wdg3rd:
I in fact am not referring to CP. The constitution party is no more constitution focused than in the book 1984, the ministry of peace was focused on actually having peace, the ministry of truth was focused on disseminating actual information, or the ministry of love was about people engaging in orgies. It's doublespeak and possibly doublethink, and if I hadn't been already thoroughly burned out on the phenomena I'd be amazed that as many people fall for it as do. Even if the first primarily was intended to keep religion from being established at a Federal level or establishment at state level denied, their emphasis shows that they would be re-enacting the gimp scene on the constitutional principles in the other direction.
I mean constructionalists. People who believe we'd be just fine and dandy if we could somehow get people who believe in the founder's constitution (minus slavery and voting inequality) into office. The failure in this concept should be self-evident, but I'll say it anyway. Even assuming government ever followed the constitution, the fact that it doesn't now should show exactly how much power the constitution has to restrain government. Add in the fact that it never followed it, and it should demonstrate how bad an idea it is. Add in the fact that belief in the constitution legitimizes the government whether or not it follows the constitution? The constitution has that feeling of being something so totally reasonable. Object to the government it spawned and it seems like you're objecting to the simple provisions in the constitution itself. And I do say those were way, way too much. It doesn't seem like it, which is why they got passed. But I can point to direct abuse of every provision without even moving on to areas where the provisions have been distorted far out of any original intent.
Rocketman:
*shrug* I haven't really had much success at all. I've tried to talk to people about their goals, and then showing the means they're suggesting do not achieve them. But that their goals are quite well achieved by getting rid of government. I don't get very far, because like constructionalists they believe all we need to do is hand the reigns of power to the right people, and they'll do things right and "better" than people would do for themselves. Never mind that it's a 100% failure rate when tried. When asked about the "You want everyone to have access to powerful weapon XYZ?" question I always explained that no matter who has them, it's people. One group is much the same as any other unless it's believed that just being a member of a group makes you better or worse than other people. They come back with "but then that would just let it go into the hands of the worst people". Because they believe government is not the worst people to be doing things. That it somehow attracts the best of the best, or at least the least worst of the worst, whereas business attracts the most horrible types imaginable. In their minds, anyway.
I'm coming to the conclusion that there's nothing but at best helping someone to explore waking up to this. If they're not ready, they won't wake up. At the least until one such society gets demonstrated and does better than the authoritarian regimes and people move there to escape the crap that authoritarian regimes generate. Somalia was risking that, and it's one of the reasons others have suspected it was invaded. And even in the event a truly free state does better than the authoritarian regimes, I suspect some would ride in and start trying to advocate authoritarian control, since if they're doing that well without it imagine if it were scientifically planned and managed and structured to maximize efficiency! If districts were set up so all the business happens in a concentrated sector! Authoritarians never really seem to learn no matter how many times their ideas are shown bankrupt.