/liberty/ - Liberty

Britanons, the time for a new glorious revolution has home. Today in Scotland a man was sentenced for making a Nazi joke no more offensive than a John Cleese skit. May god have mercy on our souls.

>>79878

Who?

I think the judge will go easy on him by just giving him a fine, as unjustified as even that would be. I don't think the judge is retarded enough to not figure that jailing him might cause a gamergate level shitstorm, and a call to end hate speech laws in the UK, also the constant postponing of the trial shows that the judge was somewhat conflicted as to whether or not he did anything wrong. That being said, the fact that in all western countries outside of burgerland, being edgy (ironically or not) is a jail-able offence, makes my blood boil.

>>79881

someone who got in trouble with the police when he made a pug do a Hitler salute to annoy his girlfriend

>>79881

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg

he made this

>>79883

>>79884

But this story's like years old, why are they bringing this up only now?

>>79881

Scottish Sam Hyde imitator. The quality of Scottish culture will noticeably increase once he is behind bars.

>>79891

Apparently he only just now got his verdict.

>>79891

He's been on trial for like 2 years anon. This is state justice we're talking about, idk why you're surprised.

>>79901

The bizarre thing is he was very obviously ridiculing the Nazis, not giving them support. He's against them not for them, but even that level of thought is too complex for the statist mind to process.

>YOU SAID A NO-NO WORD!

>YOU GO IN PRISON!!!

>>79905

I mean it's not like the Constitution does much to stop the US government.

>>79903

>dat webm

I remember that movie. Good film.

>>79905

This is false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

>>79910

>The United Kingdom does not have one specific constitutional document named as such. Instead, the so-called constitution of the United Kingdom, or British constitution, is a sum of laws and principles that make up the country's body politic. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution.[1][2]

>>79910

>>79914

>Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the concept of parliamentary sovereignty has been the bedrock of the British legislative constitution, that is, the statutes passed by Parliament are the supreme and final source of law in the UK.[3]

It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new statutes through Acts of Parliament.[4]

>>79905

Incorrect. Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, legal power does not stem from the Crown, but from Parliament. More specifically, power is held by the "King/Queen in Parliament under God", which is made up of the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the Crown acting together.

>>79910

This. A constitution is, quite literally, what constitutes the state in question - i.e., its body of laws. Whether the constitution is written on one piece of paper, or one hundred thousand pieces of paper, is irrelevant.

>>79915

Yes, and? It's not as if the U.S. constitution is set in stone either. Whether it can be changed or not has never been part of determining whether something is or isn't a constitution.

>>79916

>Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688

The 1689 Bill of Rights seems to assume parliamentary sovereignty preceded the revolution

>>79918

A constitution of any merit seeks to set out a social contract between the people and their rulers with defined legal standards. Sure the Brits' body of law could serve as a constitution – except the parliament being the arbiter of law and having no strong checks on its authority to modify it despite tradition means it is open to all sorts of abuse.

>>79927

Yes, that sentiment existed for quite a long time before the revolution, and it was put into law as soon as the opportunity arose.

>>79939

>A constitution of any merit seeks to set out a social contract between the people and their rulers with defined legal standards.

I agree with you on this, definitely, but the constitution of the UK is a constitution by definition. A constitution is simply the set of principles that outline the nature of a state. Necessarily, a constitution of merit will be one that outlines a state of merit.

>having no strong checks on its authority to modify it despite tradition means it is open to all sorts of abuse

This is where the idea of a constitution as something that safeguards civil liberties (instead of simply being a mission statement for the state) breaks down. A constitution, or bill of rights, or any other document, does not enforce itself - even when it's framed as a set of rules that the government must never break, those rules are only binding inasmuch as there are people who will enforce those rules. A government that intends to act counter to a constitution that it's unable to alter is not going to enforce those rules on itself, so that responsibility lies with the citizenry. If they do nothing, that government will simply ignore the rules that supposedly bind it, and act anyway. In the same vein, a government that intends to act counter to a constitution it is able to alter will simply alter it so that it's no longer an obstacle, so any opposition will have to come from the citizenry. The end result is the same: a government that wants to act will act, and it's up to the people to stand up to them if that action is considered unjust.

