From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:45:53 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1993Jan11.132106.24656@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.005426.11142@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>In article <10JAN199313422045@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>>
>>>You've heard of the "Civil War",  haven't you?  The citizens of
>>>the Confederate States had never consented to be bound by the
>>>Constitution in the first place,  their elected state legislators
>>>explicitly rejected it,  yet it was forced on them anyway.
>>>
>>	No they did consent.  They latter breached the contract; or
>>alternativly withdrew from it.  In either case their was original consent.
>>
>
>*I* will agree that the Constitution *is* a social contract (at least
>as long as the *government* also abides by it) . I think
>however, that the Southern point of view in the pre-Civil war period was 
>that the Consitution which they agreed to was not necessarily a *perpetual* 
>contract.  I think they also believed that the government was exceeding the
>intent of the original contract and had violated it, thereby
>making it null and void. The real issue of the Civil War was
>states rights IMHO. 
>
	Agreed.  That's why I through in withdrew.  All I was arguing was
that they originaly concented.  Besides, the contract doesn't contain an
experation date, and in the preambe explicitly states that it is to
continue on after the authourship is dead.  There is no way the south
could argue it is not prepetual.

>Today, we see the government increasingly encroaching on the rights 
>enumerated by the social contract known as the US Constitution (reference
>the "RICO" laws in the WOD for an example). The 2nd, 4th, and 5th
>amendments appear to be in serious jeopardy. At what point are the
>citizens still bound to the contract if the government continually
>violates it (with the consent of the judicial branch)? Just a question 
>for thought.  In any case, I see Libertarianism as advocating
>the *peaceful* excercise of their voting rights in an
>attempt to restore a Constitutionally based government. 
>What the heck is wrong with that? Why does having another party scare 
>some folks so much? I view at least half the platform of either party 
>from the past election as worse than what I've seen of the  
>Libertarian platform.  At least much (if not all) of the Libertarian 
>platform has a basis in the Constitution. Some of the points in the
>major party platforms actually advocate doing mayhem to portions of
>the Bill of Rights.

	I take Ayn Rand's position.  Once the govt. imposses political
censorship, then it is nothing more then rule by gang, and violence is
exceptable.

>
>The gyrations the two major parties go through to paint the Libertarians
>as "the loonie fringe" is worth noting. Look at the arrangements for
>the debates this year. *Do not* include Ross Perot as a counter argument.
>He pretty much represents viewpoints which both of the parties embrace
>to a large extent and didn't really pose a real *threat* to the current
>order of things. Actually, ask yourself *why* was Ross included when 
>representatives of the other parties on the ballots in all fifty states 
>weren't? If they were laughable, why not have them on to amuse the
>voters and point out how really ridiculous they are?
>
>

	The problem was not the media (they wanted to have stats n third
party candidates, and presented them when they could).  The problem are
local boards of electors...  They generally don't count third parties on
election night so as to get the "important" returns out ASAP.  
	Complain to your local board.

JMB  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3119 comp.org.eff.talk:8398 alt.amateur-comp:514 soc.culture.usa:9548 alt.activism:20143