I espouse the Constitution, as originally signed by the founders. I have been studying the establishment of our Republic since 1991 when I served in the Gulf War. I was disillusioned by the lies I was told and had my eye opening moment that led me to want to better understand what I took an oath to defend.
I have spent many hours researching the true history and read many private correspondence of many of the founders, ready original law books of their era, and was very impressed with the original intent of our federal government.
Some of what you allude to is true, but taken out of context. Regardless, I believe in the founding principles of our Constitutional Republic, and have my own research and understanding to support my faith in the great experiment.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers" (FF). That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened with the vast majority (as far as I have found) falling into the category of "FF opinions don't mean shit." That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
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.
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign (other than the person themselves), then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to that external "Sovereign," which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
among these are Life, Liberty and Property
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.
It seems you are not as familiar with the words and actual beliefs of those that sacrificed to establish our Constitutional Republic. I will let their plain words speak for themselves. You can try to twist their meaning all you want, but that is exactly what the usurpers have done over the decades to erode our liberty to what we have today.
The fact is, in a free society, individuals have the right to do right or wrong, as long as they don’t threaten or infringe upon the rights or property of others. This is exactly what our founders intended by establishing our Republic.
“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.” ~ George Washington (1732-1799) Founding Father, 1st US President, 'Father of the Country'
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” ~ John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States
“In short, it is the greatest Absurdity to suppose it in the Power of one or any Number of Men, at the entering into Society, to renounce their essential natural Rights or the Means of preserving those Rights, when the grand End of civil Government, from the very Nature of its Institution, is for the Support, Protection and Defense of those very Rights: The principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Nov 20 1772
“Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; secondly, to Liberty; thirdly, to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best Manner they can. Those are evident Branches of, rather than Deductions from, the Duty of Self-Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Oct 1772
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. ... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Essay entitled Property, published March 27, 1792 in the NATIONAL GAZETTE, and reprinted in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, Vol. 14, p. 266 (University of Virginia Press 1982).
“All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” ~ George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virgina Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington
First Draft, Virginia Declaration of Rights
“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” ~ Rev. Nicholas Collin (1746-1831) Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin
Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” ~ Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943
“It is embarrassing to have to remind people of this in the United States of America. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson singled out three natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last phrase, appearing instead of "property," has prompted much discussion. I cannot say what Jefferson was thinking. But here's a plausible theory: Property is already implicit in liberty. If you are free, you can use your belongings as you see fit. But by specifying the pursuit of happiness Jefferson might have been pointing out that the blessing of liberty need not be justified through selfless service to others. One's life and happiness on earth are justification enough.” ~ Sheldon Richman Editor of The Freeman, author, journalist
“[F]or everybody has a natural right to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth.” ~ Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Vices are Not Crimes, A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875)
“The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights... . In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 1972
“The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less that the right to speak out or the right to travel is, in truth, a “personal” right.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 1972
Look, you are welcome to find use in these statements. I find a lot of use in them. They are useful. What they are not is statements of What Actually Happened. These ideals were NOT what was written into law. They didn't make it into the Constitution. The Constitution did NOT apply to all people equally. It wasn't even close. It was never intended to do so.
Am I saying there were no people who felt that way? No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is there is no way to know how a person actually felt. It is impossible. I am saying that when you take off your rose colored glasses and stop focusing on your ideals and what you "need" to be true, and investigate in earnest, you find all sorts of shit that you did not expect. The most important being the laws we actually got.
You can choose to ignore that if you wish; make appeals to pathos ("those that sacrificed"), ignore logos completely, ignore what actually happened, ignore the actual laws that led to where we are today. That is within your purview. You are welcome to choose anything you wish. But if you do, and you ignore all the shit that actually happened, you do NO ONE a service by espousing the evil that actually exists because of what choices were actually made by the people who created our government.
The Constitution was SHIT. It laid false claims on the individual's life, liberty, and property, straight up, in multiple places. It ensured that the power structure remained in the Aristocracy. The reason that we see a world today where people own nothing, and are ruled by the same Aristocracy is because it was designed to ensure that happened.
So at least acknowledge the shit that is there so we can fix it instead of lauding your heroes, who may or may not be as deserving of your praise as you think, at the expense of what We The People actually need to fulfill those flowery words as reality.
Like I said, I have been researching and learning about this since 1991. I feel I am familiar with the laws and the intent of those who established this Republic. I also know that they were human, and imperfect, just like the rest of us. They were not always right, nor did they always agree on things when working to establish the "Great Experiment" of our Constitutional Republic.
Your understanding of the founders and the establishment of our Constitutional Republic is very different from my own. I am not looking through "rose colored glasses", I am leaning on my understanding based upon my own extensive research and study.
I view the Constitution as genius, and the men who founded our Republic as enlightened in the subject of government and individual sovereignty that allowed them to establish something incredible.
Where we are today is the result of evil minded people who either ignored, or twisted, the plain meaning of the Constitution to pervert our government away from the limits of power it should be operating within. So, yes, I acknowledge that there are a lot of things that need to be fixed, but it is not a result of nefarious intentions of our founders. It is 100% due to the intentional undermining of the Constitution and founding principles by people determined to rule rather than serve.
What I see to be true is not based out of a need for it to be true, but because it is true. It is clear you and I will not agree on this subject. That is fine, that is what individual liberty is all about.
I espouse the Constitution, as originally signed by the founders. I have been studying the establishment of our Republic since 1991 when I served in the Gulf War. I was disillusioned by the lies I was told and had my eye opening moment that led me to want to better understand what I took an oath to defend.
