for A Dead Letter6/29/2006 c1 
8Atlas Bergeron
review to chapter 1
"But in the real world, the consequences of actions are not changed one whit for better or worse by the intentions that drive them." This is well put.
"Would it not be perfectly moral to use the power of executive order, assuming it will be effective, to protect citizens from these laws?"It would be moral, yes, if the actions that person were doing were moral. However, this cannot be allowed because of the statement that follows, the scenario is unlikely. It is less unlikely (although, all too often, true) that congress will be filled of seventy five percent immoral persons, than for the country to inadvertently elect a single corrupt president (I will not go into detail about as our constitution has changed, the problem has compounded upon itself. As an example I will only point out income tax levying, and how politicians can now use it, and do through social security and welfare, to 'buy votes' by stealing from those who have wealth at the point of a gun and giving it to those who don't with no cost to themselves... and the benefit of being elected). It may be perfectly moral; but a government cannot function if it can be so drastically changed for the worst overnight; even if it might be changed for the better. This would not be a solid base to build such a system as capitalism; although, assumedly, neither was our constitution.
"Those unfortunately entrusted with power, presumably under its authority, have no real check against their actions. They could conform to the constitution, but why should they? Who’s going to make them” The people that will make them are the Supreme Court, and the people that make *them* do not exist. All we have is the hope that the Supreme Court is just and rational, and you are right, the constitution is only interpreted as they [the court] "damn well please." The rest of your statements I agree with.
"Although legislators are expected to pursue the “public interest,” they make decisions on how to use other people’s money, not their own. "" I didn't realize you would use this example, enforces what I previously said.
"In other words, because legislators have the power to tax and to extract resources in other coercive ways, and because voters monitor their behavior poorly, legislators behave in ways that are costly to citizens.” (Jane S. Shaw in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics)[2]” Actually, it is only costly to the creators of wealth; or, any person that does not receive welfare, government favors, government instituted monopolies, grants, or corporate substitutes. However, the article has the correct general direction.
"The assorted costs, in time and subsequently money, to keeping up with politics, monitoring voting records, etc. obviously are not covered by the potential benefits of the results of one’s vote."Actually, it is impossible, since in today's political arena, consistency seems to never be an issue. Getting elected seems to be politicians only concern, and their method of it is unpredictable at best.
I enjoyed your "Liberty versus Security" argument. I hope you expound on the idea that (to paraphrase) 'all states by definition violate liberty.' I am unclear as to its meaning. Do you mean by instituting taxes? The perfect state would be one that solely upholds liberty , i.e. the freedom to pursue happiness without the restriction of others. Are you saying, that by definition, the state cannot perform this ideal action?
In response to your conclusion I have only this to say. You are right, the constitution is not perfect, and there undoubtedly exists a better form of self-regulating government. Even if you do not have a theory on such an existence; I hope your article inspires those who might; so that we might reform this country to be truly moral... eventually.
8Atlas Bergeronreview to chapter 1
"But in the real world, the consequences of actions are not changed one whit for better or worse by the intentions that drive them." This is well put.
"Would it not be perfectly moral to use the power of executive order, assuming it will be effective, to protect citizens from these laws?"It would be moral, yes, if the actions that person were doing were moral. However, this cannot be allowed because of the statement that follows, the scenario is unlikely. It is less unlikely (although, all too often, true) that congress will be filled of seventy five percent immoral persons, than for the country to inadvertently elect a single corrupt president (I will not go into detail about as our constitution has changed, the problem has compounded upon itself. As an example I will only point out income tax levying, and how politicians can now use it, and do through social security and welfare, to 'buy votes' by stealing from those who have wealth at the point of a gun and giving it to those who don't with no cost to themselves... and the benefit of being elected). It may be perfectly moral; but a government cannot function if it can be so drastically changed for the worst overnight; even if it might be changed for the better. This would not be a solid base to build such a system as capitalism; although, assumedly, neither was our constitution.
"Those unfortunately entrusted with power, presumably under its authority, have no real check against their actions. They could conform to the constitution, but why should they? Who’s going to make them” The people that will make them are the Supreme Court, and the people that make *them* do not exist. All we have is the hope that the Supreme Court is just and rational, and you are right, the constitution is only interpreted as they [the court] "damn well please." The rest of your statements I agree with.
"Although legislators are expected to pursue the “public interest,” they make decisions on how to use other people’s money, not their own. "" I didn't realize you would use this example, enforces what I previously said.
