It's all Americans' fault

they're out of power now, I don't know what you're talking about.

checked
You assume too much. This is a house of cards. Does anybody really have any rights? What rights do people have, and why? Your whole construction is baseless.

Sorry, I hadn't heard. Sweet. No more NSA snooping, Edward can come home to live in peace, "Federal" Reserve stopped stealing buying power from my stash in the mattress, I won't get murdered over my plant-ingestion habit, and I get to keep everything I make if/when I do something useful without official muggers taking half or more of the proceeds! Murka!

dude

We don't and can't know that 100%

Do you think those who wrote the constitution had in mind the tendency languages have to evolve over time as they wrote it? Or do you think they had in mind that their original intentions and meaning would be obvious as time goes on?

Okay nigger.

True - DOES anybody really have any rights? That's beside the point, though, as either the US fedgov is r-really trying to obey the law, guys! in which case they're crooks owed no obedience, or they're gunmen trying to hide behind a flimsy lie which a small paragraph can demolish.

Or so I think. Feel free to describe which card(s) in my house you knock over and how.

That is a false premise. Authority is not an absolute, it comes in increments. 1 million burglars have authority over one, because they can enact force upon the lone man. Force is authority, it has nothing to do with rights. Rights are taken not given. The people are the essential authority because they together, have more force than the entirety of the government. The government is then subservient to the people. The peoples' fidelity to the government is the reason it has authority over the people, it is the same reason money has "value". You can do as many mental gymnastics as you want, but the constitution is a guideline, not an authority. It is an intent and belief, but means nothing if not protected by force. "Might is right," is a saying for a reason. It is the law of nature, and man must abide.

DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY EXIST, MAAAAAAAAAAAAAN?

SERIOUSLY LET US CONTEMPLATE THE VALIDITY OF OUR EXISTENCE, MAAAAAAAAAAN.

WHO IS ANYONE TO DICTATE ANOTHER'S COURSE IN LIFE, RIGHT, MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN?

THE VERY IDEA OF AUTHORITY OVER A HUMAN BEING'S CHOICE IS JUST, LIKE, FUCKED UP, RIGHT MAAAAAAAAAAAAAN?

I do think the authors of the Constitution were aware of how language tends to change over time and made allowances for it. Compare with the Anti- and Federalist Papers to see that the Constitution was written in comparative kiddy-speak. (I also think the authors were slimebags, since they claimed authority to tax. Last I checked, I don't have a power to take half or more of your resources, and so can't delegate that to anyone else.)

Am I reduced to platitudes? You be the judge.

I think the Constitution is an experiment that tests the following question posed in 1776: what if we assume that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We assume that, and try to come up with a set of rules for everyone to follow, the Constitution, that will practically maximize the rights of the population.

Maybe you should be more specific about your goals. Because it's easier to oversee and control a local government, the government should be as local as possible. Our Federal government criminally departs from this pattern.

Thanks. I think you're mostly right about power. If "might makes right", that would mean the US Constitution and everything based upon it is a lie worthy of no respect (except to avoid death). Authority touches on morality, a topic I was trying to keep in the background for now.

Let's examine this, shall we?

Sure. Let's accept that for now.

I think most people would agree that's true.

Here's where you made a mistake. Authority has nothing to do with the source.

False claim. Indeed, since the job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the US Constitution, they by necessity, have more authority than the source.

No. It holds the collective authority of anyone who believes it holds authority of the highest law in the land. In other words you and pretty much everyone else in the country who abides by the law.

Incorrect. Authority is not a resource or commodity.

Incorrect. Authority is derived from force, violence, coercion. Without it, there is no authority, as it would be impossible to enforce and therefore nonexistent.

False. If one person threatens 10 people, those 10 people (or any other group of people) have the authority and the moral obligation to carry out whatever neutralization is necessary against the one.

Terms:

Incorrect. You've fallen for the trap of "rights" without force behind them. Without force, which is violence or the threat of violence, rights cannot exist because they cannot be enforced.

Basically true.

Property doesn't exist except as it is defined by those with authority.

Derived claims:

Crime is only measured against laws. Laws are created, enacted and enforced by authority. Authority exists only with the appropriate force to enforce that authority.

