# Re Comments About Constitutions Summary:: # Notes ## Links ## Backlinks > [!Info]- Ignore dataview >## Backlink >Ignore this dataview. Plugins don't work on the website >```dataview Table Status, type as "Type" from [[]] and !outgoing([[]]) sort file.name asc >``` --- # References Subject: Re: Comments About Constitutions From: Sheldon Richman To: James B. Berger Date Sent: 8/19/2008 12:52:12 PM Jim-- This is excellent. Thanks. Our positions are very close. Sheldon On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM, James B. Berger [<[email protected]](mailto:<[email protected])> wrote: Sheldon, Penn Pfiffner from the Independence Institute suggested that I send you a copy of a comment I posted (see below) on an online discussion group they host. He thought you might enjoy my line of thinking. To provide you with the context, I wrote this comment to clarify a much briefer post I had made to the discussion in which I made two points: 1) I found the use of the term "Freedom Documents" used by Fred Holden (also from the Independence Institute) perplexing when referring to constitutions because they form governments, which negate liberty; and 2) I said that studying the constitutions (of  the U.S. and Colorado) would not add to our liberty. I added the hypothesis that if we returned to the original Constitution we would quickly recreate the mess we have today. I meant to incite discussion but created misunderstanding instead; thus, the clarifying comments. In his e-mail to me Penn referred me to your article "The Goal is Freedom:…," which I had not read. It does seem that you and I take different routes to compatible conclusions. I don't find this surprising. I have read other pieces you have written and I attended the presentation you gave at the Independence Institute in February. I find your articulate voice in favor of critical examination of The Constitution encouraging. Thanks, Jim Berger About Constitutions: A Response I gather from Fred Holden's response that I may not have made the points in my original post sufficiently clear. I would like to clarify some of those points and address a couple of questions that Fred posed in his response to my post. First, any constitution that defines the structure of a government simultaneously defines limitations to the freedoms of the people inhabiting the area governed by that government. The Constitution of the United States does not represent an exception to that generalization (nor do the constitutions of the individual states). I find it curious that Fred would refer to any documents that limit people's freedoms as "freedom documents." The Declaration of Independence represents a different case. It severed a people's connection with a government without forming a new government. One might rightfully refer to that as a "freedom document". Second, based on systems theory, the structure of any system influences the behavior of that system more than do the activities within that system. This theory applies to all systems, large and small. The solar system behaves the way it does because of its systemic structure. Because of its structure, your row boat will not fly, no matter how hard you pull on the oars. Hockey games tend to have low scores and basketball games tend to have high scores because of their different structures. Public education reform has failed continually for at least 40 years because the fundamental structure has not changed. I have used this list of diverse examples as a substitute for a textbook length description of systems theory. I hope to convey the important point that the dominant structural influence on behavior applies to all systems. The most important structural elements of human systems (e.g. organizations like businesses and governments) consist of the formal rules adopted by the system and mental models of the members of the system. For this reason a nation state with a given set of rules (e.g. a constitution) and a given set of cultural beliefs will create a repeating pattern of behavior (within a range of variance) regardless of the people in charge. Of course, because the wide variance of the behavior of the actors (people) in human systems behavior patterns of the larger systems will vary widely. In addition, because human systems learn, the structure of that system (and thereby its behavior) will adapt over time; leading to more variance. The Constitution of the United States provides a case study in the dynamic I have described briefly. After winning the war with Britain the mental models of the people told them that they needed an entity in charge. They adopted the Articles of Confederation, but that did not satisfy the mental models of a sufficient number of people that they then adopted the basic Constitution in 1787. At that point the basic structure of the United States consisted of a set of rules that gave governing powers to people elected by a populous whose mental models wanted someone else in charge. This created a structure in which any adaptation would naturally move in the direction of giving increasingly more power to the government. Based on that very simple description, I contend that if the rulebook (i.e. the body of federal law) were stripped back to only the Constitution signed in 1787 and that were done in the context of the currently dominant socialist mental models, we would end up with a situation at least as bad as we have today. In this scenario, the basic structure of the United States would consist of a set of rules that gives governing powers to people elected by a populous whose mental models not only want someone else in charge but also believe they have the right to free medical care, free education, free protection from numerous bad guys, and to take the property of others for these benefit. Our return to socialism would happen quickly and certainly, in spite of those of us screaming from the side lines, "Hey, the founders did not want this!" I cannot predict the exact result, but I do contend that these general results have a very high probability. Third, I agree with Murray Rothbard, Albert Nock, and the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan that we should regard the State as our enemy. We have the good fortune to have an environment in which we can fight back without concerns for our lives, but fight back we must. I'll address the beginnings of a long-terms strategy in a moment, but in the short-term we must understand the rules (the Constitutions of the nation and the states) that bind the enemy (even partially) in order to at least slow the deterioration of our system. Based on that elaboration on my original points I would like to address some of the comments the Fred Holden made in his letter. First, Fred (and maybe many of you) disagrees with the points I made in the third and fourth paragraphs of my first message, which I attempted to elaborate above. I would appreciate anyone (particularly you, Fred) explaining exactly why they disagree with my argument. Do you disagree with the systems theory that structure acts as the major influence in systems' patterns of behavior? Do you disagree that a document that establishes the power to govern together with a population that wants their desires fulfilled by political means creates a structure of government that will lead back to socialism? Or do you have some other disagreement? Second, when it comes to freedom, I think playing the role of "Builder-Upper" or "Knock-Knocker," represent a false choice. I consider freedom as an absolute; it exists when all forms of oppression disappear. It does not require building, fighting for, or a set of rules. A people can achieve freedom only by eliminating all impediments to freedom. To attempt to do any building after that only creates new restrictions on freedom. If wanting to remove the impediments to freedom makes me a "Knock-Knocker," I accept the moniker with pride. Third, Fred said, "I'm curious to learn your program to bring America back and make it better…" I cannot answer the question as posed while remaining logical and consistent to my belief in liberty. To "bring America back" presupposes an illogical reversal of time and undoing changes already made—leading to images of babies going out with bath water. Outlining "my program" presupposes my willingness to impose my version of oppression for current oppression; that fits many people's definition of freedom but not mine. Liberty consists of letting people create their own programs through the interdependent nature of the unfettered market. So, as a long-term strategy, I would start disassembling the current structure. People can only learn about freedom by experiencing freedom. Since I acknowledge the improbability of an intellectual (vs. bloody) revolution I would start the disassembling process with education. I would not present another government school reform program. I would simply close all government schools—tomorrow. Freedom always comes with an equal measure of responsibility. If parents woke up one morning to discover they now had the responsibility (and freedom), to educate their own children a nationwide learning process would commence. Parents would have to face a plethora of responsibilities, which the government has taken from them—what to learn, how to learn, how to pay for education, and more. With one simple (albeit difficult) change a portion of the current generation would experience (and learn about) a small portion of the responsibility and interdependent nature of liberty. At the same time the younger generation would experience an educational system that no longer condones oppression (forced attendance) or the confiscation of personal property (taxes to pay for education). I could expand this explanation to book length, but I would bet that in the end the learning that adults achieved as a result of this change in systemic structure would spread to other mental models about freedom and responsibility. Finally, Fred, if I can find a copy of your book TOTAL Power of ONE in America, I will read the chapters to which you refer. Jim Berger -- Sheldon Richman, Editor The Freeman & In brief Foundation for Economic Education 30 S Broadway Irvington, NY 10533 (501) 240-6166 [www.fee.org](http://www.fee.org)