A reader responded to my recent rant about the Nonconsent of the Governed, noting that “there has been no plebiscite on the ‘Constitution for the United States of America’ by the citizens of America . . . that the whole thing was done by “Representatives” who referred to as “We the People of the United States” and what they did was for their benefit and that of their “Posterity,” or so they said in their Preamble, who then submitted that wretched thing to “Representatives” in each Colony. So much for the “virtues” of representative government, eh?”
Indeed.
Orwell, in his novel 1984, writes about the tendency of early authoritarians to at least pretend to be “representing” the “people.” See the section regarding Goldstein’s book and the part about the theory and practice of oligarchical collectivism. One can argue that the “founders” meant well; that they or at least most of them were honestly trying to assure that the rights of the people would be protected – and so on – though how one does that by depriving people of their rights (as by forcible expropriation of their money via “taxes”) I have never quite understood.
But however one examines it, the “constitutional convention” had no mandate from “the people” and “the people” were inarguably not “represented” as they weren’t even permitted to know what was going on. The whole affair was conducted in secret, behind closed doors. This is a fact – an unsettling one.
It is startling that another revolution didn’t occur when this became public knowledge.
It is true that the document was “ratified” by the states but that is a different thing than by the “people.” It is certainly the case that general consent was presumed – and people who wanted no part were obliged (legally) to submit. This is manifestly the opposite of “consent,” if that word has any meaning.
Some may argue that it is not practical to obtain the consent of everyone and that is certainly true. But then, let’s be honest about it and say something like: Some of us, who outnumber you, have agreed among ourselves that this is how it’s going to be and you will do as you are told.
Of course, that doesn’t go down as well as the Preamble.
In any case, the Constitution “represents” the interests of the men who wrote it – who were the colonial elite. Rich merchants and planters. It was designed to protect their property – not ours, using our property (taxes). It was specifically meant to recreate something like the British system albeit with an elected monarch. This is not conjecture, either. Hamilton and other Federalists were pretty open about this. Lip service was given to the “rights of the people” – by such tack-ons as the Bill of Rights, which most Americans do not know wasn’t in the original document but added to placate the suspicious, such as George Mason of Virginia.
And even it was written in such a way as to admit lawyerly parsing, toward the end of eroding and ultimately eliminating our “rights.”
A final thought: The average American colonist suffered less, in terms of taxation, under the British than he would under American government.
Cue that loathsome song by Len Greenwood.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!
American Government was established to rule the people.
No state or federal government has been established by the people.
Law makers are not representatives, they are rulers.
Eggs-zactly, Mike. ALL governments exist for one purpose: To rule. A “government” of the people, by the people, for the people, would just be autonomy/anarchy- which is something despots, tyrants and criminals hate…..so they paint that true lkiberty as if it were a bad thing, and portray themselves as our benefactors. Then they make it seem as if the average person has a say, to pacify them and to make it seem as if what they do is by the consent of those to whom they do it, because when ya pull the little lever in the voting booth you’re consenting to the process and it’s outcome.
I’ve always wondered how it is that We(e) the People uttered by those who possess rights and privileges over the people which they claim to “represent” don’t have, and therefore can not grant to those representatives, differs from “the people” referred to by the communists, whose “rights” they always claim to be championing, while assuming ultimate authority ove “the people” and their lives and property?
The answer of course, is that there is no difference. Both are just a way of trying to legitimize tyranny and the right of a ruling class in the eyes of those who can be easily deceived by pithy platitudes- like “fighting for freedom” when they are enlisted to carry out violence, destruction and murder against the innocent in service to the tyrants.
It all comes down to the same thing. The “social contract” and the laws and representatives that are supposed to have sprung from it.
We supposedly live in a society of legal contracts. Agreements to how everyone is to behave and interact.
I was NEVER shown this contract, NEVER allowed to review it and NEVER signed it.
I am under no contract. Anything I am forced to do by referral to this contract is simply illegal.
ALL GOVERNMENT IS TYRANNY WITHOUT CONSENT.
I do not consent to be ruled.
Lysander Spooner spelled it out in No Treason.
After reading the Anti-Federalist Papers, especially the transcript of the Constitutional Convention, I had a lot of respect for George Mason.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the Founding Fathers were protecting their interests alone and cared not a whit for “the people”. Isn’t that pretty much what your thesis is? OK then;
The results of their self serving efforts was a Representative Republic, and the downstream recipients fared well under it. So who lost? How can a system that fostered the greatest freedoms, wealth and autonomy of the common man be a negative? Has there ever been a place on the face of this earth where the common man fared better?
Respectfully, I think Libertarian idealism borders on Utopianism. No human construct has stood the test of time.
PS Lee Greenwood sucks and so does that idiot song of his. Ditto his patronizing shirt.
