Do you guys agree that the United States Constitution was one of the closest to libertarian thought? Until it was gutted, stretched, amended, and reinterpreted.
Posted by PhraseGlittering2786@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 57 comments
I've studied many Constitutions, while not deeply, the early United States Constitution and its application(during the framers era) seems to be one of the closest we have ever gotten to truly getting a libertarian nation, excluding the whole slavery thing.
While today due to many years of judicial overreach and activism, it has been gutted down. I believe there are strong evidence backing my point. What are your opinions?
AnarchAtheist86@reddit
It could have been, had it not allowed for legal slavery. Slavery seems like pretty big fucking blemish on the original document. Despite the increases in the power of the federal government by the late 19th century, I would probably argue it was more libertarian after amendments 13-15 were passed
Chris_The_Guinea_Pig@reddit
Arguably it was more libertarian before but it wasnt applied to slaves.
mcnello@reddit
It's easy to stand where we are in 2025 and cast stones on men 250 years ago who lived under much different circumstances in a completely different time.
I guarantee in 250 years from now, people will look at some of our current practices in disgust and disdain.... And I bet some of those practices they will judge us for are actually things you currently support and don't understand why they would look down on us.
I mean... Men used to marry 13 year old girls. Easy to look down on that practice until you remember that people only lived until they were like 30.
spaztick1@reddit
This isn't really true. The overall life expectancy was lower, but mostly because so many children died before age five.
not_today_thank@reddit
I'd say children dying was about 40% of the lower life expectancy . In 1800 at birth life expectancy was around 35. If you survived childhood that increased to around 55, still around 23 years lower than life expectancy at birth today.
someinternetdude19@reddit
Yeah, if you survived childhood you could most likely expect to live into your 50s/60s barring injuries and certain diseases. Granted he was pretty well to do, but Ben Franklin lived into his 80s which wasn’t uncommon back then.
mcnello@reddit
People died of shit all the time. Black plage wiped out like half the population of Europe. Wars, famine, disease, dysentery...
But sure, if you were lucky enough to not get conscripted into the local lord's army to fight the invading vikings, and avoided the black death, and avoided some doctor blood letting them maybe you could live to a rope old age.
Ariakkas10@reddit
You're entire post can he ignored for 2 reasons.
Nunher one you actually think people died at 30 lmao
Second, while the Constitution is pretty fucking rad, abolitionist existed at the time and the question was whether the Constitution represents libertarian thought. In some ways it does, in this regard it falls short.
not_today_thank@reddit
A lot of people did die around 30. Around 1 in 8 women died in childbirth and that maternal death probably would have peaked around their early to mid 30s. Also a lot of men who contracted tuberculosis in their 20s were dying in their 30s, it was the leading cause of adult death. There were plenty of other diseases and a lot dangerous work killing people in their 20s and 30s.
If you survived infancy your life expectancy rose from around 35 to around 55, but that doesn't mean staying alive was easy until you got old.
mcnello@reddit
And pro-life people exist today too.
Also, plenty of people died young just due to random shit in medieval times.... Plagues, dysentery, wars, famine, etc...
I mean ffs, the black plague itself literally wiped out like 1/2 of the population of Europe just by itself.
Ok_Huckleberry1027@reddit
Murdering the unborn and slavery are vastly different.
Defending slavery is not the W you think it is.
mcnello@reddit
Ok... You think that now. !remind me 250 years
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Under no circumstances do libertarians accept, defend, or excuse slavery.
Get out.
Suspicious_Honey6966@reddit
The constitution was written in a way to allow the end of slavery, i dont recall anywhere it made slavery legal. It was the most forward thinking document of any government to date
Suspicious_Honey6966@reddit
The constitution was written in a way to allow the end of slavery, i dont recall anywhere it made slavery legal. It was the most forward thinking document of any government to date
noneoftheabove0@reddit
Absolutely true. And given that the states weren't bound by the same Bill of Rights until they were incorporated to the states through the 14th, the people were only protected from Federal overreach.
That having been said, still an incredible step forwards.
I've always imagined that the Bill of Rights should have been treated as a sort of charter rules for joining the Union. You're welcome to join, but we expect these protections of individuals. If you're unhappy with that, you can't be part of the Cool Guy Club.
However, Madison's Commentaries makes it clear that a major concern was writing something that would keep a state from joining the Union. They were not willing to rock the boat on a number of concerns.
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
I agree, but the precedents set by the executive during the Civil War killed hopes.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
I mean the whole allowing slavery thing was pretty unlibertarian
TendersFan@reddit
Slavery still exists in modern society. I know I'm going to be torched for saying it, but I think prison is basically slavery but without the generational factor. You don't get paid for your work, which imho is a valid punishment for committing a crime.
DaveKast@reddit
This is why this is my favorite subreddit. The dumbest ideas in politics come from here. lol at likening slavery to prison time. We’re very fortunate you guys will never get power and it’s because of your ideas.
TendersFan@reddit
I suppose that the neocon is well versed on the dumbest ideas in politics...
Like seriously dude fuck off back to conservative where your dying ideology still somehow makes up the dominant faction.
DaveKast@reddit
You will never get power. At best, you are a collection of high school/college kids practicing philosophy
TendersFan@reddit
Perhaps. I would prefer that over following an ideology that has become the laughingstock of american politics.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
The US constitution still allows slavery, read the 13th amendment.
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
I agree. That's the reason I mentioned “excluding the whole slavery thing.”
Beginning-Panic5153@reddit
I disagree somewhat. Namely the articles of confederation are more libertarian in the sense that placed more restrictions for the federal government compared to the US constitution. But other than that yeah.
