstand scrutiny.

I fear I have to disagree with that. Foxfyre has put his proposals, Libertarian fantasy or no, out there to be examined, shot down or supported, and he mostly does a tremendous job of defending his turf. Does he want his thinking and convictions reflected in the Constitution? Of course, who wouldn't? It wasn't any different back then, 250 years ago. Of course, if any Constitution were to be written today, it would be a compromise between all the ideological factions that make up the political landscape of the U.S. of A. (which also is a major reason why I hope none will be written and ratified - in the real world - these days).

If we achieve nothing here other than exercising our minds, thinking about "Constitution", the foundation of the Republic, for a few hours, and if we find nothing more what a tremendous document this was and still is, and what an enormous effort it would take to put something in writing that would match any aspect thereof, I'd say, praise to Foxfyre, more power to him. Compared to most of the rest of this asylum... er, forum, even more so.

Actually she hasn't. She was challenged in post #443 and has failed to back up her allegations. I am willing to bet that she will ignore #513 with her allegations of "extortions" too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh don't get me wrong ... Research in regards to almost anything is worthwhile ... I just don't believe it has to be funded by the government. It is no good to tax a middle class family's income to research mountain lions

Or voluntarily donate that money to an organization studying mountain lion habitat which would mean that all of it got to the organization instead of the fraction that would have been left after the government bureaucracy swallowed up a lot or even most of it.

Mountain lions, standing atop the food chain, have (at least had) a pretty significant impact on the health of the forests' flora and fauna by keeping plant-eating populations in check and thus helping forests to rejuvenate. The health of the forests, in turn, has a significant impact on water supplies and flooding. I'd say, keeping an eye on the nation's forests is pretty much a task the Federal government should assume, and they should well make sure it's actually done according to the highest scientific standards, not by some obscure charity (or whatever), since "Seven ways to hug a mountain lion" wouldn't help that much.

And yes, the enlightened self-government the Founders conceived costs a dime, and some waste here or there adds to that, to the understandable anger of those required to fund it. Whether the average charity actually has a smaller overhead cost than the federal government, I am in no position to say, but would hazard a guess that the far superior performance of Medicare and Medicaid in this respect (as compared to their private competitors) may very well be replicated elsewhere.

In my opinion Medicare and Medicaid and now Obamacare are hands down the number one reason that healthcare is as screwed up and unaffordable as it is. Because of the enormous bloat of these programs, the government's picking of winners and losers, the inescapable waste and fraud, and the inability of anybody to really know how much they do cost the taxpayer because so much of the true cost is buried and obscured within the fathomless bureaucracy, I will just say that I believe the private sector and individual states could have done a much better job. And that too is based on my understanding of history. But for this thread let's don't get bogged down with yet another debate over the merits or lack thereof of government healthcare.

But your point re the mountain lion is well taken. Everything on earth is interrelated and it can be argued that a study of anything could be beneficial in some way. But who in the federal government is qualified to say that the study of mountain lion habitat would be more beneficial and deserving of funding than the study of something else? How much of the people's money should be confiscated to pay people to study something plus fund the bureaucracy that allocates the money? And who sees to it that under the guise of benefitting mountain lions, the federal government won't overreach to take more power for itself and more rights from the people?

Certainly some scientific research is appropriate at the federal level, and some federal laws to protect our resources can arguably be merited. But I would be more confident that such efforts would be much less self-serving, more honest, and ultimately more beneficial if we had true public servants in Washington who were not there to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

 

[Foxfyre]

And as for backup to my argument that the federal government is far more likely to be the party who extorts money from the private sector than the other way around, I believe this is the third time now that I have referred folks in this thread to my thread that explored that:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I will also refer those who seem to be arguing that big government is more reliable, noble, efficient, effective, and selfless than is the private sector to the Founding documents, Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments and the writings of many others among whom are included (but not limited to) Bastiat, Adam Smith, Hayek, Paine, Burke, Rothbard, Friedman, Kant, Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Hazlitt, Sowell, Williams et al. Here you find hard history and analysis of the benefits of freedom versus management of societies by government.

