Ivy league college students are being indoctrinated to overthrow the constitution of the United States. Today's college kids will become tomorrow's leaders.

Drenki 2015-12-17T21:45

I give it 8 years.

link

squidicuz 2015-12-17T17:43

This is how we get something like the Maoist revolution... Will the next subject on the curriculum be tying the teachers to chairs and beating them?

link

FacelessOne 2015-12-17T06:13

I'm 100% behind a constitutional convention. If there is one thing that needs some serious updating if it is going to remain relevantly useful in the Age of Information that thing is the constitution.

The only way to do this is to plan far ahead for when the old generations die out and the baton is finally passed to one that again gets to make the choice, use the gift of technology and power for good or evil.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government"

link

pitenius 2015-12-17T14:52

I'd support you, if...

If this were a decent age for philosophy. The late 1700s were a golden age of philosophy. People tested propositions, built arguments, respected logical consistency. Now? They want fairness. Moreover, they confuse fairness, justice, and ethics.

If the existing constitution mattered. As far as I can tell the constitution is a very rough framework for government and the guarantee of a few rights that many would like to strip away. The way I see it, the Constitution is proscriptive. It should have taken an amendment to change the "Department of War" to the "Defense Department". But, nah... that's just a "reorganization". I'd wager that 80% of government activities are not "unconstitutional" but "aconstitutional" -- like NASA, they are neither demanded or proscribed by the constitution. Republicans used to want to scrap all these agencies under the aegis of "small government". But back then, Republicans wanted the Department of Education to be scrapped -- more or less because it's outside the purview of the constitution. But that plays like making a kindergarten teacher cry, so they caved for votes. They should have seceded.

If this weren't such a bad age for corporate collusion. In the late 1700s, distance provided some autonomy from conspiratorial authorities who would subvert grassroots organization. Even then, Rothschild could still commission Hamilton. Now? Astroturf. Paradoxically, I'd have more faith in this proposed convention if all the conventioneers were Nonny Mouse to the point of Bourbaki. Shit I found dumped on UseNet? Potentially credible. Reports from people who have presumed to represent my interests? Invariably horseshit.

If there were a credible option to opt out. When the constitution was drafted, there was a frontier. If you didn't like it, you could leave. There was a vast expanse of Fuckoffsylvania where you could go with your communist ideas or love for the angel Moroni. And people went. Now? The whole globe is divided into nations -- really. And these nations are less happy to receive residents than they were in the 1700s. (If not "less happy", then at least "much better about doing something about it".) How would you resolve deep disputes without a "fuck off to somewhere else, buddy" option? Folks tried it about 70 years ago, but all they had was the "into the oven with you" option.

Mostly, I just hope for Ebola.