[Rant] Clever Play Vs Dick Moves and Markets

I like to play board games, and not the regular "Monopoly" version either, but hard core multi piece multi rule, on rare occasion multi day board games. Indeed, before my friend went feral, I used to go play board games every other monday night with a crowd of very intelligent, very talented individuals. Bear in mind that while I was raised on card games and board games as a familial 'rite of passage' I was often considered a 'dabbler' by some in this crowd because they took it rather seriously.

Thus, you can be assured that this is a crowd that takes things like rules seriously. Now in my observation of the culture of the games as played, there was a serious amount of respect paid when someone successfully navigated the rules in creative and innovative ways. Specifically, finding combinations of things whilst keep track of a seeming infinite number of moving variables made game play better for everyone because it made things seem more challenging but it also forced you to do better. This seemed (to me) particularly true with games that used heavy amounts of strategy with just a tiny bit of randomization.

Conversely, certain styles of moves were basically regarded as 'broken' beyond measure. If a rule was so good that it made the game basically unfun for anyone who didn't make it and was obviously either not playtested or just, well, stupid, it was generally tossed in the rubbish bin where it belonged. It is difficult to say exactly what the litmus test for this was; after all I'd seen some games where the qualification might be ignored because it was well enjoyed, whereas another seemingly innocuous rule was widely reviled and hated by all, but I think by and large it required a combination of loathing from all the participants as well the basic perception that it was not only blatantly unfair but also made the game 'unfun.'

Markets are powerful tools. We should reward people who play the game well because it helps make the entire system more vibrant. Having said that, at some point, certain features of a market are quite arguably called 'dick moves' that serve no one but people abusing the system. And lets be honest here, that's what it is...abusing the system. Markets for profit might not be 'fun' but a society is not, contrary to the claims of libertarians, only about the individual. After all, to quote the movie "Cloud Atlas"..."An ocean is composed of a sea of drops." There is no 'collective' that does not also consist of individuals, and a 'dick move' in a market is an unconcionable slander on those who participate in it.

The real question is, how is such a move enforced?

Well therein are certain problems. In a highly stratified society, the golden rule applies. Those with the gold, make the rules. This is the nature of humanity and virutally all civilizations in the history of man; the question is HOW MUCH power you allow the upper levels of society to have....but if the upper levels of society get to make the rules, of course they are going to make rules only for them.

Imagine if you will, at my friend's house, if all the games we played were tilted to his advantage (far from the case in actual reality since he was an excellent host who routinely stepped out of the way for someone else who wanted to play) and if someone did manage to find a clever combination to benefit themselves, that he tilted the field to make things better for himself...People would get fed up rather quickly and stop coming.

Now, in a system based on our own rather flawed constitution, with winner take all elections and the presumption on the power of the states, with tiny legislatures that are easily bought by ALEC and billionares, why then should we assume that markets function properly when they only benefit a few? Some argue that "Rule of Law" means we just have to obey this...others argue about how we need to protect the minority, whilst in the same breath arguing about the flaws of Affirmitive Action.

Are you in favor of allowing unjust protections for a minority or not? Or is it that you only want economic benefits that only serve you or your tribe? The great irony of our times is, of course, that there are many who argue for the justice of markets that benefit none but a tiny majority, not because of economic self interest, but because of a subconcious affiliation to regional politics and the tribalism that this entails. Think I'm wrong?

Well, I don't, but that's another subject for another time. Let's just say that I'm not the only one that thinks that and tribal motivations are strong.

But common sense does indeed demand that in a normal situation, if you wanted to have fun, you wouldn't keep showing up at the house of someone who rigged the rules only for their benefit, but if, in the interests of 'privitization' 401K's replace pensions, and social security is privatized and sacrificed on the alter of wall street, then you play at one house...or die.

Because really that's what libertarians are advocating about the so called Constitution of the United States, that I didn't vote for, nor did anyone living. The document is so difficult to amend that we will continue with rigged rules and either must leave the country (which is very difficult to do) or simply sit, trapped by their manufactured arguments crafted by billionares without any interest in mind.

They (Republicans and many sympathetic libertarians) say 'wealth redistrubtion' is highway robbery, and yet tactically feel that their only way to win is to have Citizen's United, which allows them to spend unlimited money in markets. They speak of rights in that only the government shall be restricted, but never the individual, as if only a government can imprison someone in poverty.

The idea that rights are only restricted to natural rights is ludicrous. The argument that only the government can imprision or take your life is also false since if medical necesity or wage stagnation forces you into a job you do not want, you are just as imprisoned by the so called 'free' market as if you were in an actual prison.

Snarky, clever libertians would argue, "Well be stuck in prison for a while and see how different you feel?"

To which I counter, be stuck in a minimum wage job working at Wal Mart at age 55 and we'll see.

