10A035 Constitutional Humbug by Jim Davies, 10/2/2010

Last Wednesday I was the guest on the Peter Mac Show, and for an hour he and I discussed the US Constitution and how there is no way that a return to it would also produce a free society. It doesn't even pretend to do that! - for right at the start it says "We... ordain and establish" a government. Either one is free (governing oneself, exclusively) or else one is governed by someone else (not free.) The two are mutually exclusive, diametric opposites, contradictions; and contradictions exist only in the minds of those who fail to think straight.

We noted many other shortfalls including the gross lie in its first three words ("We the people...") - it was neither written nor ratified by the 4 million people living in the 13 former Colonies in 1788, but by a bunch of lawyers and politicians who claimed to "represent" them - and even they were by no means unanimous; the charter was ratified by a majority that left about one-third opposed. If all four million had been polled, it's reasonable to suppose that at least that many would have declined to sign this alleged contract.

Unanimity is essential for a charter of this kind, an over-riding arrangement under which members of the association are to conduct their affairs. If two or more people start a club or company, they must be fully agreed on how subsequent decisions are to be made and disagreements, resolved; otherwise, they will not join, the company will not form.

Yet on Friday, my support was solicited for a candidate for NH Governor, John Babiarz. If we had to have a Governor (we don't) John would be pretty good - he's far more interested in freedom than any of the others - but right there on his home page, I saw the boo-boo. Quote: "The constitution is a blue print of society. A contract between the individual and Government."

No, it's not. For there to be a "blue print" there must be designers for society, to tell us how to relate to each other. And for there to be a "contract" all affected parties would have to sign their agreement to all its terms. That has never been done. It wasn't done when the NH Constution was written, it's never been done since, and it isn't being done now - even though, in this Internet Age, it would be far easier to collect 1.25 million individual endorsements than at any previous time. Why isn't it done? - because clearly, 100% are not going to agree to be governed; not in some particular way, and in some cases including me, not at all. Therefore there could be no unanimity, therefore there could be no constitution, therefore government would be exposed for the total fraud that it is. And the political class isn't eager to let that happen.

Your feedback, please!

STOP PRESS: Yesterday came news of the untimely death of Joe Sobran, which deprives the freedom movement of an articulate supporter. My best tribute to him is to refer you to his own, 2002 story of how intellectual honesty drove him towards favoring a zero-government society: The Reluctant Anarchist.