PDA

View Full Version : It's time to replace the Constitution of the United States.



Hedley LaMarr
24th July 10, 09:21 PM
Many hold the Constitution of the United States in an almost religious regard. I'll admit, it was groundbreaking. It is a useful tool that has allowed for the idea of democracy to rule over this nation for over two centuries.

Like every tool, though, it gets more and more wear and tear with use. As humans have tried to use the Constitution, it's been amended and altered. We've added things to get government to run more effectively like term limits and enfranchising more and more people. We even experimented with prohibition. What's really wearing at it is the interpretation of it. Federal judges love interpreting the Constitution in different and conflicting ways so much I think they find it erotic.

Now if it was just wear and tear that was wrong with the Constitution, all it would take to get it up and running would be a tune up. Unfortunately, the problem's a lot deeper. The Constitution was written to govern over less than two dozen separate states and about 4 million people. A lot has been said about the framers of the Constitution and they have been deified by some in this country, but I don't think they had the foresight to lay out the Constitution for 50 states and 300 million people.

Here are some of the problems I see with the US Constitution:

1. The Bicameral Legislature.

The bicameral legislature, with a Senate comprised of 2 members from every state and House of Representatives with a membership based on population, was set up so states with big populations get a larger share of the legislative pie while smaller states can get equal representation. The fact that they had this problem 296 million people ago should illustrate that it is incredibly difficult to have an organization legislate fairly over a large population. Creating two legislative bodies was a clever idea, but it effectively doubles the time it takes for legislation to get passed (if not much more so.)

2. The President is involved too much in legislative business.

The Framers set up checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government (the executive, legislative, and judicial) to make sure none of them get too big for their breeches. This means the President has final approval over what went into law. Originally the intent was for the President to make sure the legislature wasn't passing unconstitutional laws that would gum up the works. That went out of style quickly because the President is the leader and when people have a problem with something, they take it to him rather than trying to figure out who the fuck their congressmen are.

3. The Constitution provides no mechanism for secession.

This'll make me sound like a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic, but I think states should have the ability secede peacefully from the Union. Culture and politics go hand in hand, and when the culture of distinct regions of a country become so different as to polarize the political discourse of a country to a standstill, maybe it's time for somebody to leave. I would rather this be done with the possibility of the leaving party exiting as a friend, which is preferable to forcing them to stay as an enemy.


Sure, they added mechanisms that allow for altering the Constitution which in theory could be used to upgrade the Constitution . My Dell Dimension 2350 also can be modified and upgraded to play modern pc games, but to do so I would have to replace the motherboard, the video game, probably install Windows 7 and so much else that at the end of the day I would have a completely new computer.


What this country needs in my opinion is a Third Constitutional Convention. The second one was definitely a success, but it's time for a new version. This convention should be held with the intent that any state or region that wants to leave should be allowed to and with the hope that relations will remain peaceful and friendly.

This current Constitution had a pretty good run, but our society is getting to a point where it will become impossible to get anything done effectively at the federal level. It should be obvious that whatever replaces this Constitution will not be perfect, whether it is one document that represents all 50 states or many separate confederacies and unions born out of carcass of the United States, but it has the possibility to be so much better. No government has ever been built to last for an eternity and it will be long road before we as a people arrive at a form of government which will universally allow for freedom.

ICY
24th July 10, 10:01 PM
When it needs to happen, it will...which, I think, will be around the same time your economy collapses completely and you cease to be a world power...some time in the next 75 years.

WarPhalange
24th July 10, 11:17 PM
its cuz them damn homo libruls!!1

Arhetton
24th July 10, 11:29 PM
I think these structures are very effective and have scaled well from much earlier times and models. You're right in that government has a need to continuously evolve, but it is not necessarily a bad model.

SFGOON
24th July 10, 11:34 PM
Here's why I disagree.