"In other words, because legislators have the power to tax and to extract resources in other coercive ways, and because voters monitor their behavior poorly, legislators behave in ways that are costly to citizens.” (Jane S. Shaw in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics)[2]” Actually, it is only costly to the creators of wealth; or, any person that does not receive welfare, government favors, government instituted monopolies, grants, or corporate substitutes. However, the article has the correct general direction.
"The assorted costs, in time and subsequently money, to keeping up with politics, monitoring voting records, etc. obviously are not covered by the potential benefits of the results of one’s vote."Actually, it is impossible, since in today's political arena, consistency seems to never be an issue. Getting elected seems to be politicians only concern, and their method of it is unpredictable at best.
I enjoyed your "Liberty versus Security" argument. I hope you expound on the idea that (to paraphrase) 'all states by definition violate liberty.' I am unclear as to its meaning. Do you mean by instituting taxes? The perfect state would be one that solely upholds liberty , i.e. the freedom to pursue happiness without the restriction of others. Are you saying, that by definition, the state cannot perform this ideal action?
In response to your conclusion I have only this to say. You are right, the constitution is not perfect, and there undoubtedly exists a better form of self-regulating government. Even if you do not have a theory on such an existence; I hope your article inspires those who might; so that we might reform this country to be truly moral... eventually.
4/4/2005 c1 No Trust
“It's painstaking that you and I should disagree so much in terms of economics but, meanwhile, completely acknowledge the government, and therefore the state (as it is comprised of the government), is utterly wrong. Or rather, unjust.”
Painstaking means “thorough” or “careful”, not “painful” or “very painful” or however you were using it.
“Despite classification of the people - whether considered as one entity or a vast number of individuals - the government will always be separate from its subordinates and rule above them with impunity (save revolts).”
I don’t have a problem with ‘government’ that prevents ‘the people’ from doing injustice. And I just so happen to believe that justice can only be done, and injustice prevented or righted, on an individual level. An armed society is a polite society.
“Having said this, it is true that the constitution is dangerous - leaders can easily fool with its wording and still rule in the name of a revered document. This is why possible amendments such as the end of legal abortion are so touchy.”
All amendments are dangerous if you grant the constitution has any influence at all, perhaps with the exception of the 9th and 10th amendments (which together render the rest of the bill of rights superfluous) which are instead impotent.
“But to stake a claim on a government's consititution, one must disect the state as well. As in, America's constitution increasingly changes as according to what democratically elected leader and legislature deemed right or proper. The demagogism found especially in the Red and Blue American politics today further plunges the document of the constitution into a decadent and questionable, if not irrelevant condition.”
The constitution has always been either impotent or detrimental. I’d vote impotent but it doesn’t really matter which.
”Concerning the theory of rational ignorance, it only demonstrates how the state can deprive the inferior citizen of some of the important aspects in any society: involvement and knowledge.”
You can’t cure rational ignorance. Nor should you want to; the result would be a world more primitive than you could possibly imagine.
”Finally, your last argument. While you demonstrate that the state is a "criminal" (which is indeed fitting), would not private property, the idea that land has a monetary worth - that those who are subordinate to the landlords are subject to "criminal" self-righteous security from the landlord - also be a case of unnecessary and, more pointedly, regressive action?”
Land ownership (in the real, economic sense of the word ownership, not in any kind of silly moralistic sense that somehow excludes communes or tribal primitives from having land ownership) is an inevitable result of human beings trying to not only subsist but make life easier and more enjoyable. I consider some land ownership just, and some unjust. If it is an example of land ownership I consider unjust then I call the landlord(s) a State. Arbitrary, perhaps, but no less so than any other moral judgment.
“As in, private property is tantamount to the state in that it offers and external hegemony of its subjects, subordinating them (the type of subordination, i.e. political or economic, being excluded).”
Whether the ‘subordination’ is political or economic is the entirety of the matter. You might as well say that freelance breeding is tantamount to a state because it produces some people with faster brains, keener senses, sharper reflexes, stronger muscles, bigger dicks, etc.
“The only argument against my claim is that capitalism and the idea of private property aren't bound by a particular institution. Nonetheless, both follow a systematic order which, in the long run, doesn't change; capitalism just isn't restricted to petty popular documents.”
