Why doesn't Dr. Paul advocate reinstating the Articles of Confederation?

[Anarchist420]

I was wondering what other people thought, because I, myself have no idea. Surely he couldn't really think that the Constitution protects our liberties or was ever meant to. I think if we'd be making more progress if he advocated replacing the Constitution with no state or a state more minimal than the Constitution.

I think starting a stateless society via Hoppean microsecession would be a good idea since we'll never have a minarchist government (I'm an anarchist, but I could tolerate a minarchist government such as the Articles of Confederation; the Constitution, however, is intolerable, for anarchists such as myself). Free-market security will protect the Anarcho-capitalists from the IRS and the U.S. Military if they try to collect money from a stateless society.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/2001projects/Superfundkdanis/historylovecanal.html


I suggest you think about why I posted that and it's relevancy (yes there is a point).

 

[Lemon law]

While I certainly agree with Hayabusa Rider on including Love Canal as just one of many reasons not to advocate what arachist420 envisions.

But maybe the more accurate thread title would be who cares what Dr. Paul thinks. Now that we have both Ron and rand holding one seats in congress and the Senate, no one in either body are willing to follow their wacky libertarian ideas. So Ron and Rand can flap their gums to their hearts content, but to be an effective leader one needs more than an itsy bitsie teenie weenie following.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why? Because he's not that stupid.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I would assume that Dr. Paul does not advocate reinstating the Articles of Confederation because he is not an imbecile.

 

[Rainsford]

I would assume that Dr. Paul does not advocate reinstating the Articles of Confederation because he is not an imbecile.

Or he's studied history. There is a reason the Articles of Confederation were quickly replaced, and there is no real support for anything like them working in any country on earth, past or present.

 

[Anarchist420]

http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/2001projects/Superfundkdanis/historylovecanal.html


I suggest you think about why I posted that and it's relevancy (yes there is a point).

I skimmed through the article, and I could be mistaken, but your point is that the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to protect the public, especially children. However, I don't think that the linked story makes a valid argument against a free society, because no one would choose to go to a dumping site, if they knew that it had been a dumping site. The people who lived there could also choose to move once they realized it was a former dumping site. The NF Board of Education concealed that info, and while the Federal Government may or may not have helped in this case, they create far more problems than they solve.

No one would buy that site for a lot of money anyway; they only paid $1 for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I skimmed through the article, and I could be mistaken, but your point is that the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to protect the public, especially children. However, I don't think that the linked story makes a valid argument against a free society, because no one would choose to go to a dumping site, if they knew that it had been a dumping site. The people who lived there could also choose to move once they realized it was a former dumping site. The NF Board of Education concealed that info, and while the Federal Government may or may not have helped in this case, they create far more problems than they solve.

No one would buy that site for a lot of money anyway; they only paid $1 for it.

Lameness. Choose to move once they realized it was a former dumping site. Peachy. What about the mortgage, and their equity? Their diseases and negative health conditions resulting from exposure?

Libertopian hogwash, promoted by the usual corporate suspects, who see it as a perfect way to externalize liabilities while internalizing profit.

 

[Brainonska511]

I skimmed through the article, and I could be mistaken, but your point is that the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to protect the public, especially children. However, I don't think that the linked story makes a valid argument against a free society, because no one would choose to go to a dumping site, if they knew that it had been a dumping site. The people who lived there could also choose to move once they realized it was a former dumping site. The NF Board of Education concealed that info, and while the Federal Government may or may not have helped in this case, they create far more problems than they solve.

No one would buy that site for a lot of money anyway; they only paid $1 for it.

So people have perfect job and land mobility? They would lose out horribly on their investment of their initial homes since they bought them without knowing of the horrible pollution in the area. They might not have the capital to just pick up and move. Edit: And as Jhhnn points out - what about any health conditions that could have developed or were silently developing in the time that they were exposed? I guess they should just suck it up, since they should have all been experts in environmental chemistry and should have known to test the soil and water and air before they move anywhere.

