On Jun 16, 3:57 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 16, 4:38 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Problems. > > > 1) There never was at any time in history a 'social contract'. > > That may be true in a literal sense, although the Mayflower Compact > does fulfill much of the definition. However, in the sense which I > was speaking > ("I propose"), there is a form of agreement among the citizenry as to > how they shall get along with each other. > The traffic analogy is familiar, although in Britain, you insist on > driving on the wrong side of the street. :) > My point is that there are two models of government, top-down and > bottom-up. > The bottom-up model is the one Americans most believe in.
Wow!! You do make some amazing and unverifiable facts. > > > 2) The American constitution ... in effect a > > contract between the elite men of a collection of states > > The US Constitution was the product of 13 colonies which had severe > differences of opinion on many vital matters, including (notably) > slavery. I don't think so. Which of the 13 states in 1776 were against slavery? A compromise was hammered out, but one which had such > serious flaws that it led eventually to open rebellion and one of the > bloodiest civil wars in history. Further civil strife led to further > modifications, such that the rights of the landed gentry have now > become the rights of all citizens, and to some extent, even the rights > of illegal immigrants. But not to be found in the original intentions of the constitution which was a republican document and not a democratic one (not in the way we mean it today) > > Flawed though it is, the essential principles of the Constitution have > sustained it for longer than any other written constitution in the > modern world (AFAIK). Name one! Those principles include the idea that > government is to be regarded somewhat like fire, a useful servant, but > a cruel master. Drawing from the English tradition, (as well as Greco- > Roman) the US Constitution enumerates specific, limited powers of > government, ensuring that there is a balance of power among the > branches, and that there are internal checks to prevent overreach. How do you think it was different from England? > > But no constitution, even a flawless one, can compensate for a > citizenry that is not vigilant and jealous of its rights. > Overreach by the federal government in the US has become so extreme > that only belatedly is the populace beginning to awaken to the threat > of tyranny. > > Laws are being passed behind closed doors--- without even having been > READ by the congressmen voting on it. > 60 percent public opposition to this process has not dissuaded the > Congress from carrying on in this fashion. > Unlike in the UK, we cannot call for elections, they are scheduled on > 2, 4, and 6 year intervals. In what way do you think "we" can call an election? > > The election scheduled for November has been preceded by a number of > preliminary referenda which have put the feds on notice that they are > in for a shellacking. However, instead of pulling back, the feds have > accelerated their efforts to put in place a legislative agenda that > will be difficult to repeal. > > The fear now is that they may have planned to attack Iran before the > elections, giving the government a pretext to declare a national > emergency, and to delay (or rig) elections. Try reading Agamben;s "State of Exception" > > If that happens, it is not likely that a popular uprising could > succeed, since the technology of counter-insurrection is far more > advanced than most people realize. > > Hopefully, the feared chaos is only just that, a fear, one that will > not materialize, > But the record of this government is clear. The public be damned, we > are not yielding. > > Open and honest elections in November (if held) will sweep the > Progressives from power, and the cleanup effort will begin. No comments on 3) and 4). > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > > > 3) The American constitution is out of date and its continued quoting > > to sort out various arguments that now exist in American society are > > seriously flawed. > > 4) The American constitution excluded most of society: women, slaves, > > the poor, those without land. The founding fathers never intended > > that their 'democracy' should ever included more than the circa 4% of > > the population that it set out to represent. Harping back to it, and > > the declaration of independence ignores 230 years of history of > > struggle and modification. > > > America need to live in the present, else it will be left behind by > > its own progress. > > > On Jun 14, 1:58 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What is government? > > > > I propose that it is a contract among the citizenry, or more > > > precisely, the agents who execute that contract. In much the same way > > > as a home seller and a home buyer may employ a real estate agent, a > > > lawyer (barrister), a construction engineer, or other selected > > > intermediaries, so also do we as citizens of our nations, employ a > > > government to facilitate our interactions with each other in a > > > mutually acceptable way. > > > > Of course the intermediary does not work for free. He demands and > > > receives his commission or fee. So also does government require taxes > > > to perform its duties. > > > > But here the analogy breaks. For in no case do we allow the agent to > > > expand its power or control beyond the needs of the contract. > > > > The currency of government is power. The more it has, the more it > > > uses that power to gain even more power. Wealthy people use their > > > money to gain even more money, and so it is with government and power. > > > > Governments are staffed by people. These people are neither wiser nor > > > more benevolent than the ordinary citizenry. They have their own > > > personal interests in mind, and sometimes, these personal interests > > > are in conflict with the interests of the general populace. > > > > The US Declaration of Independence states that: > > > > "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from > > > the consent of the governed, —... whenever any Form of Government > > > becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > > > alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > > > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, > > > as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > > > Happiness.....Governments long established should not be changed for > > > light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn > > > that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable > > > than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are > > > accustomed." > > > > End quote. > > > > Accordingly, an American politician, Newt Gingrich, has pointed out > > > that as Americans, we do not GIVE power to the government, but rather, > > > we lend it. And what we lend, we may recall at our discretion. > > > > The European tradition of monarchy holds that kings have a divine > > > right to rule over their subjects. The American tradition holds that > > > it is the citizens who have inalienable rights, and not the > > > government. > > > > The main aim of the American tradition of government is, "that > > > government is best which governs least." (unknown author, attribution > > > usually to Thomas Jefferson) > > > > This aim is consistent with priority number one, Liberty. When > > > people are given the freedoms and responsibilities of autonomous > > > individuals, they will make wiser decisions for themselves than could > > > any self-interested agent. > > > > Among these decisions is that of selecting a form of government which > > > first and foremost, protects the rights and freedoms of those who > > > select that government. > > > > Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master, our agent, > > > not our parent. > > > > Many people disagree with that, and therein lies the basis of much > > > political conflict.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