 

[Olde Europe]

Actually she hasn't. She was challenged in post #443 and has failed to back up her allegations. I am willing to bet that she will ignore #513 with her allegations of "extortions" too.

Have I said the record was perfect? For I cannot recall I did. Yes, some "challenges" fell through the cracks. I'd say, fuck the challenges, get together to "solve" problems, even if it's just in the confines of this thread.

I've seen the debate ending in #443, and found it went a bit over the top. I took away that one of you wanted to restrict representatives / government, the other wanted to restrict what the people can do. Why don't you go and put your very capable mind towards reconciling these viewpoints, in the sense that you don't restrict the people's right to express themselves, but deny Representatives the "right" to accept any money, that is, bribes? You'd be on the same page concerning fundamentals, and just go about resolving a serious problem in two different, competing ways.

I also saw #513. I found it immediately plausible in that something like, "Hey, competitor xy has donated $yz to Rep. zx, and they will thus likely get their way in the upcoming legislation, unless...", might make for a good fund-raising pitch. Some might call that "extortion". So, why don't you go, in the spirit of cooperative writing, and help find a possible solution to both forms of soliciting bribes? That way we might get ahead in our debate, as opposed to mulling marginal points over and over again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And as for backup to my argument that the federal government is far more likely to be the party who extorts money from the private sector than the other way around, I believe this is the third time now that I have referred folks in this thread to my thread that explored that:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I will also refer those who seem to be arguing that big government is more reliable, noble, efficient, effective, and selfless than is the private sector to the Founding documents, Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments and the writings of many others among whom are included (but not limited to) Bastiat, Adam Smith, Hayek, Paine, Burke, Rothbard, Friedman, Kant, Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Hazlitt, Sowell, Williams et al. Here you find hard history and analysis of the benefits of freedom versus management of societies by government.

Complete and utter fallacy!

Here is the actual legal definition of extortion.

Extortion - FindLaw

Extortion

Extortion is the crime of obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right.

What is Extortion?

Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form oftheft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim.

Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public. Inherent in this common form of extortion is the threat to expose the details of someone's private lives to the public unless money is exchanged. Another common extortion crime is offering "protection" to a businessman to keep his business safe from burglary or vandalism. For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan.

Extortion can take place over the telephone, via mail, text, email or other computer or wireless communication. If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime.

Extortion statutes

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act.

Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.​

The entire premise of that book is based upon an utterly false premise that "extortion" has some other "secret meaning" that only the conservative author is privy too and has managed to brainwash the gullible who purchased his book to believe it.

At most what he describes is politicians doing what they do best, playing everyone for fools, even their contributors. Politicians are egotistical liars who will say and do anything to get elected. So it is hardly surprising that they would take money from everyone with a check book and then stiff some of them. Asking for contributions in order to get a bill moved from a committee to a floor vote is not extortion. That is just business as usual as far as the current corrupted Congress is concerned. Corporations are simply paying politicians to do their bidding. The more you pay the greater priority your special interest will get from the politicians owned by corporations.

But no, there is no extortion here. No one is being threatened or intimidated to hand over any money. This is nothing more than greedy politicians exploiting greedy corporate special interests. But no, exploitation is not extortion by any stretch of the imagination.

Once again we observe the OP throwing out claims that have zero substance when they are scrutinized.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I will also refer those who seem to be arguing that big government is more reliable, noble, efficient, effective, and selfless than is the private sector to the Founding documents, Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments and the writings of many others among whom are included (but not limited to) Bastiat, Adam Smith, Hayek, Paine, Burke, Rothbard, Friedman, Kant, Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Hazlitt, Sowell, Williams et al. Here you find hard history and analysis of the benefits of freedom versus management of societies by government.

Where in this entire thread has anyone but you made the claim that "big government is more reliable, noble, efficient, effective, and selfless than is the private sector"?

And since you raised the subject the onus is now on you to prove the inverse that the private sector is more "reliable, noble, efficient, effective, and selfless" than "big government".

 

[Foxfyre]

And......back on topic for those who would like to discuss the concept re the thread topic rather than make this a battle of semantics, definitions, personal criticism and otherwise derail the thread.....let me quote from one of my favorite modern libertarians (little "L"):

From Walter William's essay "Economic Miracle":

. . .Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.