Societies and cultures are formed by rituals and by rites...in ancient times in some cultures this was a walk about or a time of solitary contemplation. What rite can we enact to ensure the arrogance of willful deniers of reality must recognize their sins against their fellow man?

The irony in all this is that some of these people are indeed incredibly generous to charity. I speak not of the laughable illusion that donations to their favorite religion are charity, but a genuine effort on their part to give back to society, and to such individuals I laud and approve their efforts but they do seem to be in the genuine minority in the cause of their fellow liberatarians. We as a society must choose whether we want to reward someone who rigs the game to their favor (the exact opposite of a free market) or the individuals who actually contribute to society.

[Rant] Repost of a Video by FIRE

I don't hold Rush Limbaugh in the same category as anyone else mentioned in the list 3/4's of the way through this. Rush is a professional liar and a man who makes his living yelling fire in theater and then selling exit tickets as people try to get out. I also am questioning the "value added" of unlimited free speech in society. After all, I'm sorry, but lies don't seem to add value to society and fostering lies doesn't add much either...having said that, I think that the video and FIRE in general seems to make an excellent point, which is that universities exist as a sharing point of ideas, and even lies should be permitted there because the whole point of broadening the educational experience is exposure to the new. More over, Universities are often draconian in their enforcement of speech codes and the like. Tolerance achieved through denial of reality is no better than descration of the value of science by denial of reality. You MUST hear what it is you don't want to hear, or you will end up harming both yourself and those around you.

[Phil] My Review of Common Sense by Thomas Paine

My impression of Mr. Paine has only gone up the more I have read about him. He is truly a man ahead of his time, and is not at all the sort that is often made out by Libertarians in their view of our founding fathers...well that is to say, eastern libertarians as compared to western style libertarians. Thomas Paine was no only liberal, but he was radically liberal for his time and his actions have caused me to change my planned reading of Keyes major economic treatise and instead replace the work (part of my 2012 goals) with "The Age of Reason" with a full intent to read, "The Rights of Man" in early 2013.

The purpose of Common Sense was to energize the common folk of the colonies of the America (the British colonies) to revolt against the monarchy, and to reject the concept of monarchism in general. What suprised me the most about the work were its strong biblical ties to the point that a significant portion of the document deals with religion and the current interpretation of the Bible. Nevertheless, this was brilliant on Paine's part, since his intended audience readily accepted religion and knew the Holy Bible quite well.

The core of his early arguments against the monarchy come from the Old Testament, and the well documented struggle between the early Israelite prophets and the desire of the Israelites to have a king, 'like everyone else.' Indeed, the bible is chalk full of anti monarchist statements, especially in the old testamant. And the arguments are strong ones....which were later countered by the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. As if, somehow, God himself endowed these individuals with superior and moral judgements...

But the biblical and historical record simply do not bear this to be the case, as Paine rather skillfully points out. His attack on the ludicrous idea of a heritary monarch is also quite skillful. Indeed, when you think about it, how often is the quality of greatness that thrusts an individual to prominence, either by work, chance or connection ever repeated to the next generation?

At best such individuals are usually a shadow of the former except in a very few cases where someone is brought up almost by birth to be a replacement in a family business, but even in such cases, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The concept of the monarchy is rather thoroughly and logically trashed by Paine, including the idea of a limited monarchy (especially a hereditary one) since historically such things tend to be unwieldy....if the monarch has any real power.

He spends the second part of the pamplet talking about America's potential, which is enthusiastic and great...though not as ground breaking as the first portion in the eye of time. Having said that it was still vital to awakening the common folk about what America could do and what it could be, and how the attempts at redress were folly at that point, and how a congress was needed to unite the people.

On the whole, the document is rather impressive and well constructed, but directly itself doesn't add much insight into my greater attempts at personal philosophy except shooting dead any fringes or romantic notions about Kings and Queens.

[PHIL] Enforcability, Majority Rule and Oligarchy

My thoughts on this came from a recent graphic that outlined the differences between the Libertarian, Democratic and Republican parties and listed that the Democratic party was an Oligarchy. This rather confused me, so I asked for some clarification. The clarification was interesting but essentially boiled down to a minority making decisions for the majority. My reply, "Short of Genetic Engineering it is now my observation that this will always be the case, the question is which minority and what is their relationship with the majority?" might have been misconstrued since the person who made the original post unfriended me as a result. I meant no offense, but sometimes people looking for it can take offense no matter what you do. I will, however, attempt to explain in greater detail what I meant below.

Enforcability

First though I feel the need to talk about the concept of enforcability. The actual enforcibility of a law has three important points that are to me self evident.

1) The rule of law is, at a practical level, essentially the rule of the largest mob of people or at least the ability of the state to enforce force but, in an attempt to provide the illusion and/or best attempt at fairness, divests the powers and decision making capacities of that mob into abstract concepts, enduring social contracts in the form of laws, and institutional mechanisms to ensure that those abstract concepts are applied as they are written, rather than as they are interpreted by people at any particular time.

