On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:55, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote: >>> >>> Telmo wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> *"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is >>> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for >>> **peaceful >>> world with further increases in freedom)*." >>> >>> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on >>> modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling >>> slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers, >>> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later >>> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a >>> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME >>> exceptions, thank you). >>> >>> I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation >>> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st. >>> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome: >>> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, >>> *governing* a so called government into committing crimes >>> (international and domestic) originally excluded >>> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'. >>> >>> How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it: >>> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own >>> interest on other countries? (Not to >>> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money). >>> >>> >>> >>> Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and refused to >>> sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind (about >>> not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality). >>> Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something like >>> a Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that it could! >>> >> >> >> There was a letter describing the event which was long thought to be >> lost, but was recently found as described here: >> >> http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ >> >> See the bottom of page 7 in this 2006 letter by the IAS: >> http://www.ias.edu/files/pdfs/publications/letter-2006-spring.pdf >> >> >> Interesting links. Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and >>> corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy. >>> >> >> Yes, I think where things stand today is the result of something >> different from the flaw Godel found. >> >> >> Are you sure? >> > > > I just mean that while the effect is more or less the same (subverted > democracy), I think the means is probably different than an exploitation of > the same flaw (whatever it was) that Godel found. > > What we have today isn't so much a corruption of the laws by which > government operates, but a corruption of people in the government. > > My guess is that the inconsistency Godel found in the constitution > involved a means of using the laws against themselves, rather than what we > see today which is a selective enforcement of laws. Applying laws in full > force against some, while not applying the laws at all against others. > This, coupled with bought and paid for lawmakers and a broken forth estate > make it easy for those with power and wealth to use the government as a > tool to further their power and wealth. > > > The constitution should not make this possible, but I have not read all > the amendments. > > > Perhaps if everyone was equally permitted to enforce the laws things would have gotten to where they are today, but currently only a privileged few (district attorneys) have the power to bring charges against someone. The right to a trial by jury is also subverted in 90% of cases, by threatening vast and unjust charges unless the person agrees to plead guilty to a smaller set of charges. It's not clear to me how the constitution could prevent such malfunctions. It reminds me of a quote attributed to Franklin: The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a woman asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.” Franklin's reply suggested that vigilance on the part of the people is required to maintain the government as envisioned in the constitution. > > > >> >> For me both prohibition and 9/11 are ... unsolved. >> >> I would be happy to know Gödel's argument that the US constitution >> permits dictatorship. >> >> > I am also very curious about it. I've sometimes thought about whether a > constitution can be designed with game-theoretical principals such that it > would be impossible (or highly improbable) for groups to obtain > disproportionate levels of power. Another interesting idea is that of an > AI which, like an automated theorem prover, can decide on the > constitutionality of a given law. The source code for this could be open > source so all can verify it. This might be called an AItocracy. > > > Interesting idea. Laws should be formalized, but that can be very > difficult to do, and can be double edged. Even if the code source is open, > the code could hide easily "bugs" that could be exploited by unscrupulous > bandits. But your idea deserve to be developed, and use with care. > > > Thanks. It would probably require that laws be written in Lojban ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban ) or something similar. > > > > > > >> The existence of prohibition of Foods and Drugs in the Land of the Free >> is for me still a mystery. >> >> To forbid or discourage research on a plant is ... applied obscurantism. >> >> Where does that come from? >> >> > Likely from a lot of places, the prison lobby, law enforcement unions, > money launderers, synthetic drug companies, paper companies, and so on. > > > It has been too quick. I begin to think this was well prepared. I think > prohibition of marijuana has been in a large part a recycling and > correction of the prohibition of alcohol, which did not work well (for the > bandits) because alcohol *is* dangerous, and like always, prohibition > augmented the dangerousness in a too obvious way. > Making illegal a plant with no dangerousness at all is an idea of a > genius, who deserves the Nobel Prize in Crime. > > LOL I wonder though if the consequences were known, or if it was just happened upon by chance. Just as evolution discovers all kinds of ingenious tricks by accident. > > > > > Things which are good for the majority of the population (cheap > alternatives, copyrighted works entering the public domain, patents > expiring to become generic drugs, universal healthcare, direct democracy, > etc.) > > > (Not sure about direct democracy, especially if the media are under > influence. With the "good" movie and "information", you can make people > voting anything you want ...). > > > True, but I consider it no worse than the current "democracy by the few" (representative government), which can be influenced in secret, behind closed doors, black mailed, bribed, and worse the law makers often don't have to live with the consequences of the laws they pass, so bad laws remain. > > are often bad for the small few that hold an advantaged position from the > unavailability of that good thing. > > > ... which shows a confusion between money-the-mean and money-the-goal. > That's a very subtle but important distinction. I like the phrase. > > > > See how the copyright length gets extended everytime Disney's cartoons > enter danger of entering the public domain ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act ). > > > Such private protectionist laws should not been allowed. It is really a > problem of corporatism. Even universities can fall in that traps. An > academical philosopher told me "truth is only power, don't argue, we have > the money, you don't". As clear as that. Poor world. > > I have hope that things are improving, as the Internet makes lies and cover ups harder to suppress. Intelligence augmentation may also appear in the coming decades. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.