The Constitution – a Failed Experiment

So, here we have another installment of Larken Rose. You might have seen me publishing some of his email letters here on this blog (with his permission – thanks, Larken!) because what he has to say is so on target that I could not have said it any better – – to be honest, I probably could not have said it as well by a long shot.

I had been contemplating this subject for a while and gotten the idea that the founding fathers were not so great heroes after all. I mean look at all these rumors on Illuminati, Bilderberger, take whatever secret order you like, and the founding father were members (depending what sources you have.)

Declaration of Independence

This whole declaration of independence stuff could have been just a power struggle on the highest levels – with North America the battleground. The outcome is actually a society that is not better off in any way today than most other western nations. Simply look at the power attorneys have – in the old country they would have been laughed out of the room for some of the things that are taken seriously here. Now they are the rulers, the only ones with something like a noble title – Esq. All the animals are equal, some are just more equal – remember?

These secret orders take a much longer-lasting point of view. So, these two hundred years to reach total domination of the population, mostly giving away half of their earnings without noticing too much wrong with that, is actually a raving success for the victors in this battle that must have raged on a totally different level than history book tell us today – and we all know who writes the history books.

Today was a very good Larken day because we got not only one – or not even two – but three messages from him. Here is the first one.

Dear Subscriber,

I’m going to do what almost nobody who values freedom is doing these days: I’m going to suggest that you should NOT vote for Ron Paul for President.

So who should you vote for? Nobody. Voting is an immoral act. (I warned you before that what happens on this list is way outside the realm of “acceptable” political discussion.)

Unlike everyone else running for President right now, Ron Paul actually believes in something. There are actual principles underlying his beliefs. He believes in the Constitution. By itself that doesn’t sound particularly noteworthy, except that NO ONE else running for President, and no one else in either major party believes in the Constitution. Not one. They give it occasional lip- service, but in practice they ALL violate it on a daily basis.

Dr. Paul believes, as the Founders did, that the federal government should do very little, dang near NOTHING affecting the lives of most Americans. I disagree. The feds should not do ALMOST nothing; they should do ABSOLUTELY nothing. All the control freaks who call themselves “representatives,” not to mention all the thugs who work for them (IRS, CIA, DEA, ATF, FBI, FCC, FDA, DOJ, etc.), should go home, look in the mirror, recognize that they are mere mortals with no right to rule anyone else, and then they should leave everyone else alone.

I have a habit of making pro-freedom people argue something they hardly ever have to argue: that we need MORE government (more than I advocate, that is–which is none). The difference between dang- near-no government interference (as Dr. Paul advocates) and NO “government” interference (as I do) may seem trivial, but it is not. Yes, if the federal government only did what the Constitution authorizes, we would all benefit enormously. The problem would become so small that most of us wouldn’t notice it at all. A tiny little tyranny, affecting a tiny percentage of the people–who would bother getting riled up about that? Nobody. And therein lies the problem. Remember, the Constitution is what LED to where we are now: that tiny little power grew, as the anti-federalists warned, into a monstrous leviathan.

Let me just add here, if you intend to vote for anyone OTHER than Dr. Paul, you might as well put yourself in shackles right now, because you are volunteering yourself (and everyone else) into absolutely slavery. Why? Because EVERY other politician in office or running for office believes that THEY and they alone have absolute discretion over how much they will rob you and how much they will control you. They acknowledge no limits to their power. They all view you as their slaves. If you vote for them, you are AGREEING with them; you are endorsing your own enslavement, and all that is left is the pathetic attempt to get a relatively benevolent slave-master (which won’t happen either).

If a Ron-Paul-style country would be such a vast improvement over what we have now (and it certainly would), why am I suggesting that people should NOT vote for him? Because you have no right to choose a ruler for anyone else, no matter how benevolent and wise such a ruler might be. You cannot delegate to anyone rights you don’t personally have, and you do NOT have the right to impose even little “taxes,” even minimal “regulations,” even just about those few matters listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And by voting, even for someone like Dr. Paul, you are ENDORSING the idea that whomever gets the most votes has the RIGHT to forcibly control everyone, even if only in a “limited” way.

Personally, I’d love to see nothing more than a Ron Paul Presidency (although frankly, I think the powers that be would kill him before they’d let him take office), just for the entertainment value if nothing else. But as enticing as that thought is, I cannot and will not play a game, the scam called “democracy,” which implies that the individual is the PROPERTY of the state, and that our only choice is WHICH slave-master will own us. If I was the property of someone else, I would love that someone else to be Dr. Paul. But I’m not, and I will not act like I am by “voting.”

Larken Rose

And here the second one coming out just hours after the first on clarifying some important aspect.

Dear Subscriber,

The great American experiment, an attempt to have a system of government whose purpose is to preserve and protect individual liberty, ABSOLUTELY FAILED. Denying that fact at this point is just silly. So why exactly does anyone think that trying the same thing again would turn out better? Let’s take it beyond the slim possibility of getting Ron Paul elected President. Let’s suppose we figured out a way to resurrect Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the rest of them, and give them control of the government. What reason is there to think we wouldn’t end up where we are now?