Hi Auric, The results of their self serving efforts was to seize power for themselves over us all!
Sure, the elite who included history book writers did very well, but hardship was also very widespread unless you consider subsistence farming as faring well. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/social-class-in-the-colonies/ . Who lost?: Everyone that was not in power or wealthy lost from the power grab that took place during the Constitutional Convention! We had the Greatest Freedoms? The Swiss had greater freedom than the U.S. citizens did back then. Freedom is a subjective word though. If the government you are under only passed laws banning certain things that you wouldn’t be interested in doing anyway, then you could lie to yourself about having freedom. Did the poor whites, blacks, women, and Indians have freedom? Combined, they were the vast majority of people back then.
Respectfully, I think Conservative/Republican idealism is very Utopian. The term ‘limited government’ is an oxymoron and a fantasy. Representative government is likewise a myth! Statism has been a 10,000 year failure in terms of protecting human rights for the dis-empowered in every country it has been tried! Statism is the human condition, but not human nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Human_way_of_life
Where have Libertarian/Anarchist ideals worked? Nearly everywhere in terms of our dealing with others on a day to day basis. Most of our activities are done at a personal level without government involvement. But lets look at your base assumptions. Could a country be considered as a country without having a government? Governments worldwide would say ‘No’, but would they be telling you the truth? Look at a map of the U.S. Find the Choctaw Nation, the Cherokee Nation, and the Chickasaw Nation within it. You can’t? This is because the government has declared that nothing can exist outside of it, and people like you believe it. We could get 100,000 people to buy a large plot of land, calling Anarchistan, but we would be ignored by the map makers and history book writers who are fervent worshipers of the Statism religion above all other religions! There have indeed been a number of Libertarian-ish colonies and communities that existed in U.S. history with varying degrees of success and failure, but they are never mentioned. Some Indian Tribes were quite libertarian. If you believe that might makes right, then you ultimately are a one world government supporter. If you believe in the bible, then read 1 Samuel 8 where God warns them of the upcoming evils that would take place if they choose Statism! Sadly, they did!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/06/roderick-t-long/the-vikings-were-libertarians/ is an example of a libertarian society before the mental disease of Statism spread which lead to our becoming a dominated specie!
Actually, totalitarians subscribe to a utopian view, where one group of humans have total authority over another and will only use their power for good.
Libertarians believe all humans, including those who style themselves as government, ought to be limited by law…as none are perfect and none should be permitted to initiate nonconsensual harm… again, including government.
Amen. Go back to the articles of confederation and work backwards from that.
The Constitutional Convention responsible for the current Constitution was in fact a coup. The
Articles of Confederation, the law of the land at the time which allowed very little power in the national government, did not allow for its own replacement, and so its replacement was criminal. The current Constitution was a dead letter upon its ratification. Providing no external enforcement of its restrictions, it left the very government it proposed to restrict in charge of its enforcement, leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. As evidenced by the current complete disregard for the Bill of Rights, except for the *3rd amendment, the state has no regard whatsoever for the document that every single agent of government takes an oath to protect and defend.
*Troops are not currently quartered in private homes. They are however quartered in facilities paid for by the armed robbery of the citizen, aka taxes.
Those who crafted the COTUS invoked the doctrine from the Declaration of Independence about throwing off the gov’t; that’s how they justified writing the COTUS vs. improving the Articles of Confederation that they were there to do.
That was the lube before the CO(i)TUS.
Yes, backwards from the Articles of Confederation, which takes us to the Declaration of Independence. That document clearly stated the fundamental foundational principle of our nation: that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights and that government is established in order to protect those rights. That bears emphasis: Government is not created to run every aspect of our lives, but only to protect our natural rights.
Fast forward to the Constitution. That document empowers the government in myriad ways, precious few of them aimed at protecting our natural rights. As Lysander Spooner noted, the Constitution either violated our rights in itself or was powerless to prevent such violation. Either way, it is unfit to exist.
Well-said, Mike!
I’ve long admired the beauty of the Declaration’s language; my only editorial issue with it is that property rights weren’t clearly articulated. Life and Liberty, certainly. The Pursuit of Happiness. All good. But the link between life and property was not adequately drawn. It wasn’t mentioned at all. But how can one’s right to life and liberty be secure when one’s physical person is not?
Eric, if I remember correctly, Jefferson’s early drafts actually included property among our inalienable rights, but was redacted because of its relationship to slavery. Regardless of any proclamation of protecting rights the US Constitution may contain, it most definitely laid the groundwork for subjugation of those rights. The ink was barely dry before the Sedition Act, signed by president John Adams in 1798, prohibited free speech.
…but they didn’t make the DOI philosophies law.
Spooner didn’t understand civics. The Constitution absolutely created and authorized the government we suffer under. Working exactly as designed.
And is not fit to exist