Constitution for a fifth grader
The United States Constitution, therefore, set up a Constitutionally limited Republic, where those granted authority were limited in scope by the expected language of the Constitution. The mistake has been two fold in that most education systems call our system a Democracy, implying that we have some sense of moral responsibility to alter the behavior of those we disagree with by instituting new laws and assuming that the Constitution is not a limiting document, but a living document, where it can be circumvented by other law. Both are errors.
Ask yourself what comes to mind when you think of the statement “The United States”. Do you think on a convention of independent States allied by contract? Or do you imagine the President and his government?
In simpler words: Government has not been given the authority to rule over men, but to rule for them. Any action that moves the point of rule from the individual to the agent is flatly unconstitutional.
Originally the idea of elected officials was specifically designed by the US Constitution to help ensure the distinction of class in individuals and more importantly to create ‘conflict’, that is, what we have come to know as checks and balances, between the many officials in the government.
"Man cannot take away God given rights." - This is where the fundamental notion of asking the question about the nature of the universe comes into play and why it is the most important question to ask.
As I’ve stated, the root of a man is our First Estate (our body/mind complex), from this First Estate one is able to work with the body to do things like gather food and build shelter. Work by the First Estate allows the individual to survive, and thus, ensures Life. The ability to do this work without hindrance is Liberty. From these three primary concepts the Founding Fathers compiled a list of rights they believed would express these underlying thoughts.
Taxation, ownership, and forced participation
Are roads necessary? Necessary is a sticky word because it implies some kind of social requirement, that the world is moving someplace on purpose: That Progress is a teleological necessity. From a society stand point, nothing is necessary (as society is a collection of individuals)...
There is no signature of agreement by those being taxed, they are not being allowed to participate by their own will. They are forced to agree, else be murdered.
First and foremost, the argument automatically assumes a selfish position by the person putting forth the idea. The very idea of the kind of selfishness the collectivists attribute to the Objectivist point of view. They say to us, “you capitalist are greedy and Selfish!”, yet, in order to have what they want, they willingly steal and build their blood soaked monuments with our creation, at gun point...
Unification of Self & Liberty
You know you are already angry with the title of this book. Good. You should be.
A longer chain of slaves with more links called rights gives the slave the opinion of his freedom because he cannot see the Master’s whip so easily, but it is still there.
This book by specific intention says that constructed views of reality - that is: enforced values, opinions, writings, purposes and especially the construction we have come to call Law - is not and never has had the authority to supersede the individual. From this sense, a document called Constitution with named specific rights is just a document and holds no sway or validity over the individual.
The outcome of the vote is always compulsion forced on the individual.
In the end, the vote is not only consent, but it is a surrender that requires the voter to give up individual authority or be murdered, sometimes both. It is a surrender to all posterity, a way of diminishing the value of all future children.
The voter has agreed to the outcome of the events without any actual consideration of morality. The voter assumes that only moral acts can be achieved by the vote. Thus, stealing someone’s income so that the voter can have a road is to such a person a justifiable outcome. The theft itself ignored, for the presumed moral end called road.
You want to talk about having a voice, then start discussing how much of your autobiography can actually be written with your own voice, penned by your own identity. Nearly none of it. Because the State makes most of your important decisions for you.
The amount your voice matters is related to how voluntary your society is.
Not only physically by taking away the natural Right of the individual to self-determine, but it destroys our ability to live in society. Because now I know, that 6 out of every 10 people I talk with want to have me chained and controlled. If I step out of line, by their definition of that line, those 6 out of 10 people would have no problem with me being put down like a sick dog. Six out of ten would jeer and applaud as the police destroyed my home, drug my limp dead body into the street and lauded over it as a trophy.
The State, as indicated above, cannot own the authority of a right, because only the individual has that contract of the self. This contract is called Himself. The State’s only power is a false authority.