To Chi:
If you propose that the U.S. was formed to justify aggression by some upon others, then yes, I would say that the U.S. is completely immoral and has never had any justification. And it has, since the day it was ratified, been used to "justify" aggression upon the individual and to destroy freedoms ever since by virtually every law ever created and enforced by it. Because it lacked an obedience to the fundamental requirement of maximizing individual human freedom for all persons and it lacked a moral foundation for such, namely the non-aggression principle. From this flawed foundation that inadvertently(?) permitted aggression upon the individual by government, it was doomed to forever just be a weapon of enslavement and aggression upon whomever was not in power or control of the government. But I would clarify, that it is often "believed" to have be an attempt to create an agreement which would make Americans the freest most sovereign people on the planet at the time. That "attempt" of course was noble and moral, and I admire the idealism. (Whether this is reality or not, who knows, as no one can see into the hearts of the crafters.) In the end, it failed miserably in protecting individual freedom. We are a barbaric collective which holds individuals as subject/slaves of the "government", "majority", "ruling elite", whatever. We certainly are not free or sovereigns in any sense.
In reality, regardless of intent, the agreement was indeed made between very few men. If looked at as if it were a contract, of course it really only applies to those whom signed it. As no man, or group of men, can claim ownership and the right to enslave others to a contract from which they are not a party to. Spooner had this concept exactly right. No person alive today has ever given voluntary consent to be a slave to the "collective". I understand that some would argue this point as many "participate" or "enjoy" the environment provided by their enslavement to the aggression and interests of their neighbors. However, how is consent truly voluntary in a system that will initiate violence and aggression upon you if you don't "voluntarily" consent? No contract would be seen as legal if someone was forced at gunpoint to sign the contract. Just as no sane person would say that a slave was a "partner" with the Plantation owner.
I'll leave the "Civil War" to itself. As it is largely bastardized from any form of objectivity as their are many causes and special interests which eventually led to hostilities between the Federal Occupational Regime and the former States. There were many religious, business, tax, extortion, rich shipping families, "protected northern owned businesses", violations of equal protection, etc, in addition to slavery issues which ultimately led to conflict. Neither the those who wanted to capture and occupy the States and take them prisoners, nor the States which wanted to leave the U.S. were pure as the driven snow. And to be honest, trying to find who the actually initiator of force was, is completely impossible to tell through the dirty goggles of history written by conquerers. What I do believe, no matter how evil the States were, nor how morally repugnant, under the Constitution, being that it was a voluntary agreement, those States had every right to secede when that voluntary agreement was against their own interest. Notice I am not supporting slavery or the States policies in any way, I am just looking at it through the lens of the Constitution as a voluntary agreement among States, and not an agreement to be slaves or subjects to the Federal Government. Personally, strictly from a State point of view, the northern States began the aggression through taxation and "regulations" imposed only upon southern States to protect northern businesses and interests, but that is my interpretation which is just mine
Anyway, the civil war is irrelevant to this anyway...but I am sure that it will distract some beyond the real discussion that is important...
So back on point, no man, nor group of men, can claim ownership of another man. Thus no man, nor group of men, can enslave all other men to a contract that they have no part of. In this sense, the government that exists today is completely devoid of any justification or authority over anyone. Would a "new" Constitution or Constitutional Convention be able to solve this? I don't know, do you believe that this government would ever allow it to be limited to the voluntary consent of every person?
If it turns into anything that is subject to "majority" instead of unanimity you are back to square one, enslaving some to the will of others through aggression and violence.
No moral agreement can "rule" over anyone who does not voluntarily agree to the terms of the agreement, in the absence of force or the threat thereof by any party. Therefore, there can be no moral agreement among men that is not universally accepted. So it would be impossible to reconstitute a government such as ours. As our system MUST use aggression and violence to remain in existence, as do all forms of collectivism/statism. So the only possible outcome that would be just and moral would be a splitting of the populace into groups of voluntary agreements.
If we use a broad, and obviously generalized brush, we can divide the major segments of this "societies" authoritarians, the "liberals" and "conservatives" into two groups that would definitely splinter apart. The "conservative" are largely social tyrants who believe in economic freedom and "liberals" are largely economic tyrants who believe in social freedoms. (Again, just generalizations overall). They could easily garner large swaths of people who would willingly consent to an agreement with each other to form their two brands of authoritarianism. However, there would be a small minority that believe in human freedom and who do not advocate initiation of force, aggression, and coercion as the fundamental foundation for society. This minority would also have to be free to form an agreement where the non-aggression principle and maximizing human freedom was the foundational principle. When the population is freely able to splinter into groups that are all free of coercion to form voluntary agreements with one another, then each will be a moral form of "government".
Obviously, I abhor the idea that the "liberals" and "conservatives" would base their "societies" on aggression, but as long as they don't take prisoners, that is their choice. So in the end, it would not only be helpful, but necessary to preserve any existence, or pretense, of true human freedom, to allow people to reform (actually to create as they never actually were part of creating their society voluntarily in the absence of coercion from others) new voluntary agreements amongst each other.
I will be supporting the only just agreement among men, the only form of government, one which has no power to initiate force upon any individual for any reason.
The first truly peaceful voluntary society that exists. (I know, familes, villages, tribes, of the past can and have operated like this, but I am hoping for such to exist on a larger scale as humans finally evolve a little
) Where the only force that is seen as justifiable is retaliatory force against those non-humans who insist upon initiating force upon others.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