The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items — canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.

But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk — people are greedy.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.". . . .
Economic Miracle by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
​

This is the best argument I have ever seen for how the individual, free to pursue the American dream or whatever and wherever he is free to look after his own interests, will serve the whole in a far more beneficial and efficient manner than will a government trying a micromanage the process. And wherever government intervenes into the process, it will almost always have unintended negative consequences.

Allowing people to be 'greedy"; i.e. look to their own interests, be who and what they are short of infringing on the rights of others as a noble thing sounds so wrong to those who favor more government power and intervention. And it sounds so right to those who love liberty and fear excessive government power and interference.

And as I have argued, I believe both are just as 'greedy' when it comes to looking to their own interests. So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that.

My proposals for a better Constitution would better define and specify limits on what the federal government is allowed to do.

 

[Olde Europe]

In my opinion Medicare and Medicaid and now Obamacare are hands down the number one reason that healthcare is as screwed up and unaffordable as it is. Because of the enormous bloat of these programs, the government's picking of winners and losers, the inescapable waste and fraud, and the inability of anybody to really know how much they do cost the taxpayer because so much of the true cost is buried and obscured within the fathomless bureaucracy, I will just say that I believe the private sector and individual states could have done a much better job. And that too is based on my understanding of history. But for this thread let's don't get bogged down with yet another debate over the merits or lack thereof of government healthcare.

But your point re the mountain lion is well taken. Everything on earth is interrelated and it can be argued that a study of anything could be beneficial in some way. But who in the federal government is qualified to say that the study of mountain lion habitat would be more beneficial and deserving of funding than the study of something else? How much of the people's money should be confiscated to pay people to study something plus fund the bureaucracy that allocates the money? And who sees to it that under the guise of benefitting mountain lions, the federal government won't overreach to take more power for itself and more rights from the people?

Certainly some scientific research is appropriate at the federal level, and some federal laws to protect our resources can arguably be merited. But I would be more confident that such efforts would be much less self-serving, more honest, and ultimately more beneficial if we had true public servants in Washington who were not there to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

I'd say your entire debate of health care costs is way, way off the mark, and completely implausible. Since it's not the topic here, yes, we can safely drop that.

As to the latter two paragraphs, just the following: You go to government with the folks you have. Wishing they're angels won't make it so. Moreover, the enlightened self-government the Founders have conceived has a downside in that it requires watchful, alert, attentive citizens to notice gross abuse and make themselves heard. That is so all over the world. As they say, in a democracy you get the government you deserve. I, for one, will go with the government option here, since they have a long history of caring for the forests, and private corporations' profit interests probably won't serve them well. And yes, the decisions as to what research to fund, which of them shall have a higher priority, shall be made by lawmakers and, if so governed by applicable law, bureaucrats specifically tasked with making that decision. If they, in the course of doing this, overreach and infringe on citizens' rights, I'll remind you of the watchful, alert, attentive citizens above.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion Medicare and Medicaid and now Obamacare are hands down the number one reason that healthcare is as screwed up and unaffordable as it is. Because of the enormous bloat of these programs, the government's picking of winners and losers, the inescapable waste and fraud, and the inability of anybody to really know how much they do cost the taxpayer because so much of the true cost is buried and obscured within the fathomless bureaucracy, I will just say that I believe the private sector and individual states could have done a much better job. And that too is based on my understanding of history. But for this thread let's don't get bogged down with yet another debate over the merits or lack thereof of government healthcare.

But your point re the mountain lion is well taken. Everything on earth is interrelated and it can be argued that a study of anything could be beneficial in some way. But who in the federal government is qualified to say that the study of mountain lion habitat would be more beneficial and deserving of funding than the study of something else? How much of the people's money should be confiscated to pay people to study something plus fund the bureaucracy that allocates the money? And who sees to it that under the guise of benefitting mountain lions, the federal government won't overreach to take more power for itself and more rights from the people?