Capitalism does not follow a systematic anything. It is the very state of not following any kind of systematic order. Capitalism is the law of the jungle; everything that is — communism, socialism, nationalism, individualism, altruism, cruelty, charity, liberty, slavery — everything exists within the scope of capitalism because Capitalism=The Laws Of Physics + (The Laws Of Action x Human Nature). Argument over ideas and philosophy is ultimately irrelevant. The human condition depends solely on the balance of power. Where power is concentrated and costs can be externalized evil will be done, it’s that simple.
”Also, if you request that reviewers don't swear in response to your works, don't defile other's review boards with your own hogwash (adhere to your personal standards).”
I don’t swear in review of works where the authors specifically request reviewers do not do so, unless I have less than zero respect for them (which requires past experience with them). Nor do I request reviewers not swear on all of my works, only a select few.
“It's painstaking that you and I should disagree so much in terms of economics but, meanwhile, completely acknowledge the government, and therefore the state (as it is comprised of the government), is utterly wrong. Or rather, unjust.”
Painstaking means “thorough” or “careful”, not “painful” or “very painful” or however you were using it.
“Despite classification of the people - whether considered as one entity or a vast number of individuals - the government will always be separate from its subordinates and rule above them with impunity (save revolts).”
I don’t have a problem with ‘government’ that prevents ‘the people’ from doing injustice. And I just so happen to believe that justice can only be done, and injustice prevented or righted, on an individual level. An armed society is a polite society.
“Having said this, it is true that the constitution is dangerous - leaders can easily fool with its wording and still rule in the name of a revered document. This is why possible amendments such as the end of legal abortion are so touchy.”
All amendments are dangerous if you grant the constitution has any influence at all, perhaps with the exception of the 9th and 10th amendments (which together render the rest of the bill of rights superfluous) which are instead impotent.
“But to stake a claim on a government's consititution, one must disect the state as well. As in, America's constitution increasingly changes as according to what democratically elected leader and legislature deemed right or proper. The demagogism found especially in the Red and Blue American politics today further plunges the document of the constitution into a decadent and questionable, if not irrelevant condition.”
The constitution has always been either impotent or detrimental. I’d vote impotent but it doesn’t really matter which.
”Concerning the theory of rational ignorance, it only demonstrates how the state can deprive the inferior citizen of some of the important aspects in any society: involvement and knowledge.”
You can’t cure rational ignorance. Nor should you want to; the result would be a world more primitive than you could possibly imagine.
”Finally, your last argument. While you demonstrate that the state is a "criminal" (which is indeed fitting), would not private property, the idea that land has a monetary worth - that those who are subordinate to the landlords are subject to "criminal" self-righteous security from the landlord - also be a case of unnecessary and, more pointedly, regressive action?”
Land ownership (in the real, economic sense of the word ownership, not in any kind of silly moralistic sense that somehow excludes communes or tribal primitives from having land ownership) is an inevitable result of human beings trying to not only subsist but make life easier and more enjoyable. I consider some land ownership just, and some unjust. If it is an example of land ownership I consider unjust then I call the landlord(s) a State. Arbitrary, perhaps, but no less so than any other moral judgment.
“As in, private property is tantamount to the state in that it offers and external hegemony of its subjects, subordinating them (the type of subordination, i.e. political or economic, being excluded).”
Whether the ‘subordination’ is political or economic is the entirety of the matter. You might as well say that freelance breeding is tantamount to a state because it produces some people with faster brains, keener senses, sharper reflexes, stronger muscles, bigger dicks, etc.
“The only argument against my claim is that capitalism and the idea of private property aren't bound by a particular institution. Nonetheless, both follow a systematic order which, in the long run, doesn't change; capitalism just isn't restricted to petty popular documents.”
Capitalism does not follow a systematic anything. It is the very state of not following any kind of systematic order. Capitalism is the law of the jungle; everything that is — communism, socialism, nationalism, individualism, altruism, cruelty, charity, liberty, slavery — everything exists within the scope of capitalism because Capitalism=The Laws Of Physics + (The Laws Of Action x Human Nature). Argument over ideas and philosophy is ultimately irrelevant. The human condition depends solely on the balance of power. Where power is concentrated and costs can be externalized evil will be done, it’s that simple.
”Also, if you request that reviewers don't swear in response to your works, don't defile other's review boards with your own hogwash (adhere to your personal standards).”
I don’t swear in review of works where the authors specifically request reviewers do not do so, unless I have less than zero respect for them (which requires past experience with them). Nor do I request reviewers not swear on all of my works, only a select few.