Both the Senate and the House serve different aspects of legislation. I wouldn't want one or the other in sole control of legislation. Like a double-filter, a bicameral legislature ensures that the law which are passed get subjected to a great deal of consideration before being passed. It's an institution which, for all it's faults, is literally incapable of knee-jerk legislation.

Congress can and occasionally has overrun a presidential veto, and there are rules and protocols in place to do so. If I'm not mistaken, assessing the constitutionality of new legislation lies with the judiciary and not with the president. The president's job, along with all of the executive branch, is to carry out or enforce the law.

Creating an easy route to secession could prove to be extremely problematic. Not even the confederacy's constitution provided such a thing. Do do so would create unbearable levels economic and legal externalities which would stymie simple things such as the maintenance of roads, the placement of military bases or government contracts (would you put one in a State which was likely to secede?)

Not to mention making a sideways butt-fuck out of international relations.

The United States has seen this level of political discord before, and it will see it again. In the long interim between these phases of growing pains, cooler heads will prevail.

ICY
25th July 10, 12:24 AM
The (basically) single legistlature (parliament) with two rubber stamps afterward is way, way better. Knee jerk legistlation doesn't really happen. Neither does the fucked up addons to everything that you guys have.

Hedley LaMarr
25th July 10, 12:25 AM
Here's why I disagree.

Both the Senate and the House serve different aspects of legislation. I wouldn't want one or the other in sole control of legislation. Like a double-filter, a bicameral legislature ensures that the law which are passed get subjected to a great deal of consideration before being passed. It's an institution which, for all it's faults, is literally incapable of knee-jerk legislation.

It's a double-edged sword. You are right, it is like a double filter that prevents knee jerk legislation, which is a definite plus. But the longer a bill is in queue the longer it can build up earmarks and be altered into relative meaninglessness.

Personally I think that most legislatures move slowly enough already to where a filter would not be a necessity. I could be wrong though. I'm going to look into this more and if anyone has examples I would greatly appreciate them.


Congress can and occasionally has overrun a presidential veto, and there are rules and protocols in place to do so. If I'm not mistaken, assessing the constitutionality of new legislation lies with the judiciary and not with the president. The president's job, along with all of the executive branch, is to carry out or enforce the law.

The Judiciary and the President both have checks over the legislature. While the President's main job constitutionally speaking is to execute the law, there was always a strong element of keeping the legislature in check and has evolved to become his main job.


Creating an easy route to secession could prove to be extremely problematic. Not even the confederacy's constitution provided such a thing. Do do so would create unbearable levels economic and legal externalities which would stymie simple things such as the maintenance of roads, the placement of military bases or government contracts (would you put one in a State which was likely to secede?)

Having an easy route to secession would definitely pose problems for a federal military, which I think would a be a benefit of the system. I think the federal government abuses the National Guard and that they should focus more on national defense.


Not to mention making a sideways butt-fuck out of international relations.

Oh this would be a huge problem for international relations. If we ever got to a point where a Constitutional Congress was in order though I'd bet international relations would be the least of our worries.

Kein Haar
25th July 10, 07:09 AM
Your Wisconsinosity invalidates most of that. I.e. you're fucking drunk (again).

Sleep it off before you start altering the course of the world.

Ajamil
25th July 10, 08:17 AM
I've been going over this for a while now. Every time I think there's a way to shrink things down or make them more effective, I think a bit more on it and see how much worse it would make things.

The biggest problem I see really is the nation's populace always looking to the president, and marginalizing the importance of congress. It's rather recent that the POTUS gained so much power. Take Pres. Obama. He's given credit for the stimulus bill, the healthcare reform, and so many other things that congress did. In these cases, he's more of a very high profile lobbyist than someone who's actually creating the laws. Now his big push is new immigration reform (nice to have Obama, close the door on your way out in 2012). I'd much rather see the president let congress deal with these things and focus on our wars and executing/enforcing the laws we already have.

But it won't happen, because people like to have a single entity to place things on.

