The flawed Constitution and The Hamiltonians

The Hamiltonians won.



The Constitution is flawed, we do know that much of the Constitution was written under the intent and direction of the Federalists who with the participation of individuals like Hamilton took a clear mercantilist bent so we have the flaws in the constitution, many possibly deliberate.

Simply the theft of private property by government should have been prohibited, specifically placed into the law. Property taxes by a homeowners association, city, county, state, and federal monster are all examples of theft and all are unethical and odious. If you can take something then the "owner" is not a real "owner" this is just as we have in the US now, there is no real right to property, don't pay the pirates their plunder (taxes) and see WHO owns that land... a clear flaw in the current constitutional system.

Don't fall into the fallacious trap of dualistic political thinking that criticism equates to a contrary/competitive position... ie. you do not have to be a democrat to find flaws and criticize the republicans.

So lets review ideas in modern politics in contrast to the Constitutional era.

I do not completely support individualist anarchism because a system of this sort will never happen it would become a vehicle for even more destructive and evil oppression. Parasitic predatory humans and their willing lickspittles are normal, common, and part of the human heard. Parasitic predatory humans will NOT stop trying to harm others for their own benefit, I don't argue that we have a frightful servant that has become a horrid master, but the "non/zero-aggression principle" and individualist. Anarchism just does not appear to have a realistic solutions to simple social injustices and problems, it only tends to support narcissism and juvenile thinking and opens the path for predatory parasites.

I am often asked "what is a viable solution to these inherent problems?"

A good question, and sadly I am not sure I have a good answer for this question...

I would have thought of my self as a constitutionalists in the past, then an Agrarian of the Jeffersonian bent (where I think I am now) but that leads to the consideration of Individualist Anarchy (as Jefferson had that leaning also).

Here are my problems:

Humans produce (naturally) a proportion of parasites, predators, manipulators, statists, lickspittles, and sociopaths (and combinations) I don't think human genetics will ever eliminate that. I believe that the proposed anarchist systems and "non/zero-aggression principle" proposals do not adequately address this weakness.

Humans are herd animals the above predators and others will always use this to create systems that are far worse forms of control, we can see the proof in this with the lack of controls in the constitution - I do believe the constitution has flaws, the reason we are here with the problems we have now.

My solutions (an even better question I am not sure I have an answer, at least a complete one):

Stronger language in a law based system where government power is limited and in effect crippled as much as possible. The system must address the power of the biological oligarchy and it's influence must be marginalized. I think a familiar and constitutional system in nature may work but with more controls on the government, clearly the constitutional government we have now was simply the transfer of power from the royal/religious oligarchy (only partly) to a Masonic modeled oligarchy (and then the Masons were promptly marginalized) where mercantilistic power holders became the new oligarchy.

I have sympathy for the anarchist philosophy and to some extent what is identified as "objectivist" but only partly and with much reservation (more reservations to the cult of the "objectivist" as I think that Rand was both unoriginal, narcissistic, and racist and therefore very flawed).