4/4/2005 c1 132holocaustpulp
It's painstaking that you and I should disagree so much in terms of economics but, meanwhile, completely acknowledge the government, and therefore the state (as it is comprised of the government), is utterly wrong. Or rather, unjust. Despite classification of the people - whether considered as one entity or a vast number of individuals - the government will always be separate from its subordinates and rule above them with impunity (save revolts).
Having said this, it is true that the constitution is dangerous - leaders can easily fool with its wording and still rule in the name of a revered document. This is why possible amendments such as the end of legal abortion are so touchy. But to stake a claim on a government's consititution, one must disect the state as well. As in, America's constitution increasingly changes as according to what democratically elected leader and legislature deemed right or proper. The demagogism found especially in the Red and Blue American politics today further plunges the document of the constitution into a decadent and questionable, if not irrelevant condition.
Concerning the theory of rational ignorance, it only demonstrates how the state can deprive the inferior citizen of some of the important aspects in any society: involvement and knowledge.
Finally, your last argument. While you demonstrate that the state is a "criminal" (which is indeed fitting), would not private property, the idea that land has a monetary worth - that those who are subordinate to the landlords are subject to "criminal" self-righteous security from the landlord - also be a case of unnecessary and, more pointedly, regressive action? As in, private property is tantamount to the state in that it offers and external hegemony of its subjects, subordinating them (the type of subordination, i.e. political or economic, being excluded). The only argument against my claim is that capitalism and the idea of private property aren't bound by a particular institution. Nonetheless, both follow a systematic order which, in the long run, doesn't change; capitalism just isn't restricted to petty popular documents.
Also, if you request that reviewers don't swear in response to your works, don't defile other's review boards with your own hogwash (adhere to your personal standards).
- Holocaustpulp
132holocaustpulpIt's painstaking that you and I should disagree so much in terms of economics but, meanwhile, completely acknowledge the government, and therefore the state (as it is comprised of the government), is utterly wrong. Or rather, unjust. Despite classification of the people - whether considered as one entity or a vast number of individuals - the government will always be separate from its subordinates and rule above them with impunity (save revolts).
Having said this, it is true that the constitution is dangerous - leaders can easily fool with its wording and still rule in the name of a revered document. This is why possible amendments such as the end of legal abortion are so touchy. But to stake a claim on a government's consititution, one must disect the state as well. As in, America's constitution increasingly changes as according to what democratically elected leader and legislature deemed right or proper. The demagogism found especially in the Red and Blue American politics today further plunges the document of the constitution into a decadent and questionable, if not irrelevant condition.
Concerning the theory of rational ignorance, it only demonstrates how the state can deprive the inferior citizen of some of the important aspects in any society: involvement and knowledge.
Finally, your last argument. While you demonstrate that the state is a "criminal" (which is indeed fitting), would not private property, the idea that land has a monetary worth - that those who are subordinate to the landlords are subject to "criminal" self-righteous security from the landlord - also be a case of unnecessary and, more pointedly, regressive action? As in, private property is tantamount to the state in that it offers and external hegemony of its subjects, subordinating them (the type of subordination, i.e. political or economic, being excluded). The only argument against my claim is that capitalism and the idea of private property aren't bound by a particular institution. Nonetheless, both follow a systematic order which, in the long run, doesn't change; capitalism just isn't restricted to petty popular documents.
Also, if you request that reviewers don't swear in response to your works, don't defile other's review boards with your own hogwash (adhere to your personal standards).
- Holocaustpulp
8/11/2004 c1 emmsims
I have to say I l,iek the way you write. Your words are so free and flowing but hold so much meaning. You are not afraid of yourself or what you think. Though I do not always agree with you (most of the time I do) I enjoy the way you explain everything. I hate when people feel a certain way with out back up. You know your facts. You also write very intelligantreviews.
Your reader
~Emma (palgio)
I have to say I l,iek the way you write. Your words are so free and flowing but hold so much meaning. You are not afraid of yourself or what you think. Though I do not always agree with you (most of the time I do) I enjoy the way you explain everything. I hate when people feel a certain way with out back up. You know your facts. You also write very intelligantreviews.
Your reader
~Emma (palgio)
6/17/2004 c2 7CommandoCody
This was an interesting read, to say the least. That it was conducted with civility and clarity disturbs me for some reason.
Being a conservative libertarian I, needless to say, disagree with some of your assumptions about the usefulness of states and governments. You did argue your point well—almost scarily well—however, so you get major kudos. In the end though I still found Anarcho-capitalism—though it brought up some issues that need discussing—too idealistic for my tastes.