Hedley LaMarr
25th July 10, 11:23 AM
Your Wisconsinosity invalidates most of that. I.e. you're fucking drunk (again).

Sleep it off before you start altering the course of the world.
I wasn't that drunk when I came up with my idea for secession.

SFGOON
25th July 10, 11:47 AM
It's a double-edged sword. You are right, it is like a double filter that prevents knee jerk legislation, which is a definite plus. But the longer a bill is in queue the longer it can build up earmarks and be altered into relative meaninglessness.

Personally I think that most legislatures move slowly enough already to where a filter would not be a necessity. I could be wrong though. I'm going to look into this more and if anyone has examples I would greatly appreciate them.

Look into the British and Italian parliaments. The UK in particular is adept at producing bullshit laws very quickly.


The Judiciary and the President both have checks over the legislature. While the President's main job constitutionally speaking is to execute the law, there was always a strong element of keeping the legislature in check and has evolved to become his main job.

How so? Most of what a president does is administering executive orders or setting national policy. He only has one check over the congress, that of the veto.


Having an easy route to secession would definitely pose problems for a federal military, which I think would a be a benefit of the system. I think the federal government abuses the National Guard and that they should focus more on national defense.

By putting armed soldiers in the streets? How do you propose we utilize the heavy mechanized infantry and armor divisions that make up the national guard? The states have executive powers over them and the authority to activate them directly, but they're trained and equipped from the federal defense budget. The national guard belongs to the United States.


Oh this would be a huge problem for international relations. If we ever got to a point where a Constitutional Congress was in order though I'd bet international relations would be the least of our worries.

Yeah. And we'd have foreign countries trying to purchase sway over individual states, pitting them against one another, using them as pawns. Fuck no.

This is terrible, this secede idea of you.

ICY
25th July 10, 04:08 PM
What is shitty about the Canadian system? We have WAY less bullshit laws than you guys do.

Cullion
25th July 10, 04:11 PM
It's not the system, it's the people. People get more insane the hotter it is. That's why Scandanavia's politically calm and orderly too.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th July 10, 04:13 PM
Secession is a bullshit split issue that cry-baby Southerners take up every time the Feds do something they don't like. Obama? We'll secede! Clinton? We'll secede! Civil Rights Act? We'll secede! Mandatory book-learnin? We'll fucking secede goddamnit!

Ajamil
25th July 10, 04:55 PM
If the whole South secedes we won't have to worry about illegal immigration from Mexico anymore. We'll have to cut California in two, however.

ICY
25th July 10, 07:00 PM
California is not part of "The South" (TM)

Ajamil
25th July 10, 07:14 PM
But they touch Mexico - so at least everything below LA has to go.

ICY
25th July 10, 07:42 PM
A five mile border with Mexico wouldn't be so bad.

HappyOldGuy
25th July 10, 08:23 PM
I'm going to shoot DA's high school civics teacher.

Hedley LaMarr
25th July 10, 09:07 PM
I'm going to shoot DA's high school civics teacher.
Ha! I never went to high school!

Hedley LaMarr
25th July 10, 09:20 PM
I'm going to shoot DA's high school civics teacher.
On a more serious note:

If you have problems with my ideas, outline them. If I said something that was factually inaccurate, point it out. I realize this article is very extreme, very theoretical and has giant problems with it. That's what discussion is for: to point out this problems and see if the idea can be reworked from there or if the idea should be scrapped for a new one.

Posting shit like this is just demeaning to you. It makes you look like you cannot articulate your ideas effectively and instead just rely on insults and shitposting. That's why I appreciate posts like SFGOONs where he outlined why my idea was wrong and argued. He brought up things for me to think about and I'm now trying to rework the idea in a way to compensate for the problems he described (no where near done yet, though.)

So if you want to point out what's wrong with my idea go ahead, I would really enjoy hearing it. You can be as insulting and demeaning as you want to be as long as you are doing it while pointing out why my idea is wrong. Posts like yours are a waste of a post and a waste of time.