As for the school grounds - how do you know no one would buy it? Maybe they sold it at $1 as an act of goodwill to the community and didn't disclose the problems? You cannot draw the conclusion your drew from the information given. But I can't expect you to understand that, based on the nonsense you post.

Freedom isn't just about being able to do whatever you feel like, eg dumping chemicals, creating a toxic waste site, and then letting a town spring up over it or immediately adjacent without telling anyone of the danger. Part of living in society is a balance between the needs of society and the freedom of the individual.

No man is an island. We do not live in a State of Nature.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I skimmed through the article, and I could be mistaken, but your point is that the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to protect the public, especially children. However, I don't think that the linked story makes a valid argument against a free society, because no one would choose to go to a dumping site, if they knew that it had been a dumping site. The people who lived there could also choose to move once they realized it was a former dumping site. The NF Board of Education concealed that info, and while the Federal Government may or may not have helped in this case, they create far more problems than they solve.

No one would buy that site for a lot of money anyway; they only paid $1 for it.

The problem is that a completely free society isn't possible in a true sense. Perhaps if a group of like minded individuals moved away and established a colony, but the problem is that there will always be problems and disagreements. From the earliest time we've had some system which has addressed that and that it is invested with power over us. That act removes "free". Love Canal is an example of what can happen, but legislation attempted to remedy the situation however imperfectly. Once the dangers were realized then action was prevented to prevent it.

In areas where there was no such effective prohibition we see that companies take full advantage of the situation.

In an ideal world the pursuit of wealth and power would take lower priorities, but very definition of success is the acquisition of both of the above. Governments may (and do) further their control, but that doesn't mean that private industry or individuals are exempt.

Ideally the role of government would be to limit the exercise of power over the individual. The problem with that is that over time government sees itself as having more authority than it ought, and people will support it.

The Constitution was an imperfect document crafted by imperfect people but it has done something that few others have and that's withstood the test of time. While some see it as "quaint" or inadequate, I think that in the real world it's not a bad thing.

I really don't want to be a thrall to private or public powers, but on the other hand I cannot be allowed to exercise my freedom by harming others because I have the capacity to do so.

Consequently there is a dynamic tension that exists between the rights of the individual and the collective and the institutions which oversees them, whether governmental, private or social. An absolute solution cannot exist for that reason. You cannot make everyone happy at the same time.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Freedom isn't just about being able to do whatever you feel like, eg dumping chemicals, creating a toxic waste site, and then letting a town spring up over it or immediately adjacent without telling anyone of the danger. Part of living in society is a balance between the needs of society and the freedom of the individual.

No man is an island. We do not live in a State of Nature.

Well said.


..

 

[Steeplerot]

Dr. Paul is kinda like a libertopian Moses, promises to lead everyone to the promise land but does not go in himself. Praise the lawd!

 

[Phokus]

I was wondering what other people thought, because I, myself have no idea. Surely he couldn't really think that the Constitution protects our liberties or was ever meant to. I think if we'd be making more progress if he advocated replacing the Constitution with no state or a state more minimal than the Constitution.

I think starting a stateless society via Hoppean microsecession would be a good idea since we'll never have a minarchist government (I'm an anarchist, but I could tolerate a minarchist government such as the Articles of Confederation; the Constitution, however, is intolerable, for anarchists such as myself). Free-market security will protect the Anarcho-capitalists from the IRS and the U.S. Military if they try to collect money from a stateless society.

You're absolutely precious. Anarcho-Capitalism will never work. In absence of government, you cannot have capitalism because it is an unnatural system when there is no government to enforce private property/contracts/etc. In fact, one of the more modern examples of a stateless societies is in Spain where people organized themselves as an Anarcho-SYNDICALIST society.

 

[DrPizza]

I must be the only person who reads the thread title, thinks "wtf? Oh, it's gotta be another thread by..." and has his suspicions confirmed when he looks to see who the OP is.

