Jacob Hornberger, in “The Real Meaning of the 4th of July,” illustrates well (and unintentionally, I believe) the fallacy that the state can protect individuals and their inalienable liberty:
“While they recognized the necessity for government – as a means to protect their rights – they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights.”
So how can an organization that is the “greatest threat” to individual’s rights be trusted or even considered a wise, viable choice to protect people’s rights? Isn’t the contradiction obvious? The Founder’s thought that a written piece of paper (the Constitution) would hold back the tyrannical leanings of the state. This goofy idea has been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. The US state began encroaching on the lives and liberties of American individuals before the ink was even dry on that worthless piece of parchment.
What better evidence to prove that elimination, not impotent regulation, of the state is the only viable alternative? One of history’s most murderous tyrants, George W. Bush, has made at least one statement that is true; ‘The Constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper.”
1 comment:
Excellent insights, thank you! Kind of reminds me of a quote by Lysander Spooner that Tom Woods quoted today in his article on LRC:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Post a Comment