Sure, it would take a while to get back to here, and you and I probably wouldn’t be around to suffer the consequences of the SECOND failed attempt. But it would get to totalitarianism nonetheless. Now, I’ve heard people say that what we have today is NOT the fault of the Constitution, but the fault of the people who didn’t value freedom, who weren’t vigilant, who fell for the tricks of politicians, and so on. Oddly, those same people will criticize communists who make the same argument: that the IDEA is fine, it’s just imperfect people keep botching it up. What good is an idea that doesn’t work in the real world? The Constitution DIDN’T WORK. It didn’t keep government in check; instead, it made something that grew into the biggest tyrannical empire in the history of the world (though not the most overtly violent… yet). That’s not to say there weren’t some huge leaps in the right direction, regarding issues concerning individual rights, limited powers of “government,” etc. But it wasn’t enough, and anyone who looks at modern America and still denies the FAILURE of the Constitution is no better than the people who look at the Soviet Union and fail to see the FAILURE of Communism. It took the Constitution a lot longer to fail, because it was infinitely wiser than the short-sighted anti-human stupidity underlying communism, but it failed nonetheless, and for the same reason: it was based on the myth of “authority.”

Many Americans, including many of those I deeply respect, still revere the Constitution as a near-divine entity, and consider criticism of it to almost amount to heresy. In my own case alone, I have seen that the First Amendment is dead; the Second Amendment is all but dead; the Fourth Amendment is dead, buried, and eaten by worms; the Fifth Amendment is in a coma; the Sixth Amendment has been cremated; and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have died, decomposed, turned to dust, and blown away. So don’t tell me the Constitution worked. It didn’t. Now why, exactly, do you think trying the same thing again, via a Ron Paul presidency, would work out any better in the long run (especially considering the collectivist mindset that most Americans now have)?

Larken Rose

And here is number three.

Dear Subscriber,

In response to my anti-endorsement of Ron Paul (actually, my condemnation of the entire scam called “democracy”), several people disagreed, and in their messages implied that, though it’s an uphill battle, working within the system (e.g., for campaigns like Ron Paul’s) is our only hope of achieving freedom. In the same vein, they complained that I offered no alternative “solution” to the problem. In fact, several people interpreted my message as giving up, or throwing in the towel. I assure you, that is NOT the case.

Imagine you lived in a primitive tribe which, when there was a drought, would offer up human sacrifices to their gods, and pray to their gods for rain. They did this year after year, but droughts would still happen. Then one day, one dude says, “Hey, guys, have you noticed that this human sacrifice routine DOESN’T WORK!?” That radical might go so far as to advocate the “extreme” position that the tribe should STOP sacrificing people altogether.

“Oh, so we’re just going to LET the droughts happen and do nothing? You’re just going to give up? You have to work within the system, and improve our sacrifice rituals to get a better result. I know the system isn’t perfect, but we can’t just give up! Imagine how little rain we’d get if we DIDN’T do the sacrifices!”

The radical dude would probably have a tough time getting the others to think outside of the box of human-sacrifice-related “solutions.” I mean WAY outside the box, like piping in water from the nearby lake, or making rain-catching reservoirs–in other words, things that might actually work.

I am NOT suggesting that you give up on trying to achieve freedom. I’m suggesting that you give up on the traditional, perpetually failing “solution” called “government.” How long have people prayed to IT to save them, and how often has it worked? At least when you offer up human sacrifices to imaginary gods, it doesn’t make the weather WORSE, whereas when you look to “authority” to improve humanity, it ALWAYS makes it worse.

If you see working within the “system” as your only means to achieve freedom, you are VOLUNTEERING to be powerless. We were all trained to think that way: to view playing the games of tyrants as the only decent, civilized way to try to reduce tyranny. How goofy is that? If we need to ASK the tyrants whether we can be free, what do you think they will say? If we’re given two tyrants to choose from, and we ACCEPT that our only choice is to pick one, well, no wonder we’re where we are.

I’m not asking you to give up. I’m asking you to stop advocating human sacrifices. Open your eyes, and realize it doesn’t WORK. Elections, Constitutions and petitions are not the road to freedom. Those paths cannot lead there.

To put it another (slightly cliche) way, the primary problem is not the shackles on your body, but the shackles on your mind. Imagine two slaves a couple hundred years ago: one who believes himself to be the rightful property of his “owner,” the other who believes that he owns himself. The ONLY recourse of the first is to ASK his owner to “give” him freedom, while the second knows he has every right to claim his own freedom by any means necessary. The first is doomed to be enslaved forever, because he has ACCEPTED the idea that someone else has the RIGHT to rule him.

Likewise, those of you who still revere “government,” “authority,” and “law” (statutory) are accepting the premise that you BELONG to the state; that you have no right to be free until the commands of tyrants give you permission to be free (which, not surprisingly, doesn’t happen). I’m not suggesting you give up on your attempt to be free; I’m suggesting that you give up the DELUSION that will keep you enslaved forever: your belief in “authority.” Until you do that, all of your actions will amount to, “Please, Massah!” And how far do you expect that to get you?

Larken Rose