30 Oct 16
When reading a lot of the posts (and God be damned, there's a lot of posts about American politics on this site) here, I keep thinking of the Dutch term: "Voortschrijnend inzicht".
It translates roughly as "Enhanced insights" or "Developing insight / wisdom" or "empirical knowledge".
What it means is: You make a choice (or a law) and after 30 years of experience you come to the conclusion that a better choice should be made.
Ergo: Every choice you make is based on the information you have at the time. And with more information, you adjust your choices accordingly.
I'm wondering (seriously) if the people on this site (and I'm basically asking our American cousins, but the question is open to everyone) agree with the concept.
It means that just because we as a nation (your nation, my nation) or me as an individual (you, not the State) made a choice, doesn't mean to say the choice shouldn't be adapted when new information comes to light.
For example:
The war in Iraq was based upon the assumption Saddam had nuclear weapons. In hindsight this doesn't seem to have been the truth. This means the intelligence services were completely wrong or influenced. Now we know this, does this mean we should take that into account when judging the information they give us?
For example:
A constitution is created with the information at hand (say 300 years ago). With more information and greater technology, does it stand to reason that the constitution should be adapted to the new reality?
I wonder what you think.
Originally posted by shavixmirIt wasn't the truth in foresight. The 'weapons of mass destruction' that Saddam was claimed to have had were chemical weapons not nuclear weapons.
For example:
The war in Iraq was based upon the assumption Saddam had nuclear weapons. In hindsight this doesn't seem to have been the truth.
The war itself was never based on that either. The war had other reasons - different ones for different people. The WMDs were just an excuse. Only a few ignorant people in america actually thought the war was about WMDs - and even they were secretly just using it as an excuse.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by shavixmirConstitutions almost always include mechanisms to allow them to be changed - and they do get changed a lot more often than every 300 years.
For example:
A constitution is created with the information at hand (say 300 years ago). With more information and greater technology, does it stand to reason that the constitution should be adapted to the new reality?
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't think that belief is all based upon evidence.
When reading a lot of the posts (and God be damned, there's a lot of posts about American politics on this site) here, I keep thinking of the Dutch term: "Voortschrijnend inzicht".
It translates roughly as "Enhanced insights" or "Developing insight / wisdom" or "empirical knowledge".
What it means is: You make a choice (or a law) and after 30 years ...[text shortened]... o reason that the constitution should be adapted to the new reality?
I wonder what you think.
For example, you have your never vote Hillary and Trump crowd. I don't think any evidence will sway most of them from how they will vote.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by shavixmirThe U.S. Constitution has always, from its inception, been considered a living document. It has been amended many times over time. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/how-us-constitution-has-evolved-over-time
When reading a lot of the posts (and God be damned, there's a lot of posts about American politics on this site) here, I keep thinking of the Dutch term: "Voortschrijnend inzicht".
It translates roughly as "Enhanced insights" or "Developing insight / wisdom" or "empirical knowledge".
What it means is: You make a choice (or a law) and after 30 years ...[text shortened]... o reason that the constitution should be adapted to the new reality?
I wonder what you think.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by PhrannyAre natural rights a living and breathing ever changing concept?
The U.S. Constitution has always, from its inception, been considered a living document. It has been amended many times over time. http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/how-us-constitution-has-evolved-over-time
Is liberty? Is limited government?
Originally posted by shavixmirGood question.
When reading a lot of the posts (and God be damned, there's a lot of posts about American politics on this site) here, I keep thinking of the Dutch term: "Voortschrijnend inzicht".
It translates roughly as "Enhanced insights" or "Developing insight / wisdom" or "empirical knowledge".
What it means is: You make a choice (or a law) and after 30 years ...[text shortened]... o reason that the constitution should be adapted to the new reality?
I wonder what you think.
One of the underlying principles on the minds of the framers was how to maintain an appropriate tension between individual rights and a governing body, informed as they were by the sundry examples of despot monarchies and quasi-successfull states.
It is inevitable to undertake a long narrative only to lose one's steam after the first few punches, but I consider the order of the immediate amendments to the Constitution no small coincidence.
They knew our speech must be free, they knew we must never allow the government to squelch it and they knew we must be able to protect it by killing those who threatened it, should the need arise.
Sounds harsh to our sanitized ears, but these were critical to establishing and maintaining freedom.
The Monroe Doctrine essentially limited the scope of the predictable temptation toward imperialism, if not expansion from colonialism, as well.
Since the MD of 1823, we have never been exposed to information which could possibly have altered our course for any due reason.
Yet alter it, we have.
I think Solon had it somewhat right when he took his decade long sabbatical following the new rule: no more rules until I return.
The old rules can and will serve us better than the thinking that every new situation is anything really different than what we've already seen, addressed.
Originally posted by whodeyAll specious, having nothing to do with the US Constitution.
Are natural rights a living and breathing ever changing concept?
Is liberty? Is limited government?
Natural, "unalienable" rights and liberty are in the Declaration of Independence,
"Limited government" not so much, being a Republican and Libertarian fantasy to control citizens and to keep the poor under the thumb of the rich.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTold ya, Phranny.
Good question.
One of the underlying principles on the minds of the framers was how to maintain an appropriate tension between individual rights and a governing body, informed as they were by the sundry examples of despot monarchies and quasi-successfull states.
It is inevitable to undertake a long narrative only to lose one's steam after the first few ...[text shortened]... g that every new situation is anything really different than what we've already seen, addressed.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by shavixmirFrom the Declaration of Independence, a founding document of the United States:
When reading a lot of the posts (and God be damned, there's a lot of posts about American politics on this site) here, I keep thinking of the Dutch term: "Voortschrijnend inzicht".
It translates roughly as "Enhanced insights" or "Developing insight / wisdom" or "empirical knowledge".
What it means is: You make a choice (or a law) and after 30 years ...[text shortened]... o reason that the constitution should be adapted to the new reality?
I wonder what you think.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
Clearly, the founders acknowledge that if our form of government becomes "destructive of these ends" that it IS the right of the people to alter said government by altering our main law instrument, the US Constitution.
The Republicans insist on hanging themselves by their own petard. They have managed to make our government "destructive of these ends" and yet they resist any effort to exercise our right to alter said government. And this is why their beloved GOP has become outdated and ineffective.