Monday, May 12, 2014

This One Is For The "Limited Government" Folks

By Chris Rossini

NY Times best-selling author provides a gem:


Isn't the creation of "the greatest power in world history" the opposite of the supposed intent of the constitution? 

Wasn't the constitution supposed to "chain down" the federal government with its "checks and balances"?

It may be a hard pill for limited government folks to swallow, but there's a major lesson that the U.S. Constitution has provided:

Never grant the power to use aggressive force to anyone...ever!

Chris Rossini is on Twitter


  1. One could argue that Dinesh is correct. "America" does not equal the US govt.

  2. The convention that created the constitution is an example of "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The crisis was Shay's Rebellion. They were rebelling against the taxes enacted to pay off the war debt. That document was created to pay off the war debt. The first 10 amendments were added to convince people to vote for it. It worked, although it took RI two tries to get the "correct" vote.

    1. You have quite an imagination. So the slave states ratified a Constitution to quell a rebellion in Western Massachusetts. Makes perfect sense in a world where govt is never needed except to police fractional reserve banking and the economy would boom if the amount of money was by law essentially fixed.

      The Bill of Rights was proposed by the 1st Congress to get Rhode Island and North Carolina to ratify the Constitution. The other 11 states obviously had already ratified the Constitution without a Bill of Rights since the 1st Congress was in session.

      If you bother to read the Federalist papers, you'll see that the primary purpose of the Constitution was geo-strategic, national defense. The states were concerned that a European power would divide and conquer. If you read McCulloch vs Maryland, you'll find that the national bank was essential for this purpose. Madison who initially opposed the national bank changed his mind on this issue after the US got trounced in the War of 1812.

    2. Why are there so many Jerry Wolfgang's now?

    3. Amusingly Jerry seems to have become quite schizophrenic with a newly developed anarchist personality fighting with the usual statist one.

    4. Funny, I found myself extremely confused, Wofgang was making sense!!!

  3. Not every constitution has resulted in an empire.
    Correlation is not causation.
    Also, D'Souza is an imperialist, pure and simple, no matter how much he talks about limited government.

    1. It doesn't always result in empire because not every country is gigantic like the US. But it does always lead to tyranny or decay in the end. All the government you see right no will be gone some day. They will collapse under their own corrupt weight.

    2. @Mike

      The US wasn't always gigantic. A constitution is not necessarily tyranny, nor is a government. This is an anarchist/libertarian assumption that cannot be proven.

    3. "A constitution is not necessarily tyranny, nor is a government. This is an anarchist/libertarian assumption that cannot be proven."

      Read your history books. Geez.

  4. Brilliant analysis as always, sir. I would posit that the Constitution, that 225 year old piece of Federalist mendacity and Republican duplicity, is precisely the reason D'Souza finds himself in the docket today. Without the unending and steadily expanding chain of abuses it unleashed, his alleged crime, like so many others, would not even exist.

    He, like so many of his "limited government" ilk, is most interested in controlling power rather than curtailing it. And soon the Gillibrand machine, fresh from its Segarra victory, will be giving him a Constitutional education in how the greatest power in world history is exercised.

    1. There is a great deal of difference between an empire and a limited government in a small country.

      I am not a Federalist at all and think the Articles of Confederation were better than the Constitution.

      But there are many other factors involved. I can imagine a small state, relatively homogeneous, with a high level of trust and a well-educated self-reliant population that would not develop into empire.

      Trying to analyze history through theory, leaving out politics, demographics, social and cultural history, gender, race, religion, and a million other variables can lead to rather unwarranted certainty about one's conclusions.

    2. Lila, while your distinction is well noted, it is out of context here. Even in 1788 it was impossible to consider the US a small country. It controlled an expanse greater than the Hapsburg Empire, and although its population was hardly as diverse as today's, a wide variety of ethnic, social, religious, and cultural types comprised its citizenry. By no means could it be considered homogeneous by any stretch of the imagination.

      Further, even a cursory examination shows that, then as now, the bulk of the populace could scarcely be considered well-educated.

      Yes, the Articles were preferable to their successor, but they too were flawed and allowed for such abuses as the martial governance of the Northwest Territory.

      I stand by my endorsement of Chris Rossini's argument. Our perspective is backed by the historical facts rather than mere theory. The notion of a small constitutional country which does not aspire to empire is certainly a possibility, but the US of 1788 was no Grand Fenwick.

  5. "Never grant the power to use aggressive force to anyone...ever!"

    Amen, brother!

  6. I understand what Chris and all of the anti-Constitutionalists all that are saying and I agree. However, it could have been the Ten Commandments, it could have been some kind of contract that stated no aggressions of any kind are granted to said government or whatever, they would still screw it up. Think about it. Yes, the Constitution and whatever law is out there to "protect" our "rights" (or grant it from the god of the state), but they'll end up twisting or twisting then justifying a new law that will twist some more whatever it says to benefit them. How many times have we read the news in awe of how stupid the Supremes get it, such as Roberts? It had nothing to do with the Constitution, however it is stated, because there were other Supremes that interpreted another way. They wanted their agenda to completion and the Constitution had nothing to do with it. They can do distort and twist because the people will not notice. Partly because people are busy working as they should. Partly because we didn't fight for what is true and instead believed lies.

    The Constitution, itself, was an implemented distortion. Agree with the AoC or not it wasn't liked by certain people so they chucked it. The spirit of the Constitution is not liberty. It's distortion.