Then again, it could be that I'm prejudiced. If true, it's all Ayn Rand's fault. I mean, if she had just taken the time to write something with aliens and death-rays instead of puttering around with architects, I’d be hooked.
Curse you Rand!
7CommandoCodyThis was an interesting read, to say the least. That it was conducted with civility and clarity disturbs me for some reason.
Being a conservative libertarian I, needless to say, disagree with some of your assumptions about the usefulness of states and governments. You did argue your point well—almost scarily well—however, so you get major kudos. In the end though I still found Anarcho-capitalism—though it brought up some issues that need discussing—too idealistic for my tastes.
Then again, it could be that I'm prejudiced. If true, it's all Ayn Rand's fault. I mean, if she had just taken the time to write something with aliens and death-rays instead of puttering around with architects, I’d be hooked.
Curse you Rand!
6/16/2004 c2 giygas666
As always, your analysis is well thought out and reasoned. I always like getting your perspective on things, and I appreciate the time you've taken in pointing out my methodological flaws; it's actually quite helpful to me.
In your review for "The L Word" you pointed out the importance of making a distinction between "government" and "state". Like a lot of people I fall into the trap of using the terms interchangeably. When most people, including myself, say "government," they're talking about the state (and I now see how this can lead to problems of definition). I also tend to think of "anarchy" as meaning 'total chaos' or a lack of law and order.
In my essay I used these terms the way I and many others have been brought up to understand them, inacurrate though I was in doing so. At the time I was thinking of these terms in a completely different way than you use them. And I certainly never intended to 'stab you in the back.' If I did, I apologize.
What I was doing in my esay was in fact advocating a minimal state (I believe the term for that is "minarchist"; please correct me if I'm wrong) in line with the Constitution.
Don't get me wrong, though; I understand that states are inherently wicked gangs of crooks. I understand that in an ideal world we would all govern ourselves and there would be no need for a state. I also believe in the power of the market. Your analysis of "social contract" and your criticism of the Constitution makes a lot of sense, too.
I think I'm closer to RCS' "strict-constitutionalist" views regarding the role of the state than I am to anarcho-capitalism. I just can't place as much faith in the market as you and RCS do because I believe the state and its agents have, by default, usurped the free market and rigged it for their purposes. In other words, there is a truly free market for *them* (because they hold the power) but not for me or you.
I also understand the fundamental folly in arguing for the state (however minimal it be), considering that it is, in fact, a criminal organization at its core. I also agree with you that there is trmendous power and potential in the market. I'm not denying that, and in an ideal world there would be *no* state, and the free market would prevail.
I just doubt that this can or will happen in reality, which I hope explains my skepticism of some of your ideas. But I do ackowledge the wisdom in your ideas, I like your analyses, and if given the choice, I'd take your anarcho-capitalism over statecontrol any day.
-Zell
As always, your analysis is well thought out and reasoned. I always like getting your perspective on things, and I appreciate the time you've taken in pointing out my methodological flaws; it's actually quite helpful to me.
In your review for "The L Word" you pointed out the importance of making a distinction between "government" and "state". Like a lot of people I fall into the trap of using the terms interchangeably. When most people, including myself, say "government," they're talking about the state (and I now see how this can lead to problems of definition). I also tend to think of "anarchy" as meaning 'total chaos' or a lack of law and order.
In my essay I used these terms the way I and many others have been brought up to understand them, inacurrate though I was in doing so. At the time I was thinking of these terms in a completely different way than you use them. And I certainly never intended to 'stab you in the back.' If I did, I apologize.
What I was doing in my esay was in fact advocating a minimal state (I believe the term for that is "minarchist"; please correct me if I'm wrong) in line with the Constitution.
Don't get me wrong, though; I understand that states are inherently wicked gangs of crooks. I understand that in an ideal world we would all govern ourselves and there would be no need for a state. I also believe in the power of the market. Your analysis of "social contract" and your criticism of the Constitution makes a lot of sense, too.
I think I'm closer to RCS' "strict-constitutionalist" views regarding the role of the state than I am to anarcho-capitalism. I just can't place as much faith in the market as you and RCS do because I believe the state and its agents have, by default, usurped the free market and rigged it for their purposes. In other words, there is a truly free market for *them* (because they hold the power) but not for me or you.
I also understand the fundamental folly in arguing for the state (however minimal it be), considering that it is, in fact, a criminal organization at its core. I also agree with you that there is trmendous power and potential in the market. I'm not denying that, and in an ideal world there would be *no* state, and the free market would prevail.
