This is a libertarian argument that I can agree is stupid. First of all , I don't really give a whole lot of a fuck about the founding fathers. I mean, when the USA first came to be slavery was allowed, females couldn't vote, etc. It is insane to think that the founding fathers were highly into freedom, my limited understanding of the matter is that they primarily just did not want to pay tax to the British without political representation. Although they did have a few freedoms in mind, they are not a great example of libertarian minded people. I find that only a certain breed of libertarian holds the founding fathers of the USA and the founding principles of the USA in extremely high regards, after all it is not libertarian belief to think that it is acceptable to enslave black people. This is a ridiculous claim. The constitution is a document which as it was worded is set in stone unless those words are changed through the system provided by the constitution. The meaning of the constitution does not change with time or with different cultures living under it, if it did then it would entirely destroy the point of having a fucking constitution in the first place. Popular usage of words has absolutely nothing to do with what the constitution means! The primary beef I have with the government clearly violating the constitution is related to the possession of child pornography, which is clearly protected by the right to free speech and by the right to free press. The plain meaning of the right to free press is that anything can be published, the clear meaning of the right to free speech is that anything can be said. The Supreme court unconstitutionally allowed for the prosecution of people found in possession of child pornography by saying that the right to free speech and free press takes second seat to the good of the community. This blatantly disregards these constitutional protections. Another constitutional protection they routinely violate is governments being banned from favoring one religion over another. Sorry, it is plain and simply unconstitutional for the government to say people in some religions can use DMT but people in other religions cannot, or people in some religions can use mescaline but people in other religions can not. Plain and simple. It is a total violation of the constitution for this to be allowed, no matter the word games they want to play or the bullshit they want to pretend to believe, they are violating the constitution. If the government followed the constitution as it is plainly explained, then we would indeed be in a better society, although by no means will it solve all of our problems. I find that it is the people who want to VIOLATE the constitution for their own ideological reasons are the ones who find ambiguity in the constitution. See my thoughts on 'the original intent of the founding fathers' Certainly libertarians are the defenders of rights. They defend our right to freedom of living, as do liberals to a certain degree, and our right to financial freedom, as conservatives have traditionally done to a certain degree. They take the best parts of liberalism and conservatism and cut out all of their freedom infringing communistic and fascist religious aspects. The police are not defenders of our rights. That is simple as shit to see. The police want to throw me in jail for smoking a god damn plant for fucks sake. It takes a truly brainwashed statist to think that the police want to defend our rights. They want to control us. The Mafia will protect you from the Yakuza killing you and extorting you because they don't want the competition themselves. The government is the most powerful criminal organization in an area, they protect you from the other criminals so they can exploit you for their own gains. The courts are just as bad as the police! We wouldn't even need public defenders for ourselves if we were not god damn prosecuted by our corrupt government for causing harm to nobody, simply so they can extort money from us and enslave us to the prison industrial complex. What a fucking joke! National defense can be privatized! Also this person is the one who argues that the constitution is entirely open to interpretation, clearly the constitution is worthless for protecting the people who most need protecting, the people who the majority of society want to unjustly prosecute (in no small part thanks to intensive government indoctrination operations and propaganda, which by the way is funded with stolen tax dollars, leading me to....) The first argument against taxation being theft sounds like it is straight out of The Communist Manifesto. Okay, so government forcibly taking my money is NOT theft, but me having money IS theft because I prevent another person from spending my money? That makes a whole lot of sense! Actually wait that makes no sense at all and it patently fucking absurd. Tax is a social contract that you are forced into? Oh that makes even more sense! Sorry contracts require two parties to agree to the terms. If I say that I have a contract that you will give me your house, you are not required to give me your house. Just saying that I have a contract that requires you to do something is completely meaningless unless you have agreed to the contract in the first place. Social contract is a euphemism in every sense of the word, a euphemism for extortion which is what tax really is. Taxation is the forcible taking of value from a person, that is the dictionary definition of theft and it doesn't matter if the person taking the value is the person with the biggest stockpile of guns, not a damn thing changes theft is theft. Guess what Mafia Extortion Rackets are 'essentially a payment in exchange for services from the Mafia', does that mean that they are not theft? Libertarians think that you should decide what to pay for yourself and get the services that you pay for, they are not fucking retards so they realize that if someone puts a gun to your head and threatens to blow your brains out unless you buy an apple from them for $100 , that you have been STOLEN from, not that you have 'essentially made payment in exchange for an apple'. Fucking insane that anyone could buy into that nonsense. There is an explicit contract in Italy between store owners and the Mafia, that they will pay a percentage of the money they make from selling their goods to the Mafia in exchange for 'protection'. It doesn't mean that the Mafia is not initiating force when they show up and break the shop keepers fucking legs for not paying for protection ! What a stupid bullshit claim, the person who wrote this must either be in the government or a complete fucking moron. Again this person makes reference to the constitution , which he defines as whatever the hell he wants since it is written with words that can totally change in meaning on a whim. When you order food from a restaurant you are told the price that you need to pay for that good in advance. That is a verbal contract. I never entered into a written or verbal contract with anyone saying that I will pay taxes to the government or that I will not smoke marijuana. It is a failed comparison. So as soon as the Mafia overthrows the US government it will be okay for them to continue their extortion rackets? makes sense ! (owait not it doesn't lolol) What makes him so sure it is the governments? Nice to see he has no idea what initiation of force means. Stealing my car is initiating force against me. Committing fraud against me is initiating force against me. He is taking force in the most literal way possible, and that is not the way it is meant by libertarians at all. Okay there is a difference between me responding to someone stealing my car with force, and the government responding to me not giving into their extortion racket by forcing me to do so. Anyone who cannot see the difference is brain dead or washed, or works for the government. End of story. God what a bunch of shit this guy spews. He really has no idea what he is talking about, he contradicts his own stated principles! pretty much his ideology can be summarized as "bend over and enjoy the nice long dick of the state, as you explicitly contractually agreed to do by being born!"