HappyOldGuy
25th July 10, 09:43 PM
On a more serious note:

If you have problems with my ideas, outline them. If I said something that was factually inaccurate, point it out. I realize this article is very extreme, very theoretical and has giant problems with it. That's what discussion is for: to point out this problems and see if the idea can be reworked from there or if the idea should be scrapped for a new one.

That's a perfectly valid request, but i find I don't care. You need to read the federalist papers and the writings of Thomas Jefferson, as well as a good history book.

You need a teacher and I'm just not feeling that engaged.

Hedley LaMarr
25th July 10, 10:01 PM
That's a perfectly valid request, but i find I don't care. You need to read the federalist papers and the writings of Thomas Jefferson, as well as a good history book.

You need a teacher and I'm just not feeling that engaged.
If you don't care, don't post.

SFGOON
25th July 10, 10:53 PM
Reading the federalist papers or the writings of the founding fathers, honestly, could not be less relevant to modern times.

I'd more suggest taking a look at Samuel Huntington's work, and that of Francis Fukiyama as well.

Things are strikingly different from when the US was just an unstable hodgepodge of cobbled together British colonies. Any revelation or inspiration won't come from rehashing the old ideas of the founders.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th July 10, 11:23 PM
Read Glenn Beck's Common Sense if you're really so confused about your duties as an American.

fes_fsa
26th July 10, 12:47 AM
i am completely against this thread.

to quote one of my heroes, Barry Goldwater:


The Constitution, and the laws "made in pursuance of", are the "supreme law of the land". The Constitution is what its authors intended it to be and said it was.... If we condone the practice of substituting our own intentions for those of the Constitution's framers, we reject, in effect, the principle of Constitutional Government: we endorse a rule of men, not laws.

and to show how much i believe in this... i typed it out and even used caps.

/srs

bob
26th July 10, 04:00 AM
fes, sounds an awful lot like religion to me.

ICY
26th July 10, 04:02 AM
Fes, you really think that a constitution written hundreds of years ago by guys who embraced some utterly retarded ideas is really the best framework to operate within from now until eternity?

I mean, yes...laws are more important than individual opinions, but over time, we figure out slightly better ways to get along with one another, so having static laws is rather ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

Cullion
26th July 10, 04:21 AM
Reading the federalist papers or the writings of the founding fathers, honestly, could not be less relevant to modern times.

I'd more suggest taking a look at Samuel Huntington's work, and that of Francis Fukiyama as well.

Things are strikingly different from when the US was just an unstable hodgepodge of cobbled together British colonies. Any revelation or inspiration won't come from rehashing the old ideas of the founders.

Francis Fukuyama's a retard. Why would you advise anybody to study him ?

fes_fsa
26th July 10, 04:23 AM
fes, sounds an awful lot like religion to me.
it IS my religion.

and Cracky... bad doggie.

ICY
26th July 10, 04:29 AM
So...no counterpoint...I am disappoint.

fes_fsa
26th July 10, 04:49 AM
what is there to discuss?

apart from the damage done by those who have chosen to interpret the Constitution to justify robbing free men of their rights, our Constitutional Government works so that we, the people, CAN make laws to get along with each other, without having to face tyranny of the central state. it's PERFECT.

i know that freedom doesn't mean alot to those of you who were BORN in the country you currently live in... but google Tondo Manila, and you'll understand that where i come from, your freedom isn't guaranteed--it has to be bought and anybody without money is an impoverished SLAVE.

i'm sure that if i went from Tondo to just some 2nd world pisshole, i'd be fighting tooth and nail for THEIR laws, because it's just soooo much better than where i come from.

i really lucked out coming here. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

ICY
26th July 10, 06:40 AM
Ok, I understand. I don't agree that the American constitution is perfect, but I understand that making it difficult to change makes it difficult to fuck with fundamental freedoms. I just think the bicameral legislature is retarded and that, eventually, any set of laws will go out of date, even the constitution.

