Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The So-called Divinely Inspired Constitution

Here's something that I just wrote up for an online conversation regarding the Constitution:

Derek, let's start from the beginning. For the moment, let's not even consider whether or not God established the Constitution. Let's pretend that we don't know that yet.

Is the Constitution a socialist document? Did the Founders establish a socialist government with the Constitution? The answer to both questions is yes. The Constitution is a socialist document and the Founders used it to establish a socialist government. Read Hoppe's "A Theory of Socialism & Capitalism" to better understand what socialism is. He tackles totalitarian, social democractic, conservative, and constitutional socialism in his treatise.

Did it establish totalitarian socialism? No. It established limited socialism, but socialism nonetheless. Study socialism from those who understand socialism, and you'll understand why these are true statements. There's a one line spectrum in politics (the use of violence in society), with totalitarian socialism on one end, and libertarian anarchism on the other. That's it. A move away from libertarian anarchism is a move towards totalitarian socialism. The Constitution is a move towards totalitarian socialism. A further move than were the Articles of Confederation.

Next, consider all of the counsel that ETB, et al, have given in relation to socialism. They abhorred it and counseled very heavily against adopting it. Very good.

Now, consider all of the counsel that ETB, et al, have given in relation to the Constitution. They considered it scripture and commanded us to uphold it.

Now, consider D&C 134, specifically those parts I emphasized in the ETB as Anarchist article I linked to above. Also consider D&C 98:5, and what is says about maintaining rights and privileges.

Now, let's go back to fact that the Constitution established a limited socialist government. Socialism is a violation of our rights. Insofar as the Constitution established socialism, however limited, it has violated our rights. I abhor socialism as much as ETB, et al. Yet, they seemed to have been confused. They tell us to abhor socialism and uphold the Constitution. In other words, they tell us to abhor socialism and to uphold socialism at the same time. This is a blatant contradiction, the likes of which they failed to comprehend. That's my only answer to this confusion.

That the Constitution is a socialist document and established a socialist government is indisputable among those who understand socialism. It just so happened to be a very limited form of socialism, that only violated our rights a little, but in a very dangerous way. It demanded a monopoly on the use of force at the national level. At least that's what Lincoln would have us believe.

A side-note, I am completely open to the idea that the Constitution was a voluntary agreement among the States. That's a minority position today. Not even most Constitutionalists believe that. They, along with ETB, et al, praised Lincoln in his trampling over the idea of secession. If the Constitution was a voluntary agreement, then the States had every right to secede at will. Lincoln used violence to prevent this, and ETB, et al, have praised Lincoln's actions. That tells me that they, ETB, et al, don't see the Constitution as a voluntary agreement among the States. This makes the situation even more confused because it makes the case that the Constitution is a rights-violating socialist instrument even stronger.

At this point the Constitution is a dead letter, and certainly among those who never signed it and never agreed to it. It was agreed to by those who are long since dead. It has no authority over the living, and we can't force it onto the unwilling (see Spooner). Forget the Constitution. It had it's chance, and failed. To argue that God established it, and then to witness it's utter failure to limit the Federal Government is to make the case that God failed. I don't believe that that is the case. The Constitution's major flaw was that it relied on mortal beings to uphold it. Super-major flaw, if you ask me.

It failed just like the king over Israel failed. God (supposedly) established both knowing (with his omniscience) full well that it, the Constitution, would fail. Did it serve a purpose? Quite possibly. There were both good men and wicked men in that convention. Insomuch as the Federal Government was given any power over the unwilling, it was evil, and insomuch as it limited that power over the unwilling, it was good. The good came from it's limits, not from it's illegitimate power over the unwilling. And that may have bought just enough time to restore the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to keep the Federal Government out of the bitter persecution the Saints experienced. But I don't believe it was because of it's power, but because of the limits placed on it.