Live Blog--Hologram of Liberty

In my essay on the meaningless Constitution, I argued that radicals would be better served learning about the circumstances which led to the creation of the Constitution rather than dwelling on interpretation. I decided to take my own advice and learn more about the origins of this document. I found a gold mine of information in Kenneth Royce's Hologram of Liberty.

While it is clear that the Constitution has failed to limit the central government, Mr. Royce raises some very uncomfortable of questions: What if the Constitution did not restrain the State because it was, in fact, designed to increase the power of the State? What if the Constitution has not "failed" to protect liberty, but has accomplished exactly what the authors wanted it to do? Clearly to even raise such questions is to risk being labeled an unpatriotic traitor. The Constitution is viewed by most Americans as Holy Writ which descended from wise statesmen who attempted to created a government of limited powers to protect individual liberty. Even some libertarians still believe that this was the intention of the drafters of the Constitution and that if we can somehow "get back to the Constitution" we can restore freedom.

I used to believe this as well until I read Hans Hermann Hoppe's essay On the Impossibility of Limited Government. Prof. Hoppe's argument convinced me that a written Constitution could never limit the State. Since the State is the ultimate judge of conflict including conflicts involving itself, it will almost always rule in its own favor. Hence, a Constitution designed to limit the State is destined to fail; the State will continue to grow because ultimately it is the judge of its own powers.

I believe the logic of Prof. Hoppe's argument to be irrefutable, but Prof. Hoppe was not the first to make this observation. There were many people at the time of the Constitution's drafting who were making similar arguments. The anti-Federalists had studied the instrument carefully and argued that the adoption of this Constitution as law of the land would lead to a tyrannical government. So if the astute opponents of the Constitution pointed out that it will eventually lead to the destruction of individual liberty why did the the Founders who, according to American myth also wanted to protect individual liberty, fight so hard for ratification? If liberty were first and foremost on their minds, why pass into law a document whose flaws were clear to everyone?

Royce answers that the Constitution "was never meant to enshrine State autonomy or hold your individual rights over federal interests. And finally, it was never meant to stunt federal growth." This is a quite damning charge. It is one thing to argue that the Constitution failed to protect liberty. This gives people the hope that somehow the US can be restored as a republic if we can just write a better Constitution. However, it is quite another to argue that the Constitution was designed to lead to a strong central government. Such an accusation impugns the character of the Founders. No longer would they be viewed as wise statesmen, but mere politicians. But the mythical story of the Founders is even worse; this indictment means that Founders were statists. If this is true, then the only solution to advance is to reject our (second) Founders' Constitution and withdraw from this tyrannical government..

I believe that Royce has advanced a thesis which will help desanctify both the Constitution and its authors in the minds of many people. A simple book review, however, will not do justice to liberty. Over the coming weeks and months, I will blog this book. At the very least I hope that more people will purchase this book and study Royce's argument carefully. I also hope that other radicals will build upon his work to find out as much as they can about the motivations of the Constitutionalists.

I agree with Robert Higgs that there is no failed policy; the "failures" of policy always benefit someone and that was the intention of the policy in the first place. If a Constitution ostensibly designed to protect liberty has led to a tyrannical central government, perhaps it was not a failure of the document or of the people to limit the government. Perhaps the "failure" was the ratification of the Constitution in the first place.

Comments

[Stephan Kinsella]

FYI, See Sheldon Richman's Post Among the Several States.