2) Since this Rule of Law is an illusion in that, unless the power of the state is essentially godlike, it requires the belief and participation of the concept in the minds of the component members of that society, faith in the institutions that create and execute these laws must be maintained. What then, can reduce faith in this concept more then, than the crafting of a law which cannot be enforced and that the majority do not want to accept? If the vast majority of society abhors murder, then the state can, with relatively little resources and ease (comparatively) track the guilty and enact the penalty of law upon the culprit. Whereas, if the law in question is say...a speed limit, and the vast majority of the population believes that it should be 10 miles per hour higher than the signs posted, but despondent parents and well endowed insurance companies are able to set it at a specific level, then you end up with a mixed result in which the speed limit is largely ignored by the populace unless there happens to be a law enforcement official present, and even then, since it might go to a jury trial, a law enforcement official is more likely to simply look for the most egregious offenders rather than someone who violates the law just a little bit. The more arbitrary the police or other law enforcement agencies, the less likely people are to respect the law and thus endanger to some degree the concept of rule of law itself.

3) So long as there is a government, there will be tax, of one kind or another, in any society that attempts it. That is if there is any kind of Rule of Law. Abstract anarchist societies that believe in self governance are essentially under Rule of the Mob but it just happens to be a well disciplined and very polite mob. Rule by Robot/AI might also not require tax, but Rule of Law definitely requires the efforts of people because abstract concepts only exist when people who believe in them choose to manifest those concepts into the physical universe in a meaningful way by action or, when applicable, lack of action.

Where there is tax, there must be an allocation of resources. Until such time as there is a lack of scarcity of resources, a prioritization must be made on which laws are to be enforced since the observable trend of humanity is that a significant portion of the population will desire more services from their government than the government can provide, and if this is the case, then the laws that can actually be ENFORCED are the ones that come to the fore under wise rule. Popular demand has often demanded unenforcable laws be enforced, but the consequences are dire and the waste of resources are more often than not, rather severe.

Majority Rule

In any conceivable society hitherto now or in the near future that has Rule of Law, the consent of the governed requires the consent of the majority (even if that consent is simply an unwillingness to live rather than remain a part of that society). At such time as the majority of a society wish to change it (by vote, by violence, or by self removal) then it is changed. Thus, Rule of Law or even Rule of Status Quo requires majority consent.

However, it is also my observation that the majority is generally more than inclined to accept the status quo if their perceived basic needs are met. This means that great change requires great energy to perform, whereas small change does not require as much energy but can change the inertia of a society over time. This has some severe consequences, primarily in that those who expend the most energy tend to be able to make the most changes. Or in other words, "the squeaky wheel gets oiled". This is doubly true in more flexible societies (IE Democratic Republics).

The practical means of which is that basically, a minority willing to engage substantial time, effort and will are able to enforce their will upon the majority of the members of society. Merchants, who are able to use power by proxy in the form of capital goods, can hire lobbiests and other champions to whisper in the ear of lawmakers indefinitely. The religious, who literally believe that their God demands the law be interpreted a certain way, can form organizations whose sole purpose is to bend the law in their directions. occasionally purely secular organizations are also able to do this, such as the National Rifle Association, but let us be clear...such influence will always exist even if Religions, Capitalism or Private associations were banned. Even the most tyrannical oligarchy (as defined by the dictionary as compared to libertarians) will still have factions within it. The military will want funding that the intelligence services want to go to them, whereas the propaganda department will want funds or the civic works department etc.

Thus, in any society with a passive and disinterested populace (ie...human beings as they currently exist or have existed for all known and recorded history or are likely to exist for the foreseeable future) defacto cedes its power to the minority most determined to enact its will, through protracted campaigns at influence of law makers, or a willingness to use lethal force (such as a one party state or a merchant class willing to bribe law enforcement to bust up peaceful protests etc).

Minorities will always rule. The question is HOW they rule and what might be their relationship is to the majority.

There are many questions to be asked about a minimalist or maximalist government or even the concept of Natural Rights vs Expected rights, but those are topics for another time and post.

[Phil] Dispersed vs Concentrated Power or...the Cognitive Dissonance of Conservatives and Libertarians

Common sense indicates from any serious student of human nature and history that, while a benevolent dictator is the most efficient of government, it's really only efficient for whom the dictator is benevolent to and, most importantly, transition of power is a nightmare.

I've covered that in previous posts, but what I want to point out is yet another example of cognitive dissonance in any American libertarian and conservative philosophies...

Libcon Posit:

1) Federalism is good.

2) Local Control keeps too much power from the central government.

3) Defense and other key critical areas by the central government is good and allows for defense against other large alliances.

Guess what? I agree.

I also like small governments. The government which