A constitution is not the people's rights, any more than a shopping list is your groceries. It's just paper and ink, to jot down a few things so that you don't forget - if you actually want those things, you still need to go out and get them.

>>79963

>A constitution, or bill of rights, or any other document, does not enforce itself

A constitution is properly enforced by a seperation and distribution of powers, and a high morality and religiosity in the people. I believe civil war is hardly a good means of normally enforcing the law, and for a government to not be bound by law seems to elevate the governors to the status of gods.

>The end result is the same: a government that wants to act will act, and it's up to the people to stand up to them if that action is considered unjust.

That is the last line of defense, but normatively in a constitutional state the government shall be bound by oath to uphold the constitution. A constitutional republic is a nation governed by law and not men.

>>79968

I didn't even read what you are responding to but the answer is always yes.

>>79969

>A constitution is properly enforced by a seperation and distribution of powers

Separation of powers doesn't mean shit, because there's every incentive under the sun for those separate powers to collude and increase one another's authority. A good example of this is the New Federalists of the Supreme Court at the turn of the century; even though the language of the 10th Amendment rather clearly shows that their decision–that the Executive Branch has the power to do anything not explicitly prohibited to it–is unconstitutional, they just squinted really hard at the Constitution and declared that they "interpreted" the document to say the exact opposite of what was actually said. Relying on the government to limit itself is naive.

>high morality and religiosity in the people

Governments are quite effective at either suppressing both, when they don't simply redirect those energies into enforcing governmental rule

>for a government to not be bound by law seems to elevate the governors to the status of gods.

And it's rather common for governments to attempt to do, usually with some degree of success.

>>79996

>there's every incentive under the sun for those separate powers to collude

The purpose of seperation of powers is to set those powers against each other. The assumption is that they will be ambitious, the point is to check their ambition by each other's ambition.

>A good example of this is the New Federalists of the Supreme Court at the turn of the century; even though the language of the 10th Amendment rather clearly shows that their decision–that the Executive Branch has the power to do anything not explicitly prohibited to it–is unconstitutional, they just squinted really hard at the Constitution and declared that they "interpreted" the document to say the exact opposite of what was actually said

It would help if you mention exactly what case you're talking about.

>Relying on the government to limit itself

The reliance is on human nature. Only one man or body of men can rule, so such collusion is in reality impossible, since their desires for power will naturally and inescapably come into conflict.

>Governments are quite effective at either suppressing both

That's simply impossible. No government is capable of forcing evil into people's hearts.

>when they don't simply redirect those energies into enforcing governmental rule

That's what the establishment clause is for, it prevents the confederacy of spiritual and temporal tyranny.

>>80005

>It would help if you mention exactly what case you're talking about.

Not that guy or constitutional specialist here but I'm assuming he would be talking about the authorities that Bush was given to carry out the War on Terror.

It seems kind of shit that there isn't really a means of controlling an overactive judiciary and legal system, since the authority that the courts have weren't assigned to them originally when the constitutions was written was it not?

>>80007

>>80005

>

The purpose of seperation of powers is to set those powers against each other. The assumption is that they will be ambitious, the point is to check their ambition by each other's ambition.

And why would they do that? Why turn their ambitions against each other when they can support each other's efforts to increase ambition against the citizenry, or other countries, or the states…

>>80007

>It would help if you mention exactly what case you're talking about.

The case that brought about the idea of "implied" powers in addition to merely the enumerated powers; it stipulated that the government had any power not expressly prohibited in the constitution instead of the ones explicitly granted to it. This is what allowed the creation of every federal agency in existence that isn't the USPS.

>The reliance is on human nature. Only one man or body of men can rule, so such collusion is in reality impossible, since their desires for power will naturally and inescapably come into conflict.

That hasn't stopped the modern Executive Branch from grabbing obscene amounts of power, has it? You're assuming that any kind of power grab necessarily comes at the expense of another branch, but that's not true. It could come at the expense of the people, the expense of a foreign nation, the expanse of state powers, and so on. Why would one branch attempt to seize control of another branch's domain when it can just try to control something that hasn't been controlled at all? The war on terror is a good example of this as >>80007 points out.