Certainly some scientific research is appropriate at the federal level, and some federal laws to protect our resources can arguably be merited. But I would be more confident that such efforts would be much less self-serving, more honest, and ultimately more beneficial if we had true public servants in Washington who were not there to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

I'd say your entire debate of health care costs is way, way off the mark, and completely implausible. Since it's not the topic here, yes, we can safely drop that.

As to the latter two paragraphs, just the following: You go to government with the folks you have. Wishing they're angels won't make it so. Moreover, the enlightened self-government the Founders have conceived has a downside in that it requires watchful, alert, attentive citizens to notice gross abuse and make themselves heard. That is so all over the world. As they say, in a democracy you get the government you deserve. I, for one, will go with the government option here, since they have a long history of caring for the forests, and private corporations' profit interests probably won't serve them well. And yes, the decisions as to what research to fund, which of them shall have a higher priority, shall be made by lawmakers and, if so governed by applicable law, bureaucrats specifically tasked with making that decision. If they, in the course of doing this, overreach and infringe on citizens' rights, I'll remind you of the watchful, alert, attentive citizens above.

A citizenry that is paid by government to look the other way isn't going to be watchful, alert, or attentive re overreach by that government. And a citizenry fearful of retaliation by their government is far less likely to challenge it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.back on topic for those who would like to discuss the concept re the thread topic rather than make this a battle of semantics, definitions, personal criticism and otherwise derail the thread....

Once again the OP refuses to support her baseless "extortion" claims and instead hurls allegations of "derailing the thread" without any shred of justification.

Allowing people to be 'greedy"; i.e. look to their own interests, be who and what they are short of infringing on the rights of others as a noble thing sounds so wrong to those who favor more government power and intervention. And it sounds so right to those who love liberty and fear excessive government power and interference.

And as I have argued, I believe both are just as 'greedy' when it comes to looking to their own interests. So I would prefer to put the power with the individual to further the common good than with the government that has a far less commendable track record on that.

Strange that the Tragedy of the Commons is ignored when it comes to Libertarian Utopias.

Allowing unfettered individual greed means unregulated exploitation of natural resources with no thought as to pollution, environmental sustainability or the health and welfare of those unfortunate enough to be working and living in the vicinity. Because "big government" imposing restrictions like clean air to breathe and clean water to drink means depriving greedy citizens of their "God given right" to make as much money as they can without any consequences or even taxation for that matter.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In my opinion Medicare and Medicaid and now Obamacare are hands down the number one reason that healthcare is as screwed up and unaffordable as it is. Because of the enormous bloat of these programs, the government's picking of winners and losers, the inescapable waste and fraud, and the inability of anybody to really know how much they do cost the taxpayer because so much of the true cost is buried and obscured within the fathomless bureaucracy, I will just say that I believe the private sector and individual states could have done a much better job. And that too is based on my understanding of history. But for this thread let's don't get bogged down with yet another debate over the merits or lack thereof of government healthcare.

But your point re the mountain lion is well taken. Everything on earth is interrelated and it can be argued that a study of anything could be beneficial in some way. But who in the federal government is qualified to say that the study of mountain lion habitat would be more beneficial and deserving of funding than the study of something else? How much of the people's money should be confiscated to pay people to study something plus fund the bureaucracy that allocates the money? And who sees to it that under the guise of benefitting mountain lions, the federal government won't overreach to take more power for itself and more rights from the people?

Certainly some scientific research is appropriate at the federal level, and some federal laws to protect our resources can arguably be merited. But I would be more confident that such efforts would be much less self-serving, more honest, and ultimately more beneficial if we had true public servants in Washington who were not there to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

I'd say your entire debate of health care costs is way, way off the mark, and completely implausible. Since it's not the topic here, yes, we can safely drop that.

As to the latter two paragraphs, just the following: You go to government with the folks you have. Wishing they're angels won't make it so. Moreover, the enlightened self-government the Founders have conceived has a downside in that it requires watchful, alert, attentive citizens to notice gross abuse and make themselves heard. That is so all over the world. As they say, in a democracy you get the government you deserve. I, for one, will go with the government option here, since they have a long history of caring for the forests, and private corporations' profit interests probably won't serve them well. And yes, the decisions as to what research to fund, which of them shall have a higher priority, shall be made by lawmakers and, if so governed by applicable law, bureaucrats specifically tasked with making that decision. If they, in the course of doing this, overreach and infringe on citizens' rights, I'll remind you of the watchful, alert, attentive citizens above.

