The Constitution was the Seed of Violence that Bred this Society
Many people, mostly the statist type of course, see problems with our current government or society, but can’t bring themselves to accept that the constitution itself is in fact at fault for the situation we find ourselves in today. Is blame necessary to place? Probably not, but part of explaining the inherent failures of government is to explain why which might include assigning a bit of blame.
The Constitution was written for one of two reasons as far as I can gather from all the positions being thrown around today. It was either written to limit government and protect rights or it simply designed a government that morphed into what we have today and will continue morphing into the future. It couldn’t be much simpler than that. It either set up a government that was supposed to stay mostly as designed or it allowed for the government it set up to become whatever it wants to become.
A person who holds either of those positions while complaining or pointing out the “injustices” or wrongs of government, must be compelled to look this fact in the face. The Constitution failed. If someone thinks the Constitution should have restricted or limited government to avoid “this mess” they must then admit the Constitution failed its mission otherwise they would not have a complaint about government growing outside of its restrictions. Similarly a person who thinks the Constitution just set up an ever changing government must admit that the Constitution failed because what we got was by the Constitution’s design. Perhaps not specifically, but the design laid out by the Constitution lead us here. The difference is between the two is basically irrelevant.
Once more people can see that the Constitution has failed maybe more will aim their frustrations at the right target. One thing that should be made clear is that the Constitution did not fail because of it’s use of words, intent or design. It failed because it violated Natural Law(self ownership). No society can have a positive outcome while simultaneously violating natural law, especially if the foundation of that society is a violation. This may be reminiscent of the social contract argument, but instead of trying to prove it isn’t valid through contract law one can show it’s base violation of natural right.
The fact that very few people signed the Constitution isn’t just something to laugh off. The idea that person A’s signature can count for person B-Z’s signatures. Is a violation of self ownership. Only my signature counts as my approval or agreement to what has been signed. So from the very beginning of American history there has been a violation of natural right embedded into society. Fast forward over 200 years later and what has happened? There are violations of rights all over the place and they are accepted as normal, law, just and moral. The Constitution was the seed of violence that bred this society.