Monday, April 26, 2010

A Question of Constitution

The founding principle of the United States used to be 'freedom.'  The problem is that people forget this is a principle, and start adding provisos and exceptions, with whole categories of 'except' and 'but,' with a whole honking hoard of 'unless' mixed in for good measure.

A principle is simple.  It cannot have exceptions.  If there are exceptions, then it's no longer a principle, and you should probably stop trying to claim you believe in it.

The Constitution was designed to safeguard the principle of freedom as best it could, but with time, the body of law and education superseded it with a whole lot of rhetoric.  Now you have a mess of prohibitions, regulations, and mandates that have nothing at all to do with protecting the freedom of its citizens, and the government, charged with enforcing the very law that limits it, gives said law the broadest definition it can so that it can get away with as much as it can.  After all, a lot of people (often with money) want these laws, and someone wants to be re-elected, right?  And of course, if you don't pass new laws, you're not doing your job as congressman/senator, are you?

Freedom is simple: "You are your own sole owner, and nobody but you has right or responsibility over you."  This implies two things: 'you can do whatever you want to yourself,' and 'you can't do whatever you want to someone else.'  Additionally, property is a combination of free will, effort and unowned natural resources, so, for the purposes of this principle, it qualifies that property is a part of self.  Consent is used to share right and responsibility, and to give property away, but it must be given willingly to be just.  If anything, life, actions, property, etc. is taken from a person by force, it cannot be just according to the principle of freedom.

This above principle fits every single form of violence you can name: theft, assault, rape, murder, slavery, kidnapping, torture, etc.  The above principle also defies the justness of any law that prevents, regulates, or enforces activities between two consenting individuals.

I commend the Founding Fathers for their attempts at maximizing liberty using the Constitutional Contract, but it's become apparent that it is no longer working, and that there's really not much point to constitutionality.  It was bound to fail as long as the government it created was allowed to define, refine, and interpret it.

No comments: