Insidb said:
2. My contention focused on their awareness, or lack thereof. If a document is to be a fully-informed expression of human will and desire then it most certainly should be lacking the input and insight of the majority. If the document is a reflection of the prevailing sensibilites (which it was), then it is a reflection of the sentiment that women and blacks (amongst other minorities) are incapable of sophisticated decision-making. That precept was and is inherently flawed, yet it guided the rationale behind the drafting. From the outset, the character of human nature that is prescribed therein is incomplete and insufficient. This is only exacerbated by the fact that these elite, white men were not simultaneuosly integrating the female (for obvious reasons) perspective or "nature." No matter the enlightenment fo their perspectives, they were doomed to a myopic characterization of human nature that was an incomplete data set. Ergo, a document constructed to protect "the rights to life, liberty, and the estate "can very easily be "less valid[sic] in 2015 than it did in 1791." The fact that the primary precepts of the constitution have been largely sufficient speaks volumes to their forethough and wherewithal, despite the aforementioned limitations. 3. I think this comes down to a matter of semantics, with regards to perceived force. If one controls the means of production, they can "force" those who need their products to meet their demands. All of this can be dome without any physical exertion or construct: their power can be intrinsically linked to privately held, necesary knowledge (trade secret) to produce. This is why I belive that power is the true prerequisite, because it is inclusive of force. "Force" just seems to lack the appropriate depth and breadth, in my opinion, to capture the multitudinous ways one can exert control. Conceptually, I do not believe that are that far apart. |
2. This is only true for a subset of the framers. Most of the anti-federalists were anti-slavery and pro-women rights. Of course, it took time for their - at the time - radical ideas to become the consensus, and in my opinion it was the democratic process and the majority which prolonged these misdeeds rather than the codified constitution. The southern population just wanted slavery so much that the precepts of liberty and equality before the law were rationalized as not applying to black persons.
3. I view force as (or the threat therof) damage to one's property, person, or freedoms without the consent of the person whom it affects and with the intention of the aggressor. Not all force is bad. Defensive force is alright. But aggression is bad. One can only achieve total control of a means of production with the use of force (note that the only monopolies in history lasted as long as the government supported them, and once that support ended they reverted back to more competitive markets, a key example is standard oil which held 94% market share because of a patent, and once it lost the patent it went down to 68% within fifteen years. Another example was the U.S. Postal Service between late 19th century until 1970.) Without government there would be far more prevalent instances of diseconomies of scale and that would mean more local competition, and overall fewer global monopolies/oligopolies, increasing total competition, reducing prices, and increasing the quality of goods and employment (easier to negotiate with a local employer than a large employer.)