    They do it to the definition of libertarianism. They do it to definitions of words like terrorism in order to define certain people and legislate against - it's not an enemy to fight in war; it's a tactic in war. They distort history, economics, etc. I think the biggest fight for people who want a limited government or no government or no tax is the fight for correct definitions and correct history and keeping it that way.

    Look at "Eye for an Eye". Originally, it was a fair thing. You pay back what you owe or make up for your misdeeds accordingly. No jail time if necessary. If you needed to be executed (never mind that debate now) then you brought it upon yourself. Whereas, now days (and Jesus') it's whatever the state says it is. I mean, they distort it so badly that we have idiotic rock bands making songs about it like it's a bad thing. Even more so, we're left with people rooting on the state to punish people by whatever motivation the D.A. has.

    Along with correct definitions, I think the another part of the fight is have people realize the obvious. 1. They get up, go to work, take care of loved ones - practice self-governance. 2. Innovation via the Free Market is the greatest tool of defense against foreign enemies and deadly bacteria.

    As for Mr. D'Souza, his statement is more of a fantasy than pro-Constitution. Hence, it's not the Constitution, it's not the laws, it's the lies we believe.

    1. Stop conflating the kingdom of God with worldly kingdoms. That'll clear up a lot of your confusion.

  7. When you give a man a gun to protect you, he can always turn it on you.

  8. "Isn't the creation of "the greatest power in world history" the opposite of the supposed intent of the constitution? "

    "Isn't the creation of "the greatest power in world history" the opposite of the supposed intent of the constitution? "

    Yes, but it is Dinesh D'Souza we're talking about: not the most rational person in the world.

  9. The primary purpose of the US Constitution is to create an indissoluble Union for geo-strategic reasons. That's apparent from the Federalist papers. The concern was that the European powers would divide and conquer the states.

    Title of Federalist 2: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

    The secondary purpose was commercial.

    Title of Federalist 11: The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy

    1. More revisionist history sock puppet thrasher?

      Check came in early this month?

  10. yeah thats what it was, All those fancy pants financiers from New York suddenly started worrying about everyone collective safety.

  11. "Never grant the power to use aggressive force to anyone...ever!"--don't worry they'll outsource it-good luck!

    UN weighs laws for future 'killer robots' The Associated Press

    GENEVA —

    Diplomats urged the adoption of new international laws Tuesday that could govern the use of "killer robots" if the technology becomes reality someday.

    At the first United Nations meeting devoted to the subject, representatives began trying to define the limits and responsibilities of so-called lethal autonomous weapons systems that could go beyond human-directed drones.

    The tone of the four-day gathering was set by Michael Moeller, acting head of the U.N.'s European headquarters in Geneva, who urged the delegates to take "bold action" by adopting pre-emptive new laws to ensure there is always a person directing the weapons.

    "All too often international law only responds to atrocities and suffering once it has happened," said Moeller, a Danish diplomat. "You have the opportunity to take pre-emptive action and ensure that the ultimate decision to end life remains firmly under human control."

    Delegates from many of the nations said existing laws won't cover future weapons that could decide on targets without human intervention.

    "It is indispensable to maintain control of the decision to kill another person," German Ambassador Michael Biontino told the meeting.

    Brazil's Ambassador Pedro Motto Pinto Coelho said the automation of the battlefield seems inevitable, but it isn't a new phenomenon, and "the fascination produced by technology shall not prevent us from raising relevant questions about the convenience and consequences of our future choices."

    U.S. diplomat and legal adviser Stephen Townley cautioned the meeting against trying to "pre-judge" the uses of emerging technologies.

    Copyright The Associated Press

  12. It just goes to show that the Anti-federalists were right about the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists won the political popularity fight and got what they wanted but history has vindicated the Anti-federalists beyond their wildest misgivings. This is not mere argument from correlation. The Anti-federalists spelled out in cause and effect why the proposed Constitution would not work and the Federalists debated them in the same terms. The irony today is that you don't even need to read the Anti-federalist arguments to see that they have been vindicated. A reading of The Federalist Papers, where Madison, Hamilton, and Jay spell out why the Anti-federalists are wrong and how the proposed Constitution will absolutely prevent and make impossible the over-wrought fears of the Anti-federalists is more than enough to damn them by their own words. If anything, the Anti-federalists were too conciliatory and not imaginative enough.

    The question is, why did it take so long? The answer is that it took the growing power of the American People to provide enough fodder and political power for the federal government to metastasize into the monster it has become today. While the government is small, the technology not up to the task of tyrannizing a continent, and the people too fresh from winning their valuable liberty from the then largest empire on the planet, the politicians who managed to get in charge of the government have limited means to promote their own power and exert tyranny. It takes awhile for conditions of tyranny and sloth and comfort of the citizenry to grow. It takes a powerful government with a critical mass of Booboisie behind it to conquer an empire and tyrannize it. In ignorance, the Founders managed to establish a government that makes it possible. As one anarchist thinker has roughly put it: the government that starts out the smallest and most respectful of human liberty enables the social and economic growth that when "harvested" by politicians, enables prodigies of conquest and tyranny.

    It is long past time to dismantle this dinosaur and return to the idea of local, cooperating and competing laboratories of freedom.

  13. I agree that limited government is worse than anarcho-capitalism would be. So when are we going to get anarcho-capitalism? When are all the millions of people who don't even support minarchism as of now going to decide to become anarcho-capitalists? I keep waiting for the day.