In other words, if you claim the government activity is criminal, you're going to have to explain by who's laws and who enforces those laws. If laws cannot be enforced, they are invalid.

6/10 made me respond.

user…
You've just discovered the secret about all society, the caveat being that it's better to play pretend than just beat each other to death with rocks for the best cave

I think the Constitution was a coup de tat which ended the experiment you describe which was actually run under the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

My goals? I am attempting to construct a concise attack on the legitimacy of the current US fedgov, using its own rules (ala Alinsky), to be used in an attempt to nudge American culture back towards the ideals of that 1776-era experiment. The reason I posted it here is to ask/bait others into knocking over the weak spots I missed.

It isn't a lie, and it does warrant a certain degree of respect. The constitution has a marginal amount of authority which I didn't really touch upon. The Constitution influences the perception of people, which is perceived authority, which is important as well (like money again). Also, I think that the bill of rights is a manifestation of a beautiful ideal, it is part of the spirit of the Aryans - that yearning to be free and should be cherished. If anything is to be taken from this experiment with liberalism, it is the bill of rights.

The Constitution isn't based on a lie? Then the OP must be correct in the criminality of almost all US fedgov activity, if the delegated powers of the Constitution really were derived from the consent of mundane humans. I'm not a big fan of "truthiness" - if it's not true, I'm not going to go along with it (I'm great at parties), so an attack against a "good" lie which is also used to harm many people is still something I think is quite valuable.

Fun fact: the founding fathers were criminals in the eyes of the British Crown.

They had to resort to force against legimate authority of the time to establish their own authority.

I'm now convinced you're just a kid, so I won't be too harsh, but you really shoud lurk more.

It isn't a lie, once again. It is a guideline. The constitution is weapons grade meme warfare by our forefathers. It is a means of shifting the overton window. It is a much bigger deal for a politician to do something that violates the constitution than it is for a politician to simply do something that is wrong. It isn't a lie, because it is a guideline. The founding fathers understood that there would be more revolutions to ensure our rights as a people, the only reason our runaway government has existed for so long is because panem et circenses.

Are the things it does criminal according to the constitution? Absolutely. But it means nothing if you are a criminal and nobody is willing to punish you for it. If you aren't willing to enforce your rights, and the constitution you are consenting to their authority. We are back to might makes right.

Am I making sense? Because I think we just did a 360.

We differ on some critical definitions. Authority as OP defined it rests on morality to differentiate it from mere power. Discussion of morality was something I was hoping to avoid since I am trying to focus on the Constitution, and the morality I refer to is borrowed from the human equality the Declaration of Independence describes. The SCOTUS having more authority/power than the Constitution would mean the SCOTUS could simply throw out the entire US fedgov and make up something new as they pleased (which, arguably, has already been done to a limited extent). Authority not being a resource or commodity works in favor of my assertion, I believe, since I claim it does not increase in scope with more participants.

Here we definitely agree, and this is the basis of how ideal "Law Enforcement" should work. I as a victim could choose to delegate my authority to use power against my attacker to LEOs, LEOs who have no authority greater than my own. This also holds true if I am one lone victim of 10 attackers.

This is also an area in which I hope to use my "weapon". In my limited personal experience, it is the norm for politicians, sheriffs, etc. to respond "but it ISN'T criminal if US courts say it's not, or if the enforcers have all been paid off". (Or, conversely, that something IS criminal just and only because one lone black-robed idiot said so.) Having a handy dart with which to let all the hot air out of their fantasy may help me determine who is a diehard Agent and who is just a confused bluepill.

Just as a Europoor dropping by, I'd like to say that we should extend your Burger Constitution to the rest of the world.
Not your country, just the things guaranteed with it.
IT sucks major balls living in a country where "hate speech" can be slapped on anything and banned. And no guns ofc.

But that's just a fantasy, user.

Morality is merely how we justify the use of power. It doesn't exist on its own.

That's the problem you're making here, is you believe in abstract ideas as if they were universal truths.

It's not to say that there is nothing good in those concepts, but ultimately, "might makes right" quite literally here. You cannot and will not have it otherwise. To achieve your ideals, you will HAVE to use force. You can justify it however you like if you win.

