Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
SapereAude

US Constitution, the future

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Theoretically, if we managed to turn back the latest tide of fascism and get back to something resembling our Constitutionally correct government- how would we keep it?

Entropy is real, it happens. There will always be people who covet the unearned and there will always be those that seek to gain power by promising it. The Democrats in particular (not saying the GOP is that much better just happens to be this moment in time) don't even bother hiding their contempt for the Constitution anymore. Lacking the ability to change it they simply pretend it isn't there.

How would we stop this from happening when people get elected in large part based on promising things that are immoral and unconstitutional?

The only way I can even think of would be to make it a crime, say...Treason.. to attempt to put into place any legislation that is not compatible with the Constitution.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entropy is real, it happens. There will always be people who covet the unearned and there will always be those that seek to gain power by promising it.

Entropy has nothing to due with human relations or reason.

The only way I can even think of would be to make it a crime, say...Treason.. to attempt to put into place any legislation that is not compatible with the Constitution.

Someone is going to have to judge these treasonous crimes. We currently have a body that is supposed to guard against unconstitutional legislation and it is in the same sad shape as the rest of the culture. We get the government we deserve.

The only way to really have an impact is to change the philosophy of the culture, ARI has the right idea.

Edited by DavidOdden
Requested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entropy has nothing to due with human relations or reason.

Entropy is the measure of disorder (increasing or decreasing as the case may be) within a system.

Our political structure is a system.

regarding the last, please see your messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entropy is the measure of disorder (increasing or decreasing as the case may be) within a system.

Our political structure is a system.

Entropy is a term used to describe inanimately acting entities. It has no meaning and is inapplicable to the volitional actions of human beings. If it did, and things tended as you supposed, then how would you account for the founding of the US in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entropy is a term used to describe inanimately acting entities. It has no meaning and is inapplicable to the volitional actions of human beings. If it did, and things tended as you supposed, then how would you account for the founding of the US in the first place?

Incorrect. Entropy is simply a measure of disorder. It doesn't matter whether the system is inanimate or not. You are probably thinking of the fact that the term "entropy" was originally introduced in thermodynamics.

Here is a page that describes entropy as it applies to this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entropy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way I can even think of would be to make it a crime, say...Treason.. to attempt to put into place any legislation that is not compatible with the Constitution.
Such a law would be treasonous. The Constitution contains the seeds of its own destruction, by allowing laws to be passed with virtually no prohibitions on what a law can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect. Entropy is simply a measure of disorder. It doesn't matter whether the system is inanimate or not. You are probably thinking of the fact that the term "entropy" was originally introduced in thermodynamics.

Here is a page that describes entropy as it applies to this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entropy.

I could say that clearly they must be separate concepts (entropy and social entropy) but frankly I don't buy any of that malarky about social entropy -- sounds like an anti-concept to me or at least an invalid one.

First, if anarchy is the state of maximum entropy, then societies should tend toward that, which isn't the case. Now, the apparent answer to this conundrum is the expenditure of large amounts of energy to maintain order. Of course, I would have to ask what the word "order" means with respect to human societies: would it be a communist dictatorship or the seemingly disorderly lassiez faire capitalism? Somehow I doubt the promulgators of this terminology would agree with us.

But even if you allow them the most benevolent interpretation, their formulation doesn't work since free market industries tend toward more efficient use of energy.

Really though the best argument is that the concept "entropy" was developed to describe inanimate actions and I find it mentally stultifying and dangerous, inaccurate and deterministic to apply that same terminology to human action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really though the best argument is that the concept "entropy" was developed to describe inanimate actions and I find it mentally stultifying and dangerous, inaccurate and deterministic to apply that same terminology to human action.

I think any claim that free will has a tendency to move toward any idea is already a contradiction in terms.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really though the best argument is that the concept "entropy" was developed to describe inanimate actions and I find it mentally stultifying and dangerous, inaccurate and deterministic to apply that same terminology to human action.

The pathetic fallacy ascribes human motives and feelings to inanimate objects. While some serious science writers resort to it, from time to time, in order to provide easy to understand examples, it has been otherwise banished from science.

Ideas like "social entropy" are a kind of reverse pathetic fallacy: the withdrawl of human motives and feelings from human beings and their actions. But whatever you call it, it remains fallacious.

Anyway, regarding the Constitution, changing the culture is the best and only real protection. I'll go as far as to say with the right dominant ideas in a culture, a constitution is more a convenience than a necessity.

Nothing you can write on it will prevent its corruption. If you read the current US Constitution, you'll be astounded at what the government does that is not permitted by it, yet there it is. So what safeguard can you add that won't be misused, abused or ignored?

On one hand some people claim the "General Welfare" clause (actually part of a phrase in the preamble) gives government the right to do as it pleases to promote the general welfare. On the other you ahve people who worship the Bill of Rights like a totem, but ignore the 9th and 10th ammendments; ie, if something isn't explicitly ennumerated on the Bill of Rights, it's not a right bit soemthign given or tolerated by government favor.

It may be useful to pass a law that would require all legislation to cite the Constitutional article and paragraph that allows it. But since the interstate commerce clause has been stretched to include all commerce, it's way too late for that speed bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...