A citizenry that is paid by government to look the other way isn't going to be watchful, alert, or attentive re overreach by that government. And a citizenry fearful of retaliation by their government is far less likely to challenge it.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's imperative that any new constitution, or changes to the existing one, address the ever-increasing collusion between economic and state power.

This is exactly what I have been arguing. It is the very ability of those in government to enrich themselves at our expense that has created the enormous, bloated, monstrosity that the federal government has become. And it continues to swell and become ever more expensive and problematic for our liberties as it sucks in more and more power and resources to feed itself.

Take away the ability of those in government to enrich themselves at our expense, and I have every confidence that we see government begin to immediately shrink as professional politicians and bureaucrats go elsewhere to find something to exploit and we again have true public servants in high office and running the functions of government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, I don't give a damn what the intent of the Founders was. They created an excellent form of government and I applaud them for it, but they are dead and this nation belongs to the living. It is now our society and we decide what it should be. If we are to dump the current Constitution for another, then what Jefferson or Hamilton thought is utterly irrelevant.

As I have argued before, any Constitution ought to reflect the best thinking of the time, keeping those yet to be born in mind, so, in a way I agree with you. That doesn't mean that there's nothing to be learned from the Founders. Oh, and BTW, we'd have Jefferson on our side, as the man once famously mused that each generation should scrap the document and write their own Constitution, adjusted to their needs and aspirations.

That was among Jefferson's proposals, yes, on the theory that the living should not be held hostage to the dead. But it was not something he vigorously argued for and he almost certainly saw the wisdom in Madison's argument that the people should not be subjected to the agony of such an undertaking when such was not necessary. It took eleven years of debates, conversations, exchange of letters, written opinions, arguments, amended proposals, and compromises for people of very similar ideology and values to achieve consensus on the original constitution. Imagine the difficulty of doing so with the broadly diverse and different values among the people today.

Essentially, however, all the Founders were in agreement with the Declaration of Independence that the people should overthrow and disband a government that was against their best interests and unresponsive to their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness et al.

 

[Olde Europe]

A citizenry that is paid by government to look the other way isn't going to be watchful, alert, or attentive re overreach by that government. And a citizenry fearful of retaliation by their government is far less likely to challenge it.

You are destroying your own endeavour here. Who would even contemplate writing a Constitution for a bunch that is so stupid as to let themselves be bribed with their own money to act against their own interest, and is so easily frightened? Were that true, even a Constitution that is absolutely perfect would undoubtedly fail.

In the end, given your attitude towards government, a Constitution consistent with your convictions would consist of exactly one paragraph, and one phrase:

"Article I - Government, as it is the source of all evil, is hereby abolished."

_____________________________________________

Once again the OP refuses to support her baseless "extortion" claims and instead hurls allegations of "derailing the thread" without any shred of justification.

Strange that the Tragedy of the Commons is ignored when it comes to Libertarian Utopias.

Allowing unfettered individual greed means unregulated exploitation of natural resources with no thought as to pollution, environmental sustainability or the health and welfare of those unfortunate enough to be working and living in the vicinity. Because "big government" imposing restrictions like clean air to breathe and clean water to drink means depriving greedy citizens of their "God given right" to make as much money as they can without any consequences or even taxation for that matter.

So, the author uses the term "extortion" in a more colloquial, "political" version, not the legal term. The allegation of politicians extracting money for favours, or by hinting at possibly withheld favours, stands. Yet, the problem remains: How to suppress (political) extortion whilst not also curtailing citizens' speech in defence or furtherance of legitimate political or economic interests?

I wholeheartedly agree with the latter. Libertarians - as of my observation - hardly ever cared about the Commons, and, as they worship at the alter of private property, they would recognise neither fairness nor the fact that you can't eat money. The problem, as I see it, is probably the oldest since the early formation of societies extending beyond clans, that is, how to reconcile private, and public, societal, shared interests, and how to ensure that neither is ploughed asunder.