MisterCairo
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 7,005
- Location
- Gads Hill, Ontario
Yes, but likely far more than were eligible under the original Greek version. And, like the ancients, it was at least a start.
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Democracy
- Thread starter vitanola
- Start date
Yes, but likely far more than were eligible under the original Greek version. And, like the ancients, it was at least a start.
Featured products
-
Alden 403 Moc Toe Boot - Brown Chromexcel - $680 The classic "Indy" style Alden Boot in the classic Horween brown Chromexcel. -
Grant Stone Diesel Boot Dark Olive Chromexcel - #395 Goodyear welted, Horween Chromexcel, classic good looks. -
Himel Bros. - The Ross Mk. 1 Leather Jacket Classic D-pocket motorcycle/aviator style jacket.
LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,732
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
I wouldn't think it was out of line to consider the Constitution a first draft. And like any first draft, editing and revision is always necessary. Where you run into problems is with the cult of Document Idolaters who can't accept that the Founders were neither gods nor in any way inspired, and that the original text wasn't handed down on a mountainside on stone tablets. They were, as all people are, just making it up as they went along, many were motivated less by noble purposes and more by self-interest, and some of it they got horribly, horribly wrong. And a great many people paid in blood for their errors.
ChiTownScion
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,247
- Location
- The Great Pacific Northwest
And yet, these phony "rugged individualists" are the first to condemn organized labor.
ChiTownScion
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,247
- Location
- The Great Pacific Northwest
Whenever I encounter some "original intent" type who has difficulty with Holmes' ideal of a Living Constitution, I usually note:
"Hmm. I have a choice, I see. Your 'legal opinion,' or that of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Not a difficult choice, fortunately."
The Constitution is the second draft, as it were, the first one having been the Articles of Confederation. Even though it wasn't called THE Constitution, that's what it was, the operating document for the federal government. Neither one established the United States.
Although the thought of another constitutional convention is scary, given how the country seems to have produced an inadequate number of statesmen in the last twenty or thirty years, at least few who are willing to have anything to do with national government, something else also bothers me.
If a new constitution were written today, I fear it would be so long and so comprehensive, that nobody voting on it would have ever read the whole thing and it would be so inflexible as to be unworkable and would end up being ignored for the most part, rather like laws concerning speed limits, which a number of people apparently feel to be an example of government tyranny. Mostly, however, when I hear people complaining about the law, whatever the law is, I hear someone who does not recognize the authority of society as a whole to write laws over the authority of the individual to write laws as they see fit. And as I read through this thread, that attitude fits in with the idea that democracy is not a generally accepted concept at all, pure, diluted or symbolic.
Although the thought of another constitutional convention is scary, given how the country seems to have produced an inadequate number of statesmen in the last twenty or thirty years, at least few who are willing to have anything to do with national government, something else also bothers me.
If a new constitution were written today, I fear it would be so long and so comprehensive, that nobody voting on it would have ever read the whole thing and it would be so inflexible as to be unworkable and would end up being ignored for the most part, rather like laws concerning speed limits, which a number of people apparently feel to be an example of government tyranny. Mostly, however, when I hear people complaining about the law, whatever the law is, I hear someone who does not recognize the authority of society as a whole to write laws over the authority of the individual to write laws as they see fit. And as I read through this thread, that attitude fits in with the idea that democracy is not a generally accepted concept at all, pure, diluted or symbolic.
MisterCairo
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 7,005
- Location
- Gads Hill, Ontario
Um, I did not say it was a first "draft". The criticism "some democracy" (six percent eligible to vote) prompted me to defend what was, presumably, at least from your American point of view, an improvement on the prior condition.
Six percent is, if nothing else, better than five.
And zero.
From devine rights of kings, to feudalism, to the landed gentry, to those with $5,000 or more in property (males only), to all males (except natives), to all men and women (but not natives) to all 18 or over provided they have citizenship - I would call that progress. Perhaps not as quickly as some would like it, but hey, I am not responsible for history.