We have freedom here, too, you know, and I don't see it evaporating any sooner than yours does. Yet we have a different constitution, and it is slightly easier to change, although it's still very difficult, it's not ridiculously impossible, as it is in America.

fes_fsa
26th July 10, 07:12 AM
the beauty of our Constitution is that it can be ammended to make it more fair by current standards. yeah... bicameral legislation seems time consuming, but it's this way to ensure that the majority can agree to what laws will be applied to our entire country. 2/3rds of the House and Senate have to approve... and then they send it to the states to be voted on by the people.

it's retarded to get rid of this method, when we've never used the other method, a Constitutional Convention, to make any of the 27 amendments to our Constitution. why get dismiss a method, without having tried your other options?

how do you change your constitution and how is it different from our ability to ammend our Constitution?

edit: and one more thing. i chuckled when you said "we have freedoms here too". i'm not sure you even know what they are when you have NOTHING to compare it to. try leaving Satan's anus and trying to make it in Canada, US, or any other civilized society. you wouldn't change shit about your laws, because you'd know how good you have it.

Cullion
26th July 10, 07:29 AM
Freedom is reliant on the character of the people that comprise a society. The codified rules are really only there to give you something to compare the present to, so you have a benchmark by which to judge when social decay is setting in.

People worthy and capable of creating and maintaining a free society barely need to refer to these documents, because it's generally obvious to them what is or is not an appropriate way for a public official, judge, soldier or law enforcement officer to behave.

Conversely, a population or leadership culture in an advanced state of decadence or sliding into barbarism just find ways of ignoring or creatively interpreting these documents.

Therefore, I think you need to make your judiciary and body politic undergo tests of character way beyond a simple popular vote. Tests of endurance, intensive & unusual surveillance to see how they treat the less fortunate when they think they aren't being watched. Warrior virtue in the arena. Logic puzzles & Riddles. See how long it takes them to turn into gleeful torturers when they play 'guards' in reruns of the Milgram experiment.

I'm willing to help design these tests for you.

fes_fsa
26th July 10, 07:35 AM
how would you define a person's character?

as a measure of goodness? or levelheadedness?

Cullion
26th July 10, 07:44 AM
Level-headedness, selflessness and wisdom.

fes_fsa
26th July 10, 07:49 AM
Level-headedness, selflessness and wisdom.

alright. i'm interested. design the tests.

RIGHT NOW.

HappyOldGuy
26th July 10, 01:08 PM
Freedom is reliant on the character of the people that comprise a society. The codified rules are really only there to give you something to compare the present to, so you have a benchmark by which to judge when social decay is setting in.

People worthy and capable of creating and maintaining a free society barely need to refer to these documents, because it's generally obvious to them what is or is not an appropriate way for a public official, judge, soldier or law enforcement officer to behave.

Conversely, a population or leadership culture in an advanced state of decadence or sliding into barbarism just find ways of ignoring or creatively interpreting these documents.

Therefore, I think you need to make your judiciary and public to undergo tests of character way beyond a simple popular vote. Tests of endurance, intensive & unusual surveillance to see how they treat the less fortunate when they think they aren't being watched. Warrior virtue in the arena. Logic puzzles & Riddles. See how long it takes them to turn into gleeful torturers when they play 'guards' in reruns of the Milgram experiment.

I'm willing to help design these tests for you.
Can you design those tests to detect a clearer moral sense than simple current popular opinion.

Should you?

Would you?

Kein Haar
26th July 10, 04:22 PM
Fes, you really think that a constitution written hundreds of years ago by guys who embraced some utterly retarded ideas is really the best framework to operate within from now until eternity?

I mean, yes...laws are more important than individual opinions, but over time, we figure out slightly better ways to get along with one another, so having static laws is rather ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

Retard, which laws are in the constitution?

Cullion
26th July 10, 04:34 PM
Can you design those tests to detect a clearer moral sense than simple current popular opinion.

