There’s no question that democracy is a more compassionate tool than brute force when it comes to controlling people.  Unfortunately, however, the chains of democracy come in the form of so-called entitlements, a nasty little hallucination dreamed up by scoundrels who are willing to do anything to achieve and maintain power.  

The chief distinguishing feature of a democracy is that it is based on majority rule (a.k.a. “tyranny of the majority”).  Contrary to what powerholders would like us to believe, in a democracy neither the individual nor the minority has any real protection against the virtually unlimited power of the state.  

A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government with the ostensible purpose of controlling the majority and, in so doing, protecting the inalienable rights of the individual and the minority.  Like a democracy, a republic is a representative form of government, but, in theory at least, it limits the power of the government through a written constitution.

On the surface, the United States Constitution appears to be of utmost importance when it comes to protecting our liberty.  The problem, however, is that the Radical Left refutes the authority of the Constitution, and the Deep State for the most part ignores it and does as it pleases.  

That being the case, the question becomes whether we need a constitution at all.  Perhaps an even more fundamental question is, does the Constitution have either the moral or legal authority to bind us in the first place?  

While most, if not all, of the founding fathers may have acted with the best of intentions, the sobering reality is that by creating the Constitution, then forcing people within a given geographical area to abide by it, it was, on its face, an act of aggression.  The man most often credited with initially pointing out this seemingly self-evident fact is Lysander Spooner, a 19th century apolitical maverick.  In his 1869 essay No Treason, Spooner wrote:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.  It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.  And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing.  

It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago [in 1789].  And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.  

Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.  Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.

AND THE CONSTITUTION, SO FAR AS IT WAS THEIR CONTRACT, DIED WITH THEM.  They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.  It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they COULD bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them.  That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.   

While one can certainly challenge Spooner’s position on the grounds of practicality, if he believes in the sanctity of liberty and the sovereignty of the individual, it is morally and legally all but impossible to argue against.  

Even so, can’t one argue against Spooner’s “extremism” on the grounds that a constitution was needed to protect “the people”?  After all, the U.S. Constitution is purported to limit the government, not the people.

True, but, as we all know, when it comes to so-called representative government, theory and reality are two very different propositions.  The sad truth is that the Constitution has not protected U.S. citizens from government aggression.  On the contrary, such aggression has become worse with each passing year.  

The reality is that no matter who is in power at any given time, citizens are always controlled by the state.  Which means redistribution of wealth, invasion of privacy, a loss of civil liberties, an appetite for foreign military adventures, and debasement of the currency.  

Winston Churchill was quite insightful when he opined that “[Democracy is] the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.”

I reluctantly agree with Churchill.  Until a better form of government is invented (preferably one that makes it impossible to get elected to public office by promising to redistribute wealth and granting favors to special interests), I opt to support the Constitution.  

The problem, however, is that elected officials, government bureaucrats, and judges do not support the Constitution.  At best, they ignore it; at worst, they pervert its meaning to suit their personal beliefs.  

Of course, purist anarcho-libertarians would argue that people don’t need government at all, but that’s an impossible sell in our age of victimization.  Through gradualism and an addiction to living beyond their means, most people feel they need government to act as an enforcer to protect their lifestyle and/or give them an even better lifestyle.  

Would that Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of the white-wigged crowd could return and explain to the populace what they had in mind when they started their unique experiment in representative government.  Had they known what it would evolve into, they might have just taken a pass on the revolution and gutted things out with King George III.

One final, important point:  While the Constitution, technically speaking, has no inherent right to bind anyone who did not sign it — certainly not anyone living today — the reality is that without it the Radical Left would have long ago established a dictatorship.  That being said, if we’re going to be bound by the Constitution, it’s time to invoke Article 5 and hold a Convention of the States to amend it in ways that take as much power as possible away from the federal government.

Never kid yourself about how hysterically angry the Dirty Dems are about losing most of their power and how determined they are to do whatever it takes to regain it.  Should that occur, you can be certain they will try to dramatically increase the size and scope of the federal government and move quickly to shut down conservative and libertarian voices.

Pass the word to all who will listen:  The time to play the Article 5 card and amend the Constitution is now!