>That's simply impossible. No government is capable of forcing evil into people's hearts.

No, but they don't have to either. Governments just have to convince their followers that an evil act is in fact good, or necessary, or patriotic.

>That's what the establishment clause is for, it prevents the confederacy of spiritual and temporal tyranny.

Why bother confederating when you can just replace? Instead of co-opting the church, governments can just replace them with something of their own. Look at the cults of personality formed in communist countries. Or, in our own nation, look at how the influence of the church has decreased, while legions of "secular" leftists simply shift their worship to feminism and the state.

>>79969

>for a government to not be bound by law seems to elevate the governors to the status of gods

Of course a government must be bound by law - that's exactly what I'm saying. However, expecting the government to enforce that law on itself is ridiculous. The government's adherence to the law must be under far more scrutiny than anything else. If you see a man on the street get arrested by the police, it's safe(-ish) to assume that he has (likely) committed a crime, that he will stand before a (mostly) fair judge, that (an approximation of) the truth will be found out, and that a (somewhat) appropriate punishment will be delivered. It's reasonable to see that, think "nothing strange here, business as usual", and go about your day. A government performing government duties by enforcing the law on those within its borders is justifying its own existence in the eyes of the people. When you hear about the government committing a crime, it happens far away, behind closed doors. There's no way of knowing what actually happened, no-one goes to court, and the worst punishment anyone usually gets is suspension with full pay. A government performing government duties by enforcing the law on itself is weakening itself. It's not in their best interests to do such a thing. They find it much better to make things look lawful on the surface but just sweep everything under the rug, so that's exactly what they do.

They won't obey the law on their own. It's up to the people to ensure they stay on the straight and narrow.

>That is the last line of defense

It's the only line of defence. Every line before it is just the threat of civil war, at varying intensities. There's no way you can hand over power to someone else, but still expect them to act in your best interests instead of heir own, and there's no perfect body of law that could ever keep them caged indefinitely. The only way to make sure a government stays true to its constitution is to put a bullet in the head of any politician who puts so much as a toe out of line. They will only held answerable to you so long as you have leverage over them. I can't think of a single government that has ever been content to let its citizens keep that leverage. They all try to turn the tables, as quickly as they can manage, because it's the only thing keeping them under control.

>A constitutional republic is a nation governed by law and not men.

Law is governed by men. It's always been this way. The only question is "who has that power?", and the answer has always been "whoever has the ability to enforce their laws". If that "whoever" is not "every single man, woman, and child", then you will end up with tyranny of one sort or another, no matter how much forethought went into your constitution.

>>80005

>The purpose of seperation of powers is to set those powers against each other.

And it didn't work. It doesn't matter how much the executive, legislative, and judiciary have been kept separate from each other - nothing brings people together quite like a common enemy, and that enemy is the people. They are all part of the government, so the expansion of government authority benefits them all. They will always co-operate with each other, because it's always in their best interests to do so.

>>80005

>The assumption is that they will be ambitious, the point is to check their ambition by each other's ambition

Well gee, it just hasn't worked out that well. Maybe we should go back to the drawing board?

>since their desires for power will naturally and inescapably come into conflict

People can naturally cooperate all the time. Just hoping politicians are at each other's throats instead of reaching in your pocket is fucking retarded.

>No government is capable of forcing evil into people's hearts

The welfare state would like to have a word with you.

>>80007

I'm assuming he meant faggots like John Marshall. The fucker might as well have been Alexander Hamilton sitting on the bench.

>>80037

>John Marshall

That's the fucker. I thought it was a Marshall, but kept second-guessing myself because Thurgood was the first name that came to mind.

>>80037

>>80038

Is it possible to undo the damage of the Marshall court's precedents?

>>80007

>It seems kind of shit that there isn't really a means of controlling an overactive judiciary and legal system, since the authority that the courts have weren't assigned to them originally when the constitutions was written was it not?

