[BartSimpson]

Gunnair wrote:

So its anarchy? I'm curious if you have a great example of a healthy functioning anarchist state.

Quebec?

[Mr_Canada]

Lol wut

[commanderkai]

Lemmy wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Freaking radicals with their idiotic ideas that laws should mean what they say!

Laws written 250 years ago with no concept of the 21st century world? Certainly there's timeless principles in the US Constitution, but to cling to it dogmatially, word for literal word, is folly.

I don't think they're calling for a literal, word for word return to the United States Constitutions, but rather the timeless principles, and the simplicity of how government worked. At least, that's my two cents. Nobody's really calling for the return of anything related to slavery, or whatnot.

[Mr_Canada]

We all get they want the 'timeless principles' but they need to understand that the whole state of things back then was likely far different then what most of us currently believe, simply because of the manipulation of history. And even more so must understand that these 'timeless principles' aren't the solutions to today's problems.

Nothing should be considered timeless by the way. Everything, absolutely everything, should be up for debate at all times and changed accordingly when seen fit. It's part of an ever changing and evolving society.

[commanderkai]

Mr_Canada wrote:

We all get they want the 'timeless principles' but they need to understand that the whole state of things back then was likely far different then what most of us currently believe, simply because of the manipulation of history. And even more so must understand that these 'timeless principles' aren't the solutions to today's problems.

Nothing should be considered timeless by the way. Everything, absolutely everything, should be up for debate at all times and changed accordingly when seen fit. It's part of an ever changing and evolving society.

Why not? I think that a simplified tax code and a leaner, more intelligent bureaucracy would be better for Canada and the United States, instead of the bloated clusterfucks existing at the moment. The various freedoms enshrined in the United States Constitution are things that shouldn't be "changed" accordingly just because some group today wants to be some special exception.

More importantly, there are times where government becomes too bloated and complex for their own good, especially if they become too incomprehensible to the average person. Having Bills or Laws that are 800 pages long, with hundreds of unneccessary addons and strips of bacon layered in between is something that should be changed.

[sandorski]

If the world was still largely Agriculturally based, Muskets were the pinnacle of Weaponry, and the horse was still the primary basis of personal transportation, the literal US Constitution as first written would likely be just fine. However, that world no longer exists. Even the FF knew that what they had come up with probably wouldn't be sufficient in time. That's why they included ways for things to be Added and Subtracted from the Constitution.

[Mr_Canada]

It's not about 'special exemption'. It's about new understandings. Things change, everything changes. Our political processes change on their own, and mold around whatever form of rules are ever made. They work around it and find loopholes. Or sometimes they ignore it completely. But the most frustrating thing will always be that government adapts to these paper-thin rules and finds other ways to cause problems.

If the Constitution or the Charter of Right and Freedoms were documents that were truly serious about limiting government I'd be in favour of it being very short and sweet:

Article 1) In a free and democratic society let the following be inherently and divinely true:
a) Government is an infringement on their rights of people and shall not be invoked.

[Psudo]

Mr_Canada wrote:

I don't believe in people who figurehead themselves or want to give the idea that 'my cause is your cause, so join us because I am here for you'. That's why I oppose our current politicians for pete's sake, so I couldn't support anyone who touted an over-encompassing idea as 'the will of the people' when there is no actual will from the people. Everything MUST be democratic.

I would argue that "democracy" is assembling one consistent policy for a society, a policy derived from as many different ideas from as much of the people as possible, whereas "individuality" is allowing those different people to each go their own way without any unifying, consistent policy over them all. Based on those definitions, pure individuality is indistinguishable from anarchy and pure democracy is indistinguishable from tyranny of the majority. Better than either purist form, then, is to find the proper mixture where a government based on democracy exists to delineate and protect human rights, but is bound and limited such that sufficient individuality exists to allow the free exercise of those rights.

A mixture of democracy and anything else disputes your claim that "Everything MUST be democratic." As necessary as democracy is as an ingredient of a just system, that kind of purist, universal democracy you describe is harmful to the individual in any case where the minority must submit to the will of the majority.

Mr_Canada wrote:

What I support is everyone having the freedom to be an individual in every sense, creating everything they wanted for themselves. [...] as people work democratically with their neighbours they'll realize their neighbours benefit is their own benefit, and will work to create success for both themselves and their community. The individual rules, and thus the collective is strong. Because the individual demands the best of himself, he makes his community better.

How is that distinct from capitalism? The ideal of capitalism is the mutually beneficial transaction - by doing what he loves, the individual produces something of value, which can then be exchanged to someone who needs it in return for something the individual needs. Society benefits from the individual's self-actualization. Isn't that what you're describing?

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

If the world was still largely Agriculturally based, Muskets were the pinnacle of Weaponry, and the horse was still the primary basis of personal transportation, the literal US Constitution as first written would likely be just fine. However, that world no longer exists. Even the FF knew that what they had come up with probably wouldn't be sufficient in time. That's why they included ways for things to be Added and Subtracted from the Constitution.

Then the people who want to change our freedoms should do so through that established process and not by subterfuge and dictatorial fiat.

[Psudo]

Mr_Canada wrote:

If the Constitution or the Charter of Right and Freedoms were documents that were truly serious about limiting government I'd be in favour of it being very short and sweet:

Article 1) In a free and democratic society let the following be inherently and divinely true:
a) Government is an infringement on their rights of people and shall not be invoked.

Doesn't that free people to murder?

[CKASlacker]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Screw the constitution. If you are going to have a set of rules, keep them up to date and constantly make room for either change or complete renewal. I don't understand people's willingness to subscribe to ancient principles as if they'll solve today's problems and hold onto them with divine expectation that these are the sort of things keeping the very fabric of our society from exploding into flames.

I dunno, that freedom of the press, speech, and religion thing is pretty handy to have around in the 18th century and today, no? (I realize those are actually from the 1st amendment, but the Bill of Rights tends to get lumped in with the "Constitution" in daily parlance).

That said, I think Jefferson would have agreed with you regarding the updating and all.