Reddit reviews Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty
We found 3 Reddit comments about Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy Barnett is a really good one if you want to make an argument against the way the Constitution has recently been handled, but still try to maintain some of the legitimacy of the document (which is to say, NOT full ancap).
One of his central points is that government can only gain legitimacy from the consent of the governed (ALL of the governed) so its a good springing off point.
For the readers amongst us; the article draws on the work of constitutional professor Randy E. Barnett. Here are some links to his books.
Capitalist Nodes:
Pirate Nodes:
>But you're "allowing" me to sleep with her, right? No law = allowing.
Not at all. It's not my choice to allow or not. There is no law stating that you cannot sleep with another person's girlfriend. You are allowed, permitted, have the right to propose such to her, and she is free to permit, deny or tell you to fuck right off. She is legally not permitted to slap you however, that's technically assault or battery depending on where you live, just as you are not allowed to force yourself on her. But in the original context of sleeping with my gf, she's not my property, she's a person, so I am not sure where I come in other than that I walk in on the two of you. At which point, I may or may not commit a double homicide and go to jail for it.
>Yet I never agreed to them. How can a law exist that applies to me, yet I never agreed to it? Honestly, I'm asking for your viewpoint here, because it really seems like a leap of logic to draw this conclusion.
I read a book on this, because it does get to the heart of the problem and essentially what you already mentioned. (I cannot remember the author or name, but I think it might be John Rawls? Bit dense reading though.) If I remember it discusses consent of the governed and specifically discusses the Constitution and "how can it be binding on those that didn't vote for it." Technically you can say, you didn't, but then others before you have and they are the ones that founded the country and area you live. If you disagree with it, you are free to leave. Then we have issues of your right to stay and live by your own rules, issues of lawlessness etc.
It is, as you said, to every person's benefit to follow basic rules/principles of reciprocity and norms else there would be chaos. If I remember correctly he discusses the consent of the governed and implied consent. It might actually be a different book specifically on the constitution actually by another author... one I believe a coworker never returned to me THIS I think that is it. Good read at least for a different view on things.
Why do I personally believe I should follow the Constitution and most laws, because I don't think they're unjust. I agree with the principles of democracy and that if I want to change something society as a whole has established a reasonable process to do that.
Generally, I don't think you'll find an objectively 100% accurate support for following laws, rules or the Constitution. It is a creation of man and not a law of nature. Subjective aspects are inherent and you can always argue "what if I choose to ignore it, or have different beliefs." Similar argument that is brought up ad nauseam, "what if we encounter a culture that believes murder is legal?" Ya, what if? Personally, I prefer Objectivisms view that there is an ultimate good with which to based judgments on, the existence and protection of life. That still has holes, but it allows me to comfortably say that such a society would be evil as it destroys life. (lets not go down this road though, what life is, what is a greater good all that... that's not really on topic).
>Don't people in the government kill people, rape occasionally and dogs are killed all the time (not sure about eaten). The reddit front page is filled with these stories almost every week at least. So I can only conclude that we are in "a world without laws".
You can conclude that we are in an imperfect world. A world where people disregard the laws. Whether under the belief they do not apply to them or merely because they don't care. The fact that some don't follow the rules doesn't mean there are no rules.