I dunno. It would be an experiment.



Should you?

Well, I wouldn't really know until after it was tried.



Would you?

Oh god yes.

HappyOldGuy
26th July 10, 04:35 PM
Oh god yes.

So you think it's beneficial for judges to push the ethical envelope?

Cullion
26th July 10, 04:39 PM
So you think it's beneficial for judges to push the ethical envelope?

What do you mean exactly ?

HappyOldGuy
26th July 10, 04:42 PM
What do you mean exactly ?

There are several issues, but I guess the one I'm on about now is what does it mean to be an ethical judge charged with upholding unethical laws?

ICY
26th July 10, 05:00 PM
and one more thing. i chuckled when you said "we have freedoms here too". i'm not sure you even know what they are when you have NOTHING to compare it to. try leaving Satan's anus and trying to make it in Canada, US, or any other civilized society. you wouldn't change shit about your laws, because you'd know how good you have it.

I don't disagree. The only thing I have to compare it to are the stories I've been told all my life of what it was like for family members to live in the USSR, India, Poland (communist), German POW camps, North Africa, etc. It seems great to me, by comparison, and there is little if anything I would change at this point, or even in my life-time, but I still think that eventually, reform will be needed, even if a significant minority disagrees.


Retard, which laws are in the constitution?

It is a framework for law. Fuck off with your grammar policing.

Cullion
26th July 10, 05:06 PM
There are several issues, but I guess the one I'm on about now is what does it mean to be an ethical judge charged with upholding unethical laws?

Ah, in that case I think the Judge must uphold the letter and even the mean-spirited intent of the unjust law, or resign (and they're entitled to make a big public noise about why). Jury nullification in such a case, however, is something I support.

SFGOON
26th July 10, 05:15 PM
Francis Fukuyama's a retard. Why would you advise anybody to study him ?

Because it's a desirable and feasible end state. It may just be that his predictions will crystallize over the coming decades.

Kein Haar
26th July 10, 05:20 PM
I notice you said crystallize.

That implies doings of the crystal children.

SFGOON
26th July 10, 05:26 PM
I think you need to make your judiciary and body politic undergo tests of character way beyond a simple popular vote. Tests of endurance, intensive & unusual surveillance to see how they treat the less fortunate when they think they aren't being watched. Warrior virtue in the arena. Logic puzzles & Riddles. See how long it takes them to turn into gleeful torturers when they play 'guards' in reruns of the Milgram experiment.

I'm willing to help design these tests for you.

I've addressed this sort of thing before:




In your lifetime, you have watched the world become ripe for rapid evolution. As you age, you will witness the dissolution of many things which you take for granted. Things which you thought you loved but which really served to hinder your higher purpose in life. If you are lucky, you will realize that you are part of something far greater than you ever intended. Don't let your ego slam the door on your destiny.

National identities and symbols. Privacy. Political ideologies. Organized religions. Things of pomp and circumstance will be revealed for the illusions they are, and they will evaporate. We will come to see the vapidity of things we use to differentiate ourselves from the "other." Governments will piss, those in "power" will moan and both will attempt to rally the masses. They will fail. Their ideas were brilliant for the era in which they were conceived. We no longer live in that era.

The new government will be focused on protecting fair, open and liberal commerce. It will preserve the peace and protect the dignity of it's citizens. Secrets will cease to exist. Mass mutual surveillance will become the rule of law and burden of evidence. Government will be focused on "citizen service," - the Nordstrom's approach to government. Education will be open and free. Medical care - open and free using a tiered triage system to insure fair and equitable availability of scarce resources. Money - all accounting, personal, corporate and government, will be completely open. Democracy will become quite direct and executive orders will require a 40% majority from the public before they are official. You will vote on your cellphone which will also serve as a type of ID. Yes, it's movement will be tracked. Yes, anyone can see it. Yes, you WILL wear an RFID chip under your skin which will "verify" your phone so we know it's you. The operation is painless and exceptions will be made to this rule for a variety of reasons. We the people will mutually protect the peace. We the people will control our own destiny. We the people will live as a human family. Free. Open. Available. Democratic. Transparent. Liberty. Dignity. Truth. Utopia.

