# Change the Constitution: A what-if discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2004, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041 "2004-12-04T07:23:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/101 "2004-12-07T21:17:41Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Opression is not the same thing as a restriction from oppression. A restriction from establishing a tyranny is not the same thing as tyranny. **Liberal** ’s post only suggested that we make certain the rights of individuals to have a voice in their laws never be taken away. This is not the same thing as “taking away our right to consent to the laws we live under”. ## Unless I am missing something he is talking about not legislating at all. This oppresses people by removing their say in what laws they will live under. > [@Liberal](#): > > Who has advocated taking away your right to consent? If you wish to be a man’s slave, it is none of my business. ## I was speaking of us all. You can deny the reality of the collective, if you care to, while recognizing it’s existence in my post. When I spoke to you I carefully referred only to the individual. Why should a citizen give up their ability to shape the rules they live under? > [@Smartass](#): > > If I am understanding you correctly, you are pointing out that the laws protecting life, liberty, property would have to be imposed on everyone, right? If so, this is a thing I’ve seen several times, and I don’t get it. Libertarians, in general, believe that it is bad to impose rules on people. However, since having no rules at all equates to “the strongest shall rule”, the idea behind libertarian rules is to impose a minimum set of rules, i.e. provide as much freedom for every individual as possible. Everyone is subject to this “tyranny”, but it is, as far as anyone has been able to show, the minimal amount of “tyranny” that avoids anarchy. ## Rules have to be imposed because it seems humans can’t live in complex societies without them. What I am saying is that everyone should have a say in what those rules are. You have your minimalist view of government. Great. If you can convince enough people then government should respond. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/102 "2004-12-08T01:12:15Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Unless I am missing something he is talking about not legislating at all. This oppresses people by removing their say in what laws they will live under. Well, I could be missing something as well. But I think, rather that he is suggesting that government work in a different way thatn we are used to thinking. Something like a body which interprets the principle of individual freedom for addressing various issues. Rather than a body which addresses issues by applying force in one way or another. It might, for instance, be in charge of interpreting whether a specific act or even, perhaps, a class of actions constitutes a violation of the individual freedom or non coercion rule. The point of this being that what this “government” does might not, in a certain context, be considered legislating. It would not necessarily be considered “ruling”. The point I was trying to make was that I don’t think **Liberal** suggested that such a body (whatever its exact function) would be elected at random or by birth or anything. I assume that such a body (or even several of them) would be elected through the normal means. > [@](#): > > Rules have to be imposed because it seems humans can’t live in complex societies without them. But what if the only “rule” is that you cannot impose any rules? I have to say I am taking up an argument that **Liberal** began. I am only interpreting his posts from another perspective. In no way am I suggesting that I speak for him or anything even close to that. BTW, **2sense** did I come anywhere close to your objections to the constitution in my last post? I’m just curious if I have understood you from when we’ve talked before. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/103 "2004-12-08T16:22:20Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But what if the only “rule” is that you cannot impose any rules? That would be anarchy. Plus that was not **Lib’s** formulation. It also included that part about protecting people from deception. How one intends to do this at a practical level seems to be a sticking point. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/104 "2004-12-08T16:33:01Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > That would be anarchy. Plus that was not **Lib’s** formulation. It also included that part about protecting people from deception. How one intends to do this at a practical level seems to be a sticking point. Or even what “protecting people from deception” necessarily entails. “Protecting people from deception” can readily be used as justification for a police state, and yet I don’t think that’s what is intended by most libertarians. Clearly there’s more to it than that. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/105 "2004-12-08T22:26:09Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > That would be anarchy. I’m not so sure. If the law exists which says that no rules can be made, i.e. one person cannot rule another, one group cannot rule another, and even that a large group cannot rule an individual, this is not exactly anarchy. It sounds similar, I agree. But there is a subtle difference. > [@](#): > > Plus that was not **Lib’s** formulation. It also included that part about protecting people from deception. How one intends to do this at a practical level seems to be a sticking point. Well, again I should not speak for him, but I assume that some forms of deception would be considered coercion. That is tricking someone into giving up thier freedom is similar in kind to forcing them to do so. I agree that in this thread **Liberal** has not fleshed out his ideals on how a non legislating government would operate. But just because we use laws now to enforce the will of the people, does not mean that this is the only way to organize society. What if a governing body was to simply be in charge of enforcing the one rule that nobody could coerce any other? They might take votes and implimnet policies. But would that really be the exact same thing as legislating? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/106 "2004-12-08T22:41:19Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I’m not so sure. If the law exists which says that no rules can be made, i.e. one person cannot rule another, one group cannot rule another, and even that a large group cannot rule an individual, this is not exactly anarchy. It sounds similar, I agree. But there is a subtle difference. No, it’s merely illogical. If no individual or group can rule another, then the rule against rules cannot be enforced because the government (being a group) would be disempowered from preventing anyone else from attempting to exercise dominion over another. A government that is unable to exercise dominion over the citizens is a failed government, and a ‘government’ that is constitutionally forbidden from exercising dominion over the citizens is a sham. Such a system is a true anarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/107 "2004-12-09T02:31:06Z")
> [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > You’ve proven in this thread and others that you have a solid foundation for your beliefs, that you’ve examined the problems from many angles, and I just wanted to see how your ground rules would work. Hmm. Far more lenient than I expected. In fact, no one has ripped it to shreds (yet). Not sure how to respond to that. Maybe I’ll take off my helmet for a few minutes. > [@](#): > > I’m actually fairly sympathetic to libertarian-leaning thought, but just so you know, my normal problems with it are the self-serving nature of many of the proponents I can understand that. I just ask that you not judge libertarianism by a few bad examples. > [@](#): > > …the impractical nature of “pure” libertarianism… I also understand this concern, but it’s not something I spend too much time worrying about, since I can’t see anyone creating a “pure” libertarian society any time soon. I WOULD like to see the US move in a more libertarian direction. I think think there is plenty of room for improvement before we run into impracticalities. > [@](#): > > …and the concept of equality of opportunity. Speaking purely for myself, and not for libertarians in general, I would have a lot more sympathy with government approaches to this if I thought they did any good–I’m not really the type of person to stand on a principle of freedom if it is actually causing harm. I remain convinced, though, that efforts to legislate this type of equality do more harm than good. However, I AM in favor of non-governmental approaches. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/108 "2004-12-09T02:42:35Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Rules have to be imposed because it seems humans can’t live in complex societies without them. I’m pretty sure that I haven’t argued otherwise. This is another thing that people seem to get some sort of strange satisfaction from pointing out to libetertarians. > [@](#): > > What I am saying is that everyone should have a say in what those rules are. You have your minimalist view of government. Great. If you can convince enough people then government should respond. From what I can tell, the number of libertarians is growing, if not as fast as I would like. I do think it’s interesting that you point out everyone should have a say in what the rules are. Surely, you see individual liberty gives each person more say in what rules they follow than any collection of laws, right? I think you are talking around the fact that the disagreement between us is not a) that some rules must exist, or b) that people should have a say in what rules they follow. The difference is in your belief that everyone should follow the same rules (e.g. the rule that those with more should share with those who have less, or the rule that gay people should not marry each other). One of the key benefits of libertarianism is that government, as much as possible, is not imposing moral positions on the population. It’s the insistence that one group sets the agenda for everyone that I have a problem with. -VM ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041/109 "2004-12-09T03:21:42Z")
> [@Smartass](#): > > I can understand that. I just ask that you not judge libertarianism by a few bad examples. I would like to say that I don’t. You can understand, though, that it’s hard to believe a call for fewer economic restrictions when it comes from a person who enjoys government protections. I actually started a thread with that idea in mind, but it didn’t get any replies. > [@Smartass](#): > > Speaking purely for myself, and not for libertarians in general, I would have a lot more sympathy with government approaches to this if I thought they did any good–I’m not really the type of person to stand on a principle of freedom if it is actually causing harm. I remain convinced, though, that efforts to legislate this type of equality do more harm than good. However, I AM in favor of non-governmental approaches. I, of course, remain skeptical, but I have to admit that I haven’t seen it work. My concerns are many, though, including education, taxation, market power, and the safety net. I’d be curious about your thoughts, and I’d try to remain open minded, but these are some big hurdles to overcome. But discussing all of that here would likely be a hijack. Apart from that, you might want to rethink 5 year term-limits. Some economists argue against term limits because of the slow learning curve in public service. You’re shuffling them out before they adequately understand the trade, it’s argued, and that leaves them more susceptible to special-interest influence. I’ve always seen 18 years as a nice, round term limit number. If a new generation can vote, it’s time for you to go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/change-the-constitution-a-what-if-discussion/278041.md?page=5)