The court was always intended to judge matters of constitutionality, however at the present time they and their decisions have been equated to the constitution itself. The ramifications of both the supremacy clause and the reasoning of Marbury v. Madison is that the lesser courts are to oppose the supreme court ruling if it plainly contradicts the constitution.

>>80011

>And why would they do that? Why turn their ambitions against each other when they can support each other's efforts to increase ambition against the citizenry, or other countries, or the states…

Well anon, if you kept reading, you would have your answer

<Only one man or body of men can rule, so such collusion is in reality impossible, since their desires for power will naturally and inescapably come into conflict.

>The case that brought about the idea of "implied" powers in addition to merely the enumerated powers; it stipulated that the government had any power not expressly prohibited in the constitution instead of the ones explicitly granted to it.

Well, the reasoning is, in a sense, sound. First of all, allowing for implicit meaning is explicitly the method of interpretation Hamilton advocated for in The Federalist, and he raised the requirement in the Articles of Confederation of explicit interpretation as one of its many problems. Secondly, there is a question as to the interpretation of the 10th amendment. There is a necessary method in the interpretation of the extent of the amendment. For example, for the amendment to apply, the power in question must be one that the federal government and the people are physically capable of exercising (this is how you can tell the argument it establishes the power to unilateral secede is false, since it is impossible for the federal government or people to secede). So as to the full extent of the powers in question, I think there is room for the federal government in some matters, since the powers intended are not say, special emergency military powers, which would naturally be implied to belong to the president on account of his being commander-in-chief, but smaller, necessary powers, like the construction of roads or management of public education. Thirdly, there are portions of the constitution which are simply null if the federal government can only have the powers explicitly given to it. For example, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof". By the form of this clause, it is clearly intended and required to be interpreted implicitly. If only what is expressly (word-for-word) granted is granted, then what exactly is this? It's purpose is obviously to accrue general powers by implication.

>That hasn't stopped the modern Executive Branch from grabbing obscene amounts of power, has it?

You have to consider that the branches haven't been working together in a triumvirate to increase each other's power, but that there is an unseen hand, which has been increasing its power, to whom the federal government is just a pawn. Remove the conspiracy, remove the problem.

>Governments just have to convince their followers that an evil act is in fact good, or necessary, or patriotic.

Good, Christian people cannot be made to call white black and black white, good evil and evil good.

>Why bother confederating when you can just replace? Instead of co-opting the church, governments can just replace them with something of their own. Look at the cults of personality formed in communist countries. Or, in our own nation, look at how the influence of the church has decreased, while legions of "secular" leftists simply shift their worship to feminism and the state.

I would not describe modern western society as moral or religious, and I believe there is a reason why this did not happen when society was moral and religious.

>>80035

>However, expecting the government to enforce that law on itself is ridiculous.

If not them, then who? A second government? The result would be anarchy and civil war. If society were Christian, those in government would also be Christian, and because of that they would be servile instead of ambitious.

>It's not in their best interests to do such a thing

This is why a constitutional republic with a Christian populace is so important. It will be in their best interests to do such a thing, because they will not be interested in power.

>>80036

>People can naturally cooperate all the time. Just hoping politicians are at each other's throats instead of reaching in your pocket is fucking retarded.

I don't know why you are all so shortsighted. The enemy of ambitious men isn't the people, it is anything that poses a threat to their ambition. That includes all allies.

>>80048

>hurr I must amass power therefore anyone who might be against that is a mortal enemy

>because I may or may not butt heads with this person 20 years from now I will never cooperate with him for any reason and will instead mindlessly oppose any decision he makes

Your entire argument is based on the notion that politicians will be too stupid and confrontational to act in their own interests, which simply isn't true. They don't know shit about how to manage an economy (see: they try to manage it instead of leaving well enough alone), but they're very good at helping themselves, and they'll happily do a bit of cooperation to achieve this, as is evidenced by the myriad examples of multiple branches colluding to increase each others power.

>>80048

>If not them, then who?