Six percent is, if nothing else, better than five.
And zero.
From devine rights of kings, to feudalism, to the landed gentry, to those with $5,000 or more in property (males only), to all males (except natives), to all men and women (but not natives) to all 18 or over provided they have citizenship - I would call that progress. Perhaps not as quickly as some would like it, but hey, I am not responsible for history.
Miss Lizzie used the term first draft. A thousand years from now what will they call it?
One has to have a long view to consider history, although living memory skews the perception. By that, I mean someone who is 70 will have a different perception of history, recent history in particular, than someone who is 30. Also, it seems to be a common thing when considering things from a historical perspective to start at the beginning and then skip forward to the recent present, ignoring much that happened along the way.
History is not what happened. History is what was written down about what happened. Thus we have the term "pre-history." Apparently, some people would not recognize the validity of that term since they don't believe humans are that old. Written records date back about 4,500 years. Anyway, history goes through a filtering process and the end users, we might say, toss out anything that doesn't fit their needs or beliefs. As an off-beat example, when the motion picture "Troy" was produced, any reference to gods affecting the events were left out. In that case, of course, the movie wasn't based on the siege of Troy but on the Iliad. Then, too, not everything that happens is interesting enough at the time to get written down either then or later, or more likely, isn't equally interesting to everyone. For example, you won't find a lot written down about Europe from just after the war up through the mid-1950s. It was a rough time in Europe but it isn't something Americans are interested in. You might find something about the United States Constabulary, though. That's pretty interesting.
One has to have a long view to consider history, although living memory skews the perception. By that, I mean someone who is 70 will have a different perception of history, recent history in particular, than someone who is 30. Also, it seems to be a common thing when considering things from a historical perspective to start at the beginning and then skip forward to the recent present, ignoring much that happened along the way.
History is not what happened. History is what was written down about what happened. Thus we have the term "pre-history." Apparently, some people would not recognize the validity of that term since they don't believe humans are that old. Written records date back about 4,500 years. Anyway, history goes through a filtering process and the end users, we might say, toss out anything that doesn't fit their needs or beliefs. As an off-beat example, when the motion picture "Troy" was produced, any reference to gods affecting the events were left out. In that case, of course, the movie wasn't based on the siege of Troy but on the Iliad. Then, too, not everything that happens is interesting enough at the time to get written down either then or later, or more likely, isn't equally interesting to everyone. For example, you won't find a lot written down about Europe from just after the war up through the mid-1950s. It was a rough time in Europe but it isn't something Americans are interested in. You might find something about the United States Constabulary, though. That's pretty interesting.
LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,732
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
A thousand years from now, people will think of us, if there are still people and if they think of us at all, in the way that we think of William the Conqueror today. "William the what?" "You know, what happened in 1066." "1066? I was in 1065, and I didn't hear anything."
Every generation has the habit of thinking of itself as the End Product Of History, but all it ever really is is a small past component of some other generation's future. The time will come when every thing we are, and everything we argue about, and everything we think is consequential, will be forgotten dust. Somebody else will live on "our" land, and will dig in "our" dirt, and maybe they'll find some corroded relic of what we were, and will show it to their friends and puzzle over what it was supposed to be, and then they'll toss it into the bushes and go on about being their own "End Product of History."
Every generation has the habit of thinking of itself as the End Product Of History, but all it ever really is is a small past component of some other generation's future. The time will come when every thing we are, and everything we argue about, and everything we think is consequential, will be forgotten dust. Somebody else will live on "our" land, and will dig in "our" dirt, and maybe they'll find some corroded relic of what we were, and will show it to their friends and puzzle over what it was supposed to be, and then they'll toss it into the bushes and go on about being their own "End Product of History."
I understand what you're saying but that's no way to look at it. It's like saying "What's the point of it all?" Or as the song went, "Is that all there is?" But one answer leads to another question. We are here to help others. Then what are the others here for? There is no answer to everything but mainly because there are not questions about everything.
