A state-liberal friend tells me that if you google “Obama betray* America,” you’ll get no fewer than 46,300,000 hits. I tried it just now and actually got 61,600,000 hits.
Regrettably, however, most of these hits seem to be accusing Obama of betraying America. None of them seem to be imperatives calling for Obama to betray America.
So let this be the first. After all, at his inauguration Obama vowed to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” which is an unjust job, and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which is an unjust document. Like his predecessors, he is morally obligated to repudiate these vows (thus betraying “America,”considered as a state entity), make restitution for his crimes, and work to establish a stateless society.
Now this is hilarious. (CHT Chris Morris.)
I’m sincerely interested in how you reason that a document can be unjust, and what makes the U.S. Constitution an instance of one.
A document that contains rights-violating provisions, intended to be carried out (as opposed to being composed for satirical purposes or the like), as for example a note sent to an assassin directing him to commit various murderers, is an unjust document.
Ah, but it seems that you might mean that the act of committing murder is unjust, not the composition and reception/reading of the document itself as unjust. I think you will easily be able to see my point (whether or not you agree with it), though I think I’m deviating from your stronger point now: that documents that prescribe to act in a certain way deemed unjust, is not morally good. It just seemed to me you were engaging is aesthetically pleasing language (i.e., engaging “in loose speech”).
Though, what specifically in the U.S. Constitution is unjust? I honestly don’t know what you were referring to in the previous comment.
I think commanding or commissioning an injustice is itself an injustice (in a way that merely endorsing an injustice as good is not).
Well, I could talk about some details, but as an anarchist I think any government is unjust.
When I perform the search, I find that this piece is ninth from the top. But that may be a consequence of Google’s personalization of my search results.
You can try out duckduckgo, a search engine which doesn’t engage in that kind of behavior (or search google from a proxy perhaps).
If you won’t give details here, have you done so elsewhere?
Also, do you know of any what you would consider serious scholarly journals on anarchism?
I’m not refusing to give details, I just wasn’t sure they were necessary given the injustice of the state itself. But here are a few examples:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason.”
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
“The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
For social anarchism, there’s Anarchist Studies and Perspectives on Anarchist Theory. For anarcho-capitalism, there’s the erstwhile Journal of Libertarian Studies and the current Libertarian Papers. For individualist lefty market anarchism of the kind championed in these parts, there’s ALLiance Journal, and there will be a full-fledged scholarly journal associated with the Molinari Institute and/or C4SS in due course.
Can anyone suggest others?
To be a bit annoying, this doesn’t answer my question!
You’ve pointed to at least some bits of the Constitution
you don’t like, now what’s wrong with them?! But of course, that might take a long time (maybe it’s not worth the trouble!).
Anyway, I’ll will be surely to check out some of the articles from the journals you’ve mentioned.
Ashton, your question seems to imply that you’re not familiar with anarchism very much, if at all. If so, that would explain your confusion. In general, anarchists are against rulers or being ruled. The exact identification of who/what constitutes a ruler or being ruled may vary, (as well as the reason for being against such), but I’m not aware of any anarchists who would support the implementation of a document like the Constitution because it explicitly endorses ruling and being ruled. The examples given above are clear examples of that. The simplest is authority to tax, which is the use of violence (or the threat thereof) to take from the population; what would normally be called armed robbery or extortion when an individual engages in it, but taxation when a government does it.
Taxes take people’s property without their permission. That is theft. Theft is unjust.
IP laws forbid people to use and disseminate information they possess. That is censorship. Censorship is unjust.
Maintaining a monopoly and imposing it by force on the unconsenting is unjust.
Threatening to do whatever you want to other people is unjust.
Punishment is use of force that goes beyond what is needed to restrain aggression. Since force is justified only to restrain aggression, punishment is unjust.
Declaring that the decrees issued by your organisation take precedence over the preferences of everybody living in the area is unjust.
See above on taxation.
Forcibly interfering with voluntary exchange is unjust.
If you’re asking these sorts of questions, a scholarly journal is probably not the place to start. You need a more basic introduction. Try this.
I suppose I knew that much already, but that seems fairly basic. Besides, I don’t think it’s such a naive sort of curiosity to request justification for the statement that “the Constitution is an unjust document,” do you?
Yes. This is more of what I was looking for. And the link you provided is very interesting.
You could have a look at “No Treason volume VI” by Lysander Spooner. It’s an attack on the supposed authority of the constipation.
Seconded. My answer was about the unjust content of the Constitution; Spooner’s is about its unjust claim to authority, regardless of its content. Both points worth making.
Ah ha! I see what you did there.
Establish a society? How do you do that?
a) Educate. b) Build alternative institutions.