The people being governed. They're the only ones who can, and they're the only one's who will. From the idea of a constitution as a social contract between the citizenry and the state, let's look at any other kind of contract. If party A and party B make an agreement, but party B is also the one responsible for interpreting and enforcing the terms of the contract, it's practically guaranteed that party B will eventually decide to ignore what the contract expects of them, and to intentionally misinterpret what is required of party A for their own benefit. It's so lop-sided that it's almost comical. That's not a solid foundation for a system of government - not by any measure. The traditional remedy for that has always been the private ownership of weapons. Even that's not a perfect solution, but it stops the government from doing anything too heinous too fast, which is why you can see that right being curtailed all across the globe. A constitution fails at all of its intended objectives, and, even worse, gives the state a thin veneer of legitimacy that stops people from getting properly angry at all the abuses they see, and keeps them bogged down and harmlessly occupied trying to fix the system from within.

>If society were Christian, those in government would also be Christian, and because of that they would be servile instead of ambitious.

If society were Christian, those in government would be "Christian", paying lip-service whilst believing none of it, since power-seekers will say and do anything necessary to gain power over others, and all the good Christians will never climb higher in the government than being a paper-pusher for their local council, because as good Christians, they would be servile instead of ambitious. Do you really think that a man who believes in nothing is going to hesitate about swearing an oath on the bible, or anything like that? They will stoop lower than your good Christians would ever dare, and your entire society will be like lambs to the slaughter. The only way to keep bad people out of positions of power is to not have positions of power for them to seek in the first place.

>The enemy of ambitious men isn't the people, it is anything that poses a threat to their ambition. That includes all allies.

Yes, eventually they would all turn on each other, until only one was left. However, that's always a lower priority than actually accomplishing the goal that they've been co-operating to achieve in the first place. When the populace has been effectively subjugated, and can do nothing to resist, that's when the government goes to war with itself, to eventually leave only one single faction holding all the power. Until that day, they co-operate, because they still need each other's help or else they will have nothing to stab each other in the back over later. People don't climb to the highest positions of power that society has created without learning how to play the long game.

>>80011

>dat vid

I like old school Morrakiu.

>>80050

This whole post is simply irrational paranoia, as if though as soon as a good man is elected to office, he becomes a demon, concerned only with destroying the rights of the people.

>>80052

>as soon as a good man is elected to office

The chances of that actually happening are astronomically low. That's the entire problem.

>>80053

Have you ever considered reading a history book?

>>80054

not that anon, but why bet on good men that can be corrupted and not on your own principle and community?

>>80056

>Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience

Anarchy will create just that: anarchy. Government is necessary to curb human nature and protect our natural rights.

>>80057

should church and state be separate?

>>80054

Don't act like I don't know history. Yes, good rulers have existed, and they've wielded their power sensibly and with restraint. The people start trusting the apparatus of the state more and more, the ruler's successors get a bit more complacent each iteration, institutions get more bloated, money doesn't always end up going where it was supposed to, the people at the top start treating the people at the bottom like cattle, and taxes rise while the state delivers less. Eventually people get fed up, a bunch of people die, and the whole thing starts all over with another good ruler. It'll definitely work properly this time, we promise! Good governance is certainly possible, but it never lasts, which is why people need to be free to pick and choose.

>>80057

>Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

>Anarchy will create just that: anarchy.

If you think that anarchy and government are mutually exclusive then you have a very poor understanding of anarchy.

>Government is necessary to curb human nature

What makes government exempt from being influenced by human nature?

>>80057

>Government is necessary to curb human nature and protect our natural rights.

Government does ultimately nothing but barely 'curb' the human nature of some while grossly enriching the greed and nature of others. Government is not a magical institution that can be separated from human influence, they are molded from the same clay as the people and if the people are a rotten bunch, then the government will be much of the exact same (if not far worse, as the powers promised by government will most likely attract those who want to abuse it for their own purposes most).

also

>protecting our natural rights

>by violating them through taxes, by telling us what it is we can and cannot consume, by forcing us to pay for other individuals as well as businesses and various business complexes

Oh boy, aren't I thankful for this institution of theft.

>>80057

>anarchy will create anarchy

You brilliant genius Nobel Prize for you. The word you're thinking of is chaos, which isnt a necessary product of anarchy.