 

[Brainonska511]

I must be the only person who reads the thread title, thinks "wtf? Oh, it's gotta be another thread by..." and has his suspicions confirmed when he looks to see who the OP is.

Nope. I think the same thing. Unfortunately, I had to give a legitimate reply this time.

 

[Thump553]

I must be the only person who reads the thread title, thinks "wtf? Oh, it's gotta be another thread by..." and has his suspicions confirmed when he looks to see who the OP is.

If it's another thread lauding values of the Articles of Confederation there's about a 99% chance of naming the thread starter. He never has explained why he thinks that horrible failure (in a much simplier time) would have even a scintilla of a chance of success today.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

So people have perfect job and land mobility? They would lose out horribly on their investment of their initial homes since they bought them without knowing of the horrible pollution in the area. They might not have the capital to just pick up and move. Edit: And as Jhhnn points out - what about any health conditions that could have developed or were silently developing in the time that they were exposed? I guess they should just suck it up, since they should have all been experts in environmental chemistry and should have known to test the soil and water and air before they move anywhere.

As for the school grounds - how do you know no one would buy it? Maybe they sold it at $1 as an act of goodwill to the community and didn't disclose the problems? You cannot draw the conclusion your drew from the information given. But I can't expect you to understand that, based on the nonsense you post.

Freedom isn't just about being able to do whatever you feel like, eg dumping chemicals, creating a toxic waste site, and then letting a town spring up over it or immediately adjacent without telling anyone of the danger. Part of living in society is a balance between the needs of society and the freedom of the individual.

No man is an island. We do not live in a State of Nature.

Did you read the article? The company that dumped the chemicals didn't want to sell the land. The school board sued them for it, and they only sold the land at a price of $1 so as not to make a profit from it, and the school board had to a sign an agreement saying that they understood the dangers of the site. In short, the problems of Love Canal were caused by the municipal government being a bunch of ignorant idiots who just wanted the land without caring what consequences would come of using it.

 

[Brainonska511]

Did you read the article? The company that dumped the chemicals didn't want to sell the land. The school board sued them for it, and they only sold the land at a price of $1 so as not to make a profit from it, and the school board had to a sign an agreement saying that they understood the dangers of the site. In short, the problems of Love Canal were caused by the municipal government being a bunch of ignorant idiots who just wanted the land without caring what consequences would come of using it.

Did you read the article? It says nothing about the school board suing them for the land.

The start of the problems began back in 1953 when the Niagara Falls Board of Education bought the land at the dumping site for one dollar and built an elementary school on top of it.

And this part suggests that the builder didn't know the true hazards and the board didn't investigate:

The architect who was hired to build the school questioned the safety of building on the land after finding a pit of chemicals but since he did not know what type of chemicals they were, he just mentioned that they may weaken the foundation of the building (Levine, 1982). The Board of Education ignored this and continued to build.

Regardless, it still doesn't excuse the chemical company from the dumping it did or allowing the town to be built up above the toxic waste dump. If they were so concerned, they should have brought it to the public's attention that their school board was building a school over highly toxic waste and that the town's land was also contaminated.

Edit:
The Wiki article on Love Canal mentions that the School Board would not budge on wanting to buy the site. They definitely share some of the blame.

. The land where the homes were being built was not part of the agreement between the school board and Hooker, thus none of these residents knew the history of the canal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#cite_note-Levine.2C_Adeline_Gordon_1975.2C_p.13-14
This part was interesting. Neither the chemical company nor the school board felt compelled to tell the community of the dangers of the ground they were living near?

 

[DaveSimmons]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#cite_note-Levine.2C_Adeline_Gordon_1975.2C_p.13-14
This part was interesting. Neither the chemical company nor the school board felt compelled to tell the community of the dangers of the ground they were living near?

Simple: In a Libertarian Utopia citizens would use their guns to force the school board to answer the questions that no one knew to ask them.

"Tell us about the problem we haven't heard of, or we'll shoot you!"

"Sorry, it's a Libertarian Utopia so I have bear arms too! BLAM!"