These times are the beginnings of birth pains.

Cullion
26th July 10, 05:31 PM
Because it's a desirable and feasible end state. It may just be that his predictions will crystallize over the coming decades.

The ends not only don't justify the means, they can often work counter to them.

Fukuyama's an overeducated dissembler who blows with the prevailing wind and then makes up wordy post-hoc justifications for why things didn't work out which are as balanced and moderate-sounding as they are content-free.

SFGOON
26th July 10, 05:46 PM
Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev did the same thing, and he was ultimately vindicated.

Much like their geographic flow, the political flow of continents materializes slowly and misleading short term trends often arise.

HappyOldGuy
26th July 10, 05:50 PM
Fukuyamas big book came out a year before the first WTC bombing.

It's kinda hard to take him seriously today.




BTW goon, the point of studyng jefferson and the federalists is not because their thoughts are so mega relevant. It's to remind people that our constitution is not some document produced by a bunch of wise sages. It's the compromise result of a ginormous pigfight between different power blocs looking out for their own interests.

Cullion
26th July 10, 05:51 PM
Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev did the same thing, and he was ultimately vindicated.

Much like their geographic flow, the political flow of continents materializes slowly and misleading short term trends often arise.

UAyh23l1mx4

Cullion
26th July 10, 05:54 PM
BTW goon, the point of studyng jefferson and the federalists is not because their thoughts are so mega relevant.

I'd say they were. The problems American revolutionaries faced concerning the influence of priviledged banking and corporate power over their economy, and the timeless nature of how to balance human weakess and tendency to corruption against the need for a law-giving and enforcing authority still matter very much today.


It's to remind people that our constitution is not some document produced by a bunch of wise sages.

Compared to your, and my, body politic today, I'd say they were.

bob
26th July 10, 06:38 PM
People worthy and capable of creating and maintaining a free society barely need to refer to these documents, because it's generally obvious to them what is or is not an appropriate way for a public official, judge, soldier or law enforcement officer to behave.



There are plenty of people whose opinions and morals I respect who I completely disagree with on topics like these at times. You don't have to visit too many threads around here to see that.

SFGOON
26th July 10, 09:39 PM
God dammit Cullion, I'm not trolling. Huntington wasn't so right, anyway.

"Clash of Civilizations" my ass. It's more like "Geopolitical Pigpile on Osama bin Laden." Given the nature of wars that were fought up until the end of WWII, we live in a relative fucking paradise. One in which economic and technological growth has made destructive war so costly that nobody but the world's craziest sons a bitches even think about taking a nihilistic posture against the enemy.

Everyone else is trading, hoarding each other's currency, and debating whether nation A, is worthy to join the economic bloc of nations B,C,D,E, and F. Rejections to such blocs read more like "Please re-apply in five years."

Fukiyama is fine.

Hedley LaMarr
26th July 10, 11:23 PM
Freedom is reliant on the character of the people that comprise a society. The codified rules are really only there to give you something to compare the present to, so you have a benchmark by which to judge when social decay is setting in.

People worthy and capable of creating and maintaining a free society barely need to refer to these documents, because it's generally obvious to them what is or is not an appropriate way for a public official, judge, soldier or law enforcement officer to behave.

Conversely, a population or leadership culture in an advanced state of decadence or sliding into barbarism just find ways of ignoring or creatively interpreting these documents.

Therefore, I think you need to make your judiciary and body politic undergo tests of character way beyond a simple popular vote. Tests of endurance, intensive & unusual surveillance to see how they treat the less fortunate when they think they aren't being watched. Warrior virtue in the arena. Logic puzzles & Riddles. See how long it takes them to turn into gleeful torturers when they play 'guards' in reruns of the Milgram experiment.