I have spent many hours researching the true history and read many private correspondence of many of the founders, ready original law books of their era, and was very impressed with the original intent of our federal government.
Some of what you allude to is true, but taken out of context. Regardless, I believe in the founding principles of our Constitutional Republic, and have my own research and understanding to support my faith in the great experiment.
For anyone interested in researching for yourself, here is a good place to start; https://teamlaw.net/Mythology-CorpUS.htm
I recommend doing your own independent research of what you find to verify and confirm for yourself.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers" (FF). That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened with the vast majority (as far as I have found) falling into the category of "FF opinions don't mean shit." That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign (other than the person themselves), then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to that external "Sovereign," which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.
It seems you are not as familiar with the words and actual beliefs of those that sacrificed to establish our Constitutional Republic. I will let their plain words speak for themselves. You can try to twist their meaning all you want, but that is exactly what the usurpers have done over the decades to erode our liberty to what we have today.
The fact is, in a free society, individuals have the right to do right or wrong, as long as they don’t threaten or infringe upon the rights or property of others. This is exactly what our founders intended by establishing our Republic.
“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.” ~ George Washington (1732-1799) Founding Father, 1st US President, 'Father of the Country'
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” ~ John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States
“In short, it is the greatest Absurdity to suppose it in the Power of one or any Number of Men, at the entering into Society, to renounce their essential natural Rights or the Means of preserving those Rights, when the grand End of civil Government, from the very Nature of its Institution, is for the Support, Protection and Defense of those very Rights: The principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Nov 20 1772
“Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; secondly, to Liberty; thirdly, to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best Manner they can. Those are evident Branches of, rather than Deductions from, the Duty of Self-Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” ~ Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston in Town Meeting Assembled, According to Law. Published by Order of the Town. Oct 1772
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. ... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” ~ James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President Essay entitled Property, published March 27, 1792 in the NATIONAL GAZETTE, and reprinted in THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON, Vol. 14, p. 266 (University of Virginia Press 1982).
“All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” ~ George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virgina Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington First Draft, Virginia Declaration of Rights
“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” ~ Rev. Nicholas Collin (1746-1831) Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” ~ Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943
“It is embarrassing to have to remind people of this in the United States of America. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson singled out three natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last phrase, appearing instead of "property," has prompted much discussion. I cannot say what Jefferson was thinking. But here's a plausible theory: Property is already implicit in liberty. If you are free, you can use your belongings as you see fit. But by specifying the pursuit of happiness Jefferson might have been pointing out that the blessing of liberty need not be justified through selfless service to others. One's life and happiness on earth are justification enough.” ~ Sheldon Richman Editor of The Freeman, author, journalist
“[F]or everybody has a natural right to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth.” ~ Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist Vices are Not Crimes, A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875)
“The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights... . In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 1972
“The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less that the right to speak out or the right to travel is, in truth, a “personal” right.” ~ Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 1972
Look, you are welcome to find use in these statements. I find a lot of use in them. They are useful. What they are not is statements of What Actually Happened. These ideals were NOT what was written into law. They didn't make it into the Constitution. The Constitution did NOT apply to all people equally. It wasn't even close. It was never intended to do so.
Am I saying there were no people who felt that way? No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is there is no way to know how a person actually felt. It is impossible. I am saying that when you take off your rose colored glasses and stop focusing on your ideals and what you "need" to be true, and investigate in earnest, you find all sorts of shit that you did not expect. The most important being the laws we actually got.
You can choose to ignore that if you wish; make appeals to pathos ("those that sacrificed"), ignore logos completely, ignore what actually happened, ignore the actual laws that led to where we are today. That is within your purview. You are welcome to choose anything you wish. But if you do, and you ignore all the shit that actually happened, you do NO ONE a service by espousing the evil that actually exists because of what choices were actually made by the people who created our government.
The Constitution was SHIT. It laid false claims on the individual's life, liberty, and property, straight up, in multiple places. It ensured that the power structure remained in the Aristocracy. The reason that we see a world today where people own nothing, and are ruled by the same Aristocracy is because it was designed to ensure that happened.
So at least acknowledge the shit that is there so we can fix it instead of lauding your heroes, who may or may not be as deserving of your praise as you think, at the expense of what We The People actually need to fulfill those flowery words as reality.
Like I said, I have been researching and learning about this since 1991. I feel I am familiar with the laws and the intent of those who established this Republic. I also know that they were human, and imperfect, just like the rest of us. They were not always right, nor did they always agree on things when working to establish the "Great Experiment" of our Constitutional Republic.
Your understanding of the founders and the establishment of our Constitutional Republic is very different from my own. I am not looking through "rose colored glasses", I am leaning on my understanding based upon my own extensive research and study.
I view the Constitution as genius, and the men who founded our Republic as enlightened in the subject of government and individual sovereignty that allowed them to establish something incredible.
Where we are today is the result of evil minded people who either ignored, or twisted, the plain meaning of the Constitution to pervert our government away from the limits of power it should be operating within. So, yes, I acknowledge that there are a lot of things that need to be fixed, but it is not a result of nefarious intentions of our founders. It is 100% due to the intentional undermining of the Constitution and founding principles by people determined to rule rather than serve.
What I see to be true is not based out of a need for it to be true, but because it is true. It is clear you and I will not agree on this subject. That is fine, that is what individual liberty is all about.