I largely agree with you: I am treating an abstract idea (all men created equal, given the unalienable right of life by their Creator) as a universal truth. Within the boundaries of that idea, I am very much willing and able to use force. As that idea limits the scope for which I am willing to use force, I am attempting to fashion weapons of reason, ultimately I suppose, to have more force available if/when the situation calls for it.

I really like that abstract idea.

You sound like the Sovereign Citizen faggots who get rekt for disregarding the law. So tell me, where did the evil blue men touch you?

"Sovereign Citizen" ideology might have made a better impression on me if they didn't all seem to be weasels (problem? Let's try PAPERWORK!) and anklebiters (I'll show him - I'll file a LIEN on his HOUSE!).

My aim is for the jugular.

Discussing authority, legitimacy, morality, oughts, should are all meaningless jew drivel. There is only what you wish to achieve and what you are capable of achieving. Nothing more.

The Constitution hasn't been the law of the land since the US went bankrupt.

we memed a shitlord into Presidency, you filthy goyim

Why not use this as an attack against the cowering thugs squatting in public office? Normies support and fuel the status quo because they generally believe the crap about the Constitution being functional and respected law.

Heads, I win (Constitution

Neither authority nor morality exist, power is merely a manifestation of the volition to affect objects.

Oh no. It's sovereign cucktizen drivel. Enjoy being shot by police, I guess.

Weaponizing this in a form that destroys belief in the status quo lie (i.e. bluhbluh Constitution is awesome, just has some bad apples bluhbluh) and provides a more robust replacement should be useful in obtaining more of that power, no?

listen you little faggot. the problem isnt government as an idea, they problem is peoples lack of exposure to genuine information and the complacency created by that. if you want to think taxation is theft by a criminal government, go ahead but without that same criminal government america would be ran by regional warlords or invaded by another nation. you minimize how "criminal" a government is by purging subversive jews and traitors. which doesnt happen in america because it is zog. externalizing responsibility away from yourself and placing blame on "america" is what cowards do.

morality simply seeks to find the truth of a matter if you break down the definition.

morality - principles (truths) determining the distinction between right (true) and wrong (false)

lying is immoral because you didnt discern the truth from the lie. if you want to advocate for a "moral code" to live by you need to frame it with your base desire first. if you desire freedom, you can create a dogmatic moral code to go by. if you desire survival, youll have a different dogmatic moral code. determining if an action is moral or not is dependent on what the desire to be achieved is. its not relativism but you may be baited into seeing it that way.

That's where you lost me.
Isn't it more reasonable that it's authority comes from the collective of people that believe in it?

D___
W___
L___!

I'm attempting some aikido here, and that seems to require differentiating "power" (mere force) from "authority" (use of power is okay as long as it comes from the consent of the governed).

Power does indeed increase as the number of humans and resources increase. Authority, by the above metric, does not: if I as a lone human don't have authority to do a thing to someone else, neither can I delegate authority for that same thing to anyone else and have it become legit. See: murder versus murder for hire.

This might be accurate for some, but not for all. Any form of "society" ultimately already functions as a conspiracy of its beneficiaries to attempt to subvert and subjugate others. If you intend to do the same, you're not really changing anything. Ultimately, you should just do whatever you want and be extremely skeptical of those trying to persuade you otherwise.

If you trace the moral precepts of western society to their supposed origin, this is an accurate description of the distinction of asha and druj. However, the only discernible truth is that of the ego itself, arbitration of "right" and "wrong" is essentially meaningless.

Except this argument the constitution has was given to it by a man.
Argument doesn't work when it's source of authority is natural law or God.

This argument assumes the authority of*

>>>Holla Forums

Agreed completely: natural law is functionally the Creator's law. However, that line of thought reaches outside the bounds of "law" as it pertains to the Constitution: US law was the DoI and the AoC until replaced by the USC in what I see as a coup de tat. I don't have a time machine, so I aim to "use the system against itself from within the system to expose the lie/criminality of the system".

Is that stupid? Maybe. It still seems like a far better path to follow for now than, say, shoot half a dozen vile individuals in the face before I "break a truck axle and get the burners".

...