I'm willing to help design these tests for you.
Are you suggesting some kind of gauntlet for people who seek political office? I really like this idea. Would this test be used as the deciding factor in who gets the office or would the scores be made public and let people decide their votes based on the tests and include a minimum score for said office?

Cullion
27th July 10, 03:19 AM
Are you suggesting some kind of gauntlet for people who seek political office? I really like this idea. Would this test be used as the deciding factor in who gets the office or would the scores be made public and let people decide their votes based on the tests and include a minimum score for said office?

You wouldn't be allowed to stand unless you passed the gauntlet. Idiots will always vote for a worm who promises them unreasonable things.

Cullion
27th July 10, 03:24 AM
God dammit Cullion, I'm not trolling. Huntington wasn't so right, anyway.

"Clash of Civilizations" my ass. It's more like "Geopolitical Pigpile on Osama bin Laden."

Given the nature of wars that were fought up until the end of WWII, we live in a relative fucking paradise.

We do. Lots of brown people that the we've decided to 'civilise' don't.



One in which economic and technological growth has made destructive war so costly that nobody but the world's craziest sons a bitches even think about taking a nihilistic posture against the enemy.

They said that after WWI.



Everyone else is trading, hoarding each other's currency, and debating whether nation A, is worthy to join the economic bloc of nations B,C,D,E, and F. Rejections to such blocs read more like "Please re-apply in five years."

Fukiyama is fine.

His ideas have no predictive power, they're just post-hoc explanations (and often bad ones at that) of things that have already happened that have a thin, entirely cosmetic veneer of erudition. It's like sociobiology in that regard.

Cullion
27th July 10, 03:25 AM
There are plenty of people whose opinions and morals I respect who I completely disagree with on topics like these at times. You don't have to visit too many threads around here to see that.

Hold your horses, what makes you think you'd pass any of the tests?

By necessity, these tests would disenfranchise a lot of people, because they have stupid, socially destructive opinions I wouldn't allow to be represented.

bob
27th July 10, 03:49 AM
Actually the first thread that came to mind was the 'police get away with murder' one where I actually agreed with you.

Smartarse.

Ajamil
27th July 10, 10:36 AM
Are you suggesting some kind of gauntlet for people who seek political office? I really like this idea. Would this test be used as the deciding factor in who gets the office or would the scores be made public and let people decide their votes based on the tests and include a minimum score for said office?

You wouldn't be allowed to stand unless you passed the gauntlet. Idiots will always vote for a worm who promises them unreasonable things.
http://www.filmophile.com/wp-content/uploads/images/Running_man.jpg

Oh it works on SO many levels!

Cullion
27th July 10, 10:41 AM
Actually the first thread that came to mind was the 'police get away with murder' one where I actually agreed with you.

Smartarse.

I wouldn't be allowing people to represent the masses based simply on whether or not they agreed with me. You might have a good grasp of constitutional principles and the necessary liberties of the individual, but if you can't last 20 minutes on the Wheel of Justice, then it's no go, I'm afraid.

Ajamil
27th July 10, 12:04 PM
Come on, they already call it "running for office."

http://www.lat34.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/runningman.jpg

Cullion
27th July 10, 12:06 PM
I wouldn't allow the tacky costumes. In some of the tests extreme pain would be unavoidable, not a question of skill or trickery.

There would be riddles, too.

fes_fsa
27th July 10, 01:14 PM
cullion...

are you designing the test?

Cullion
27th July 10, 02:29 PM
cullion...

are you designing the test?

I'M NOT A MACHINE YOU SLAVEDRIVER!

Yes I am. It's going to start with the Gom-Jabar from Dune.

With a twist. In random years the candidate can succeed by tricking a stranger into taking it for them.

fes_fsa
27th July 10, 02:32 PM
i'm not a slave driver.

and to prove it, i'll let you set your own deadline.

when can i expect to see this test?