"The mythology surrounding the constitution alleges that it served as a sort of contract between the people in general and their new ‘servants’ in congress. But there is not a shred of truth to that. One cannot by signing a contract, bind someone else to an ‘agreement.’ The idea that a few dozen white, male, wealthy landowners could enter an agreement on behalf of over two million other people is absurd. But the absurdity does not stop there. No contract can ever create a right held by none of the participants, which is what all ‘government’ constitutions pretend to do. The form of the document makes it clear that it was not an actual contract, but an attempt to fabricate out of thin air the right to rule, however ‘limited’ it was supposed to be.
An actual agreement by contract is a fundamentally different thing from any document purporting to create a ‘government.’ For example, if a thousand American colonists had signed an agreement saying ‘We agree to give a tenth of whatever we produce, in exchange for the protection services of George Washington Protection Company,’ they could be morally bound by such an agreement. (Making an agreement and breaching it is a form of theft, akin to going to a store and taking something without paying for it.) But they could not bind anyone else to the agreement, nor could they use such an agreement to give the ‘George Washington Protection Company’ the right to start robbing or otherwise controlling people who had nothing to do with the contract. Additionally while the constitution pretends to authorise ‘congress’ to do various things, it does not actually require congress to do anything. Who in their right mind would sign a contract which did not bind the other party to do anything? (In DeDhanney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, even the U.S. Supreme Court officially declared that ‘government’ has no actual duty to protect the public.) The result is that the constitution, rather than being a brilliant, useful valid contract, was an insane attempt by a handful of men to unilaterally subject millions of other people to the control of a machine of aggression, in exchange for no guarantee of anything. The fact that millions of constitutionalists are desperately trying to get back to that, in hopes that it can save their ‘country’ if the people try it again - after it completely failed on the first attempt - is a testament to the power and the insanity, of the superstition of ‘authority.’” ~ Larken Rose, _The Most Dangerous Superstition_
GrumpyRabbit
npub10q…aewu8
2025-04-01 19:32:26 UTC
Author Public Key
npub10qy7pkdyht8y9tzar2guerw9x2z4y0wn3wnzcjny92c29zj3fvkqkaewu8Published at
2025-04-01 19:32:26 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "3c7ef362c25ea77e4eee9dfe5238d57d222767b31dff19e3a0ef7445f84f71ab",
"pubkey": "7809e0d9a4bace42ac5d1a91cc8dc53285523dd38ba62c4a642ab0a28a514b2c",
"created_at": 1743535946,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://social.teci.world/objects/abf5df78-d4a5-4855-ba68-c0950bc1465a",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "\"The mythology surrounding the constitution alleges that it served as a sort of contract between the people in general and their new ‘servants’ in congress. But there is not a shred of truth to that. One cannot by signing a contract, bind someone else to an ‘agreement.’ The idea that a few dozen white, male, wealthy landowners could enter an agreement on behalf of over two million other people is absurd. But the absurdity does not stop there. No contract can ever create a right held by none of the participants, which is what all ‘government’ constitutions pretend to do. The form of the document makes it clear that it was not an actual contract, but an attempt to fabricate out of thin air the right to rule, however ‘limited’ it was supposed to be.\n\nAn actual agreement by contract is a fundamentally different thing from any document purporting to create a ‘government.’ For example, if a thousand American colonists had signed an agreement saying ‘We agree to give a tenth of whatever we produce, in exchange for the protection services of George Washington Protection Company,’ they could be morally bound by such an agreement. (Making an agreement and breaching it is a form of theft, akin to going to a store and taking something without paying for it.) But they could not bind anyone else to the agreement, nor could they use such an agreement to give the ‘George Washington Protection Company’ the right to start robbing or otherwise controlling people who had nothing to do with the contract. Additionally while the constitution pretends to authorise ‘congress’ to do various things, it does not actually require congress to do anything. Who in their right mind would sign a contract which did not bind the other party to do anything? (In DeDhanney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, even the U.S. Supreme Court officially declared that ‘government’ has no actual duty to protect the public.) The result is that the constitution, rather than being a brilliant, useful valid contract, was an insane attempt by a handful of men to unilaterally subject millions of other people to the control of a machine of aggression, in exchange for no guarantee of anything. The fact that millions of constitutionalists are desperately trying to get back to that, in hopes that it can save their ‘country’ if the people try it again - after it completely failed on the first attempt - is a testament to the power and the insanity, of the superstition of ‘authority.’” ~ Larken Rose, _The Most Dangerous Superstition_",
"sig": "567b89c9d079f8d1f7865ed9a765f0df0b03cd6cf0f197c4e1030cf42b97ee40056661de7f0f47e3c433e54b8e45ef9d6160c2409b586315d1b4b0c377420795"
}