>>
>>14412
The Constitution was framed around the ideal of "philosopher kings". The central concept would be that the odd democracy/republic the founders established would allow freedom to all citizens in the hope that the cream of society would rise to the top to be the leaders. That the best and brightest, so to speak, would become those "philosopher kings", based on (I can only assume) a highly erroneous notion that humans are rational creatures that will properly govern themselves so long as they are given a fair opportunity to do so.
This was to be in contrast with monarchic or feudal systems of governance where if the crown prince was a complete idiot there would be nothing that could be done about it, and if the person who was potentially the best ruler for the country in intelligence and personality was born in a slum, there was also nothing that could be done about it. There, the prince would become the king, and the kid would die in that slum, no matter what.
But the problem is the creation of this system in which there was established only a theoretical POSSIBILITY that the best would be able to gain leadership and success, led to a belief (ever more fervent in modernity) that it was actually a guarantee. That the leaders would always be the best and brightest, and that those who did not succeed were therefore undeserving and flawed. You are correct when you asserted that commonly law only allows itself to protect both person and property. In this, the American system has perverted itself into defiance of that concept entirely. In the desperate attempt to ensure totality of opportunity and the facade of equality, it has instead made itself into a system of anarchy. Now the majority can tyrannize the minority unopposed (persons are not protected) and individuals and corporations are allowed to rewrite rules and laws as they see fit to hoard wealth for themselves (property is not protected). Additionally, the government (eminent domain) and police (civil forfeiture) can and DO simply take your property and are under no burden to give it back or provide fair compensation. Let's not even get started on taxes.
The people, of course, that quotable "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", accept this based on nothing but the false promise that they, too, will sit at the top if they simply work hard enough. Hence why they predictably and consistently make choices in law and policy to their own detriment to enrich their defacto rulers, and continue to believe that those rulers are where they are because they deserve it and actually are the best and brightest. This is tantamount to allowing underclassmen of schools to vote on whether bullying/hazing should be allowed, after first promising them that they (when they become upperclassmen) will definitely be the ones doing the bullying.
The fundamental issue, I believe, is this American obsession with classifying people into permanently and indelibly "good" or "evil", rather than recognizing the potential for both to exist in everyone. Hence the delusion that solving gun violence is simply figuring out who the "evil" people are and denying them access to firearms, while HEAVILY arming all the "good" people. This may be indicated as being a religious belief (America is the least secular of all "developed" countries) but is certainly also a property of this Constitution which promises that power and greatness will somehow only come to the most deserving and benevolent. And of course, if a person finds themselves on the outs of society, jobless or homeless or sick or in poverty, it must be their own fault, because they are bad people.
Other developed countries have moved past this and found ways to perform the original good of protecting person and property. This often involves taking power away from the individual, because the greatest truth is often that most people who have power, even the tiniest bit, will misuse it through malevolence or ignorance. You can't simply thrust the power of the Vote into the hands of every citizen without providing education of governance, expecting them to just use it for good on a delusion that they are fundamentally good. To put it bluntly, there is nothing primarily good about totally unrestricted free speech. Your right to call someone an asshole doesn't trump their right to not be called an asshole. Removing that right will not suddenly cause the government to become a corrupt censoring propaganda machine a-la Big Brother, UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY CORRUPT.
And therein lies the real truth behind much of the Constitution. You see, when it was written, America was in a very delicate and fragile state. The biggest threats were not from within, but without; the fear would be that a corrupt foreign power that was at the time vastly more powerful than America would insert itself into the government and take over. Then, after some short time, this puppet government would happily annex itself back to the control of one of the big colonial powers, much to the detriment of the American people. But that state has changed and is no longer relevant. As an example, the law that a President must have been born in the USA. Back then, it makes complete sense to prevent the President from actually being a puppet of a foreign government. But nowadays it does not make sense. There is absolutely no difference whether or not Obama had been born in Kenya or in Hawaii; all those "birthers" were arguing the letter of the Constitution without having the slightest understanding of WHY it was written that way.
And if anyone else still believes that the Constitution is some vaunted perfect immutable document akin to Scripture, kindly remind yourself of the existence of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments.
]
[
co /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w /
zom
]
[
a /
ai /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
wp /
x
]
[
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fag /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sm /
ss /
unf
]