We are the end product of history, of course, in a sense. We aren't the end of history, though. For us, right now is what matters most. Not yesterday and not tomorrow. We may have our hopes about tomorrow but it can be like free beer tomorrow.
We are the end product of history, of course, in a sense. We aren't the end of history, though. For us, right now is what matters most. Not yesterday and not tomorrow. We may have our hopes about tomorrow but it can be like free beer tomorrow.
LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,732
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
I think it's a worthwhile view in that every generation could use some humility when viewing its place in history. Nothing -- not a belief, not a worldview, and not a society -- lasts forever. Nothing ever has, and nothing ever will.
The beliefs, values, and teachings of a thousand years ago no longer exist today -- oh, some will say their sect or their philosophy has been handed down unaltered thru the generations, the same yesterday today and forever, but that isn't true. There isn't a person alive today on Earth who holds to an unaltered belief structure of a thousand years ago, and a thousand years from now, if humanity still exists, our beliefs today will be as alien to them as the beliefs of person from 1017 would be to us today. What people consider "Democracy" today is not what the ancient Greeks considered democracy, nor what the "Founders" (a term I loathe because it reminds me of the evil shapeshifters from 'Deep Space Nine') considered Democracy nor even what the New Dealiers in 1937 considered Democracy. A lot of us today don't even consider it Democracy, so there's little doubt that future generations will have a very very different idea of what constitutes democracy or freedom or whatever other name it will be given. As Bro. Cairo says, progress.
My issue is not with that, but with the idea that what was accomplished 200-odd years ago is some kind of sacred, unchangeable standard to be venerated and worshiped as an idol. A lot of people around here live in houses built in Colonial times, but none of them live in houses unchanged since Colonial times, nor would they want to.
The beliefs, values, and teachings of a thousand years ago no longer exist today -- oh, some will say their sect or their philosophy has been handed down unaltered thru the generations, the same yesterday today and forever, but that isn't true. There isn't a person alive today on Earth who holds to an unaltered belief structure of a thousand years ago, and a thousand years from now, if humanity still exists, our beliefs today will be as alien to them as the beliefs of person from 1017 would be to us today. What people consider "Democracy" today is not what the ancient Greeks considered democracy, nor what the "Founders" (a term I loathe because it reminds me of the evil shapeshifters from 'Deep Space Nine') considered Democracy nor even what the New Dealiers in 1937 considered Democracy. A lot of us today don't even consider it Democracy, so there's little doubt that future generations will have a very very different idea of what constitutes democracy or freedom or whatever other name it will be given. As Bro. Cairo says, progress.
My issue is not with that, but with the idea that what was accomplished 200-odd years ago is some kind of sacred, unchangeable standard to be venerated and worshiped as an idol. A lot of people around here live in houses built in Colonial times, but none of them live in houses unchanged since Colonial times, nor would they want to.
- Messages
- 17,198
- Location
- New York City
Some people don't want to change the Constitution (as Lizzie says, maybe they view it as as "idol -" I don't know) and some want it changed aggressively and rapidly. I'm not particularly sympathetic to either view as the Constitution has a change mechanism built in that argues against both outlooks. It anticipated the need for change (this document is not written in stone) but created a process to militate against rapid or emotion-driven change (let's be thoughtful, deliberative and consensus-building when we do change it).
- Messages
- 17,198
- Location
- New York City
As to "end product of history," at this instant, we are by definition, but looking at the sweep, we will be just a point in time in a long continuum. Every period effected the continuum, some much more than others. Will the aggregation of things we in 2017 (or, more importantly, "our" generation) do have had an impact (looking at this from a Western perspective) like the Greeks or like one of those in the long line of hard-to-remember Roman emperors? Only time (way out in the future) will tell if our impact is meaningful or not (unless there's a nuclear holocaust and, then, I'll say we had an outsized impact on the continuum of history).
LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,732
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
That's an interesting question to think about -- just how important *will* we be? I tend to think that as far as the US is concerned, we seem to be more concerned with narrow and petty issues of the moment than with the vast scheme of things, and this for the most part has always been the case with Americans. A hundred and twenty years ago people fought bitterly, families were torn asunder, and politicians went down to the grave over the proper ratio of silver to gold coinage. "Sixteen to one!" is a completely meaningless phrase in the current discourse, but in the 1890s it was fighting words.
Pretty much everything people argue about on cable TV today is the 2017 equivalent to "Sixteen to one!" A century from now it will all be completely meaningless and irrelevant.
Pretty much everything people argue about on cable TV today is the 2017 equivalent to "Sixteen to one!" A century from now it will all be completely meaningless and irrelevant.
I don't know that belief systems are all that important because that isn't the way most people think--unless they're told to. Belief systems are the stuff of intellectuals, although it is worth pointing out that revolutions are usually the product of the thinking of intellectuals: Marx, Lenin and so on. There was such an effect on the way we do things, too, because the US system, if we can call it that, was a product of the age of reason. That's what we are told to think, anyway.
I think that pride in accomplishments of a historical nature, such as winning WWII, for instance, is something that grows over time and that at first, it isn't that great among those who actually did the work. That's because when they were finished, they had the business of making a living, raising a family and other very ordinary things too tend to first. But when they got over that hump and life was a little easier, that's when the monuments start getting built. But the books about it are different, at least concerning wars.
First come the books written by the generals, both by ours and in some cases by theirs. They're already along in years just after the war, if they made it through the war. Then a few decades later, the stories by the lower ranks start showing up. In most cases, they're just biographies but valuable anyway just for that reason. The human element in history tends to disappear in more academic works, unless they're specifically about individuals, some of whom are fascinating. One such book is "Stillwell and the American Experience in China." Another is "At Dawn We Slept," though not a biography, is worth reading to help understand how things happen and why they don't. They are quite academic but still readable. As I have mentioned before, some writers can make the instructions on assembling a lawn mower fascinating reading, while others can't describe the sinking of a ship and make it sound believable.
Now, everybody go out and make some history. You have an hour before lunchtime with ten minutes to spare.
I think that pride in accomplishments of a historical nature, such as winning WWII, for instance, is something that grows over time and that at first, it isn't that great among those who actually did the work. That's because when they were finished, they had the business of making a living, raising a family and other very ordinary things too tend to first. But when they got over that hump and life was a little easier, that's when the monuments start getting built. But the books about it are different, at least concerning wars.
First come the books written by the generals, both by ours and in some cases by theirs. They're already along in years just after the war, if they made it through the war. Then a few decades later, the stories by the lower ranks start showing up. In most cases, they're just biographies but valuable anyway just for that reason. The human element in history tends to disappear in more academic works, unless they're specifically about individuals, some of whom are fascinating. One such book is "Stillwell and the American Experience in China." Another is "At Dawn We Slept," though not a biography, is worth reading to help understand how things happen and why they don't. They are quite academic but still readable. As I have mentioned before, some writers can make the instructions on assembling a lawn mower fascinating reading, while others can't describe the sinking of a ship and make it sound believable.
Now, everybody go out and make some history. You have an hour before lunchtime with ten minutes to spare.
MisterCairo
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 7,005
- Location
- Gads Hill, Ontario
Does this mean that the Kardashians will not have the profound cultural resonance in a century they have today?
Why did I bother to have a family???
Why did I bother to have a family???
- Messages
- 10,840
- Location
- vancouver, canada
Who is Lilly Langtry?
- Messages
- 10,840
- Location
- vancouver, canada
I am big fan (acolyte?) of Ken Wilber and Integral. To me Spiral Dynamics (Beck & Graves) offers a most most compelling perspective on what we are witnessing in the evolution of humanity.
vitanola
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,254
- Location
- Gopher Prairie, MI
- Messages
- 10,840
- Location
- vancouver, canada
No! Apparently I don't get out enough.
Similar threads
