Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
The Declaration of Independance- some scholars say we've been reading it wrong.
Renegade:
WRT the original premise of the thread, if changing a punctuation mark in that document changes your interpretation, it really just means you aren't familiar with the relevant history.
-Vurbal (July 08, 2014, 11:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
True enough, but history and science are often much like broad, sprawling markets -- people shop around for what they want. Evidence is like dirt -- trodden on and ignored. I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
That's understandable if your background comes primarily from our public school system. I went to a pretty good public school and they never mentioned George Mason or The Virginia Declaration Of Rights.
-Vurbal (July 08, 2014, 11:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
Hahaha! :) It's amazing what gets left out of education, but predictable - things that actually matter. :)
MilesAhead:
The other most popular Constitutional Misconception I think is that therein is stipulated something about The Two Party System(tm) The totally contrived effect of the two currently dominant political parties haranguing. In the subconscious Joe Sixpack must be converting a vague memory of a legislature with two bodies, House and Senate, into this channel of thinking. Like the commercial that tells you it's two, two, two mints in one we get the crap that if there's a Democrat and a Republican this is all inclusive. Reading it is more fun for seeing what's not there at times. :)
app103:
I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
-Renegade (July 09, 2014, 04:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
But it's not the Constitution. It's an old formal declaration of war that predates the Constitution. It holds no bearing on how things are run today. It can neither grant any rights to citizens nor any power to the government...at all.
Any reinterpretation at this point, based on a single punctuation mark, would be equal to you discovering an old baby picture of yourself which leads you to believe you had slightly less/more hair on your head, when you were born, than you originally thought. How life changing would that be for you?
Vurbal:
WRT the original premise of the thread, if changing a punctuation mark in that document changes your interpretation, it really just means you aren't familiar with the relevant history.
-Vurbal (July 08, 2014, 11:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
True enough, but history and science are often much like broad, sprawling markets -- people shop around for what they want. Evidence is like dirt -- trodden on and ignored. I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
-Renegade (July 09, 2014, 04:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
Exactly why I've concluded the Constitution is inevitably in need of a rewrite. In the context of the times, the Constitution was a brilliant first try. Fundamentally, though, we are running into the same problems the colonists faced from the British government at the time. John Adams made the same argument prior to the US Revolution that we are making now. The specifics differed, and there was no formal document whatsoever to argue from. Still, his position was essentially that the colonies didn't answer to Parliament based on the long established historical tradition that colonies answered directly to the king.
It was an admirable first try (I'm not counting the Articles of Confederation) but ultimately built on the same shaky foundation of assumptions which had already failed so spectacularly. There are only 2 assumptions you can truly rely on WRT government. The first is that people, in government or otherwise, can be relied on to consistently interpret the rules in any manner, and to any degree necessary to do whatever they already wanted to.
The second, and perhaps even more important for maintaining actual democracy, is the real world Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. If the economy isn't democratic, meaning actual capitalism with real competition and choice, the government isn't either. So long as we don't have meaningful property ownership/disposition and privacy protections (just off the top of my head - there are others of course), capitalism exists only in theory.
It's nothing specific to the British then or Americans today. It's just people. They could be from any place at any time and the results would ultimately be the same.
Renegade:
I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
-Renegade (July 09, 2014, 04:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
But it's not the Constitution. It's an old formal declaration of war that predates the Constitution. It holds no bearing on how things are run today. It can neither grant any rights to citizens nor any power to the government...at all.
Any reinterpretation at this point, based on a single punctuation mark, would be equal to you discovering an old baby picture of yourself which leads you to believe you had slightly less/more hair on your head, when you were born, than you originally thought. How life changing would that be for you?
-app103 (July 09, 2014, 05:42 AM)
--- End quote ---
But it doesn't matter.
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
The psychopaths out there will read anything and come up with anything. That it is the declaration of independence doesn't matter -- it is good enough that it was written in the same century by the same basic group as the fellows who wrote the Constitution. Logic doesn't matter. Reason is irrelevant. The psychopaths follow the same basic patterns all the time. They grasp at straws and bray like donkeys until they get their way. We see this regularly. The entire SOPA/PIPA/etc. thing was a good example. The same nutjobs came back with the same nonsense again. They latch onto anything remotely related to any issue and pursue it until they get it. They don't take no for an answer. This will be the same basic deal because it's "close enough".
Exactly why I've concluded the Constitution is inevitably in need of a rewrite.
-Vurbal (July 09, 2014, 08:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
That would scare the b'jeez out of me given the mindset of the freaks in power that do everything for our "safety".
It was an admirable first try (I'm not counting the Articles of Confederation) but ultimately built on the same shaky foundation of assumptions which had already failed so spectacularly. There are only 2 assumptions you can truly rely on WRT government. The first is that people, in government or otherwise, can be relied on to consistently interpret the rules in any manner, and to any degree necessary to do whatever they already wanted to.
-Vurbal (July 09, 2014, 08:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sadly. :(
The second, and perhaps even more important for maintaining actual democracy, is the real world Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. If the economy isn't democratic, meaning actual capitalism with real competition and choice, the government isn't either.
-Vurbal (July 09, 2014, 08:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
Pretty much.
So long as we don't have meaningful property ownership/disposition and privacy protections (just off the top of my head - there are others of course), capitalism exists only in theory.
-Vurbal (July 09, 2014, 08:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
Which is exactly why I every now and then blurt out that property tax is theft/slavery. You are forced to work to pay the "tax" and if you don't, they steal your home. If it isn't forced labour (partial slavery), it is a slow exercise of eminent domain, and therefore theft.
Property tax destroys any security you have in having a place to live. This is not really a debateable point. It's a simple statement of fact.
Any "costs" or fees associated with any services need to be permanently divorced from property in order for people to have actual security in their property. Until then, any talk of "property rights" is just disingenous banter.
(Please note that I am not talking about corporations as "persons". I mean natural humans.)
Property represents the fruits of past labours. The confiscation of it is nothing short than retroactive slavery (theft).
It's nothing specific to the British then or Americans today. It's just people. They could be from any place at any time and the results would ultimately be the same.
-Vurbal (July 09, 2014, 08:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
The Anglo-world does have common law, which is arguably somewhat unique to it. But you also have somewhat similar things happening in other places, e.g. Ireland (Brehon law, hat tip to tomos) and Somalia (Xeer). i.e. Ad hoc rules created as new cases came up.
But yeah... the same problems arise all over.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version