[annalex]

Regardless of the actual text of the Constitution, I don't understand how a society can have a goverment unless the entire domain of foreign policy and the entire domain of war making is wholesale given to the government. That is because the other nations will view us not as individuals but as a national unity. So, how are you going to withdraw consent? There is no mechanism for you to do it equitably. Let's say you withdraw consent for a foreign adventure. How do you do it? You hold on to a portion of your taxes. Now, let's say the government's adventure brought you a benefit after all. It appears that you've freeloaded.

I don't see a more equitable mechanism of consent in matters of national interest than majoritarian consent at election time. Do you?

About altruist foreign policy, I agree with Rand. Altruistic intervention is rightful with respect to the nation that is intervened when that nation is ruled by a government that usurped power. It is rightful with respect to us citizens if it is justified by the national interest. It is rightful as long as the government can present a plausible case for the national interest. If that case is falty, then the nation, being a free nation, would vote the government out of office. Till then -- till the election time -- the citizens may agitate against the foreign policy, but they may not legally withhold consent.

I'll probably re-post this, with modifications, on the other thread, where LSJohn should see it.

[Demidog]

Regardless of the actual text of the Constitution, I don't understand how a society can have a goverment unless the entire domain of foreign policy and the entire domain of war making is wholesale given to the government. That is because the other nations will view us not as individuals but as a national unity. So, how are you going to withdraw consent? There is no mechanism for you to do it equitably. Let's say you withdraw consent for a foreign adventure. How do you do it?

The problem is you're putting the cart before the horse.

We no longer live in a Republic but a totalitarian dictatorship. the President wages war at the expense of you and I and this is because he hasn't bothered to get our consent before waging war.

In the law, the President cannot act at all unless your representatives declare a formal state of war.

The President is only allowed to move our forces when there is an impending invasion.

I would agree that this might be one of those times. However, one has to wonder why one would stage soldiers in Afghanistan leaving the nation wide open for an invasion.

On the matter of consent. First, the income tax takes all issue of monitary consent out of the picture. The income tax is in fact unconstitutional if indeed it really applies to all American citizens.

Second, it was specifically stated that one could refuse to serve. That's the law. If for instance, the war was to be waged on foreign soil and had no relationship to national defense, the potential soldiers could tell the feds to pound sand.

If the military were only funded for the two years that is demanded by the constitution, every incursion would require consent by those serving. And this is all designed with the fact in mind that all political and military power comes from the people.

I am sorry that this pains you so. Actually no I'm not because you really don't give a rats ass whether or not our military and foreign policy is either constitutional or libertarian in nature. You are seeking "libertarian" principles with which to justify your position. There aren't any.