I just doubt that this can or will happen in reality, which I hope explains my skepticism of some of your ideas. But I do ackowledge the wisdom in your ideas, I like your analyses, and if given the choice, I'd take your anarcho-capitalism over statecontrol any day.
-Zell
5/17/2004 c1 2RCS
A well thought out essay. It detailed your point of view quite well. Though I'm still trying to find those big words that a couple of the other reviewers found incomprehensible.
2RCSA well thought out essay. It detailed your point of view quite well. Though I'm still trying to find those big words that a couple of the other reviewers found incomprehensible.
5/12/2004 c1 No Trust
Well, I’m not going to defile this particular series of essays with cussin’. Nope. It’s keeping its G rating, and I’ll remove any reviews that don’t meet that standard.
What ‘big words’ in particular caused you trouble?
Well, I’m not going to defile this particular series of essays with cussin’. Nope. It’s keeping its G rating, and I’ll remove any reviews that don’t meet that standard.
What ‘big words’ in particular caused you trouble?
5/12/2004 c1 Nemomen
Yes! The cursing helps a lot, 'cause it reminds us that yes, this IS English that we're reading. If you don't feel like cursing, though, just try to use shorter words.
Yes! The cursing helps a lot, 'cause it reminds us that yes, this IS English that we're reading. If you don't feel like cursing, though, just try to use shorter words.
5/11/2004 c1 No Trust
"Not by fault of yours, though; it's just that we aren't that used to the language you use."
Would it be better if I cussed more?
"Not by fault of yours, though; it's just that we aren't that used to the language you use."
Would it be better if I cussed more?
5/11/2004 c1 24Nemen
I liked it.
Of course, Giygas' review (which simplified your essay) kind of helped me understand it better...were I you, I'd consider using shorter words.
What I got from it most is that the Consitution is nothing holy at all...it's just the ideas of some dead guys, ideas which have been used to keep the country running. Sure, so far they've been good, and the system they describe has been pretty good at holding together, but there's nothing holy about their ideas. Conceivably, if we were to write a Constitution today, we'd do a better job. Or maybe not. Who knows?
Your writing made my head hurt, though. As the other reviewers have said, it's a bit hard to follow sometimes. Not by fault of yours, though; it's just that we aren't that used to the language you use.
24NemenI liked it.
Of course, Giygas' review (which simplified your essay) kind of helped me understand it better...were I you, I'd consider using shorter words.
What I got from it most is that the Consitution is nothing holy at all...it's just the ideas of some dead guys, ideas which have been used to keep the country running. Sure, so far they've been good, and the system they describe has been pretty good at holding together, but there's nothing holy about their ideas. Conceivably, if we were to write a Constitution today, we'd do a better job. Or maybe not. Who knows?
Your writing made my head hurt, though. As the other reviewers have said, it's a bit hard to follow sometimes. Not by fault of yours, though; it's just that we aren't that used to the language you use.
4/29/2004 c1 giygas666
This is very well-thought out and argued. Your points are made rationally, and overall your ideas make sense, but I had to read through this a couple of times before I really grasped it.
Basically, what you're saying is that constitutions can't prevent abuses of power or protect liberty/security, because of a lack of incentives by the people in power since people don't really "shop around" as it were, and also because all those different constitutional interpretations lead to confusion and conflict within the governing body, right?
What it all comes down to are incentives; that makes sense to me.
-Zell
This is very well-thought out and argued. Your points are made rationally, and overall your ideas make sense, but I had to read through this a couple of times before I really grasped it.
Basically, what you're saying is that constitutions can't prevent abuses of power or protect liberty/security, because of a lack of incentives by the people in power since people don't really "shop around" as it were, and also because all those different constitutional interpretations lead to confusion and conflict within the governing body, right?
What it all comes down to are incentives; that makes sense to me.
-Zell
4/26/2004 c1 Mbwun
To me, this essay is like a Rage Against the Machine song: very well executed, but the politics are insane. Anyhow, that's my opinion; I shan't try to debate yours, because every time I do, you talk me in circles. Crazy as I find your ideals to be, you are very good at communicating them, and for that I give you mad props.
~He Who Walks On All Fours
To me, this essay is like a Rage Against the Machine song: very well executed, but the politics are insane. Anyhow, that's my opinion; I shan't try to debate yours, because every time I do, you talk me in circles. Crazy as I find your ideals to be, you are very good at communicating them, and for that I give you mad props.
~He Who Walks On All Fours