>>80048

Power isn't an end, it's a means. The people who want to use that power for similar things group up and start pushing their agenda harder.

>>80052

Good men never really get that far often enough to make a difference.

>>80058

Yes.

>>80059

>The people start trusting the apparatus of the state more and more, the ruler's successors get a bit more complacent each iteration, institutions get more bloated, money doesn't always end up going where it was supposed to, the people at the top start treating the people at the bottom like cattle, and taxes rise while the state delivers less

These criticisms are not applicable to a republic.

>If you think that anarchy and government are mutually exclusive then you have a very poor understanding of anarchy.

Anarchy is a word made by combining a prefix meaning the lack of and a suffix meaning the rule of.

>What makes government exempt from being influenced by human nature?

Nothing.

>>80064

>Government does ultimately nothing but barely 'curb' the human nature of some while grossly enriching the greed and nature of others

Government does absolutely nothing at all. What does things are people in government, and what they do depends on who they are.

>by violating them through taxes

Taxes do not violate any rights when they are levied by elected representatives.

>by telling us what it is we can and cannot consume

All things which are against natural law ought to be prohibited. If what you are so eager to consume is another man's cum, it would be good for someone to tell you you cannot. Otherwise, the purpose of law is to protect your rights. For example, when you wish to commit suicide, the government ought to suspend your liberty to protect your life.

>by forcing us to pay for other individuals as well as businesses and various business complexes

Leftist economic policy is a very new innovation.

>>80065

Anarchy is chaos.

>>80081

>Power isn't an end, it's a means.

For some. Those people are not the most ambitious, however.

>The people who want to use that power for similar things group up and start pushing their agenda harder

Conspiracies are not the norm in politics. Normally, the separate branches of government shall be in competition for power.

>Good men never really get that far often enough to make a difference.

All our heroes are good men who got far often enough to make a significant difference.

>>80092

>Taxes do not violate any rights when they are levied by elected representatives.

It's literally the 49% being bullied by the 51%

>>80105

It's not even that, really. Remember, economics tells us change happens at the margin. In an election, ~45% will vote left no matter what, and ~45% will go right no matter the circumstances. Outside of the primaries politicians will do little if anything to appeal to these people; it's the 10% who don't know what the hell they want that to whom politicians pander, and it's ultimately to this confused, schizophrenic viewpoint that elected leader's policies will be aimed. You can't even truly say that elected officials represent represent the view of the majority, they're just the ones that managed to jangle the shiniest set of keys in front of the demographic that are the least sure of what they want.

>>80092

>Taxes do not violate any rights when they are levied by elected representatives.

Pity you're not a socialist; you'd skip the theft and go for voluntary association in mutual endeavour if you were.

>>80146

>Are you actually that dense that you're going to try and play a game of semantics?

Are you that dense that you can't tell I'm correcting your apparent assumption that government always does the same thing as if though it was the vague idea of 'government' doing it?

>> If me and the group vote to take your money away from you then it's not robbery

Taxes, when consented to either in person or via representative, are willfully committed grants. They are not robbery because they are freely given.

>Theft is the act of taking someone's property without their consent

See above.

>the fact that OTHER PEOPLE elected a representative to steal YOUR property

If your representative votes against a tax and it still passes, it still isn't theft. This is how democracy works.

>this whole statement didn't make a god damned lick of sense

Well Cletus, that would be because you have a sub 80 IQ due to being around half nigger.

>And?

'And' that makes it extremely atypical in human history and therefore irrelevant as a criticism of government. Fuck you're stupid

>This is government as it is now

As I just pointed out, you can't criticize the whole by an abnormal part

>and it is an institution violates our natural rights

No. The institution does not violate our rights, the people running it do. I know your tiny brain can't tell the difference but it is significant.

>>80184

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

Talk shit get hit. Fucker had it coming.

>>80248

>arguments

Why would I seriously argue against a sperg out session?

>>80250

To be fair, Butler insulted Sumner first. Brooks should have stayed out of it.

>>80255

Fair point. Judging by the posts you've made, you'd be much more interested in arguing for a sperg-out session.

>>80046

theoretically yes

technically, do it faggot