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
They might've been libertarian but they were a nearly useless piece of paper.
mcnello@reddit
Yes. The original U.S. constitution (before reinterpretation by the courts, mostly during and after the FDR era) was a giant straight jacket on the federal government. Everyone understood that the U.S. government was limited and was only allowed to do the things outlined in the constitution.
The idea that the government is virtually limitless in it's power except in regards to the things outlined in the Bill of Rights is rather new. And even there... The bill of rights has been chipped away with gun restrictions, trade restrictions, etc...
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
True, most people are not aware but rulings like Wickard v Filburn from the FDR era give virtually infinite power to the federal government.
not_today_thank@reddit
I'd say the main biggest three things that allowed for the massive expansion of the federal government are the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, the 16th amendment income tax, the 17th amendment direct election of senators.
The equal protection clause allowed the federal government to exercise power over the states that was not enumerated to the federal government in the name of equal protection. The income tax gave the federal government the resources to expand their power. And the direct election of senators virtually eliminated the states ability to act as a check the federal government.
laughsitup2021@reddit
I have done lots of research on Constitutional law and Wickard was one of the first cases I visited namely because of how most things are regulated under the Commerce Power.
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
Exactly, they regulate guns on schools using the commerce clause.
JuanMurphy@reddit
Yes just wrote a lengthy reply to a comment asking about us statute law and court precedent. My example was 4th Amendment and what it truly means. Then how USSC ruled that a warrantless search was a minor infringement of rights when the cop saw a bulge from a firearm and had reasonable suspicion that this guy was a party to a robbery that it’s routine now for cops to conduct warrantless searches and how that precedent has led to further degradation of civil rights.
Mcspankylover69@reddit
No. Maybe if we incoide the bill of rights, but those first 10 amendments were NOT in the original constitution and had to be fought for against constitutionalists. Additionally, excluding slavery and the 3/5th compromise is ignoring 20% of the population at the time. The document doesn't explicitly say anything about women being excluded, so I guess we dont have to count the suppression of another half of the country. On top of all of that is the loophole of IMPLIED POWERS and the lack of checks on the executive branch. Presidential powers and decorum are guided on precident more than any written checks. Starting with Washington, he used the powers of the president for personal gain. Jefferson beleived in following the constitution to the letter but aa soon as he had a reason to use implied powers and grow the precedent of the Presidential powers he did so by making the Louisiana purchase ( without approval from any other branch).
mkjoe@reddit
Whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Slight-Asparagus-633@reddit
It was pretty good but ultimately, failed miserably
Killersands@reddit
unlike you, the founders knew life is a constantly evolving and changing thing. they included the ability to amend the constitution so that it could stay relevant to its time and help protect the people from abuse of power. the constitution as it exists now is the best version we have ever had, because its where the country has taken it. this idea that it was better before is rooted in ignorance. if "activism" didn't exist you would still be working 14 hour shifts 7 days a week. it would do you good to understand history instead of just trying to warp it to your own biases.
rendrag099@reddit
Do you think the government is why you don't work 14hrs/day?
Killersands@reddit
the regulations put in place by the government at the will of the people yes, this is basic civics
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
While defying the constitution which was put in place by a larger “will of the people”.
Killersands@reddit
tell me which regulations defy the constitution?
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
Any regulation which sets work hours
Killersands@reddit
the Fair Labor Standards Act exists and took me three seconds of research to find
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
The whole post and comments are against FDR and you come and reference a regulation from the New Deal era.
rendrag099@reddit
First of all, there is no law or regulation that says you can't work 14hrs/day. Second, capitalism, not the government is why there are things like 8hr shifts and safety protocols, etc. without the productivity gains that came from the market, the gov regulations wouldn't have been affordable.
Or do you think mass child labor in various African countries only exists because the government doesn't outlaw it?
Killersands@reddit
your first point is an exercise in pedantry, the exact attitude that drives away everyone from discussing and debating with libertarians because you can't help but be like this. secondly capitalism is the reason that regulations are necessary, because capital would reintroduce slavery and 14hr days in a fucking second if wasn't for the outrage of the people, it has nothing to do with what's profitable and everything to do with activism and labor history. you are incredibly misinformed in general but also just don't seem to know any history.
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
Rather work 14 hours a week than live in tyranny.
Killersands@reddit
14 hours a day is tyranny dude...you people are so fucking dumb
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
Why is it that you're so aggressive about everything? Buddy, you might want to get your prefrontal cortex checked.
Asian_Dumpring@reddit
No actually that was a pretty stupid comment on your part. Wtf is tyranny if not mandatory 14-hr work days?
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
He made a baseless claim. I have no clue about what he's saying about judicial activism reducing work hours.
natermer@reddit
Declaration of Independence and Bill of rights are intensely "libertarian".
Constitution, not so much. But if we "get back to the constitution" that would be infinitely preferable to what we have now.
Trouble is politicians have been running for office under the "get back to the constitution" banner since about 25 years after the Constitution was signed and it hasn't helped a whole lot since then.
BeardedMan32@reddit
Mayer Amschel Rothschild: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws"
coagulatedmilk88@reddit
I'm quite glad we got to #19
rtrs_bastiat@reddit
Like, kinda I guess? By the time the 10th amendment was ratified though I'd say it lost it, "we're not big government, your state is" is less moral backbone and more shirking of responsibility.
PhraseGlittering2786@reddit (OP)
Your argument makes sense. However, a better argument is that a libertarian job was done at the federal level, and then it was the job for the states to do it at their level. Madison proposed an amendment to incorporate some rights to the states alongside the BOR but it was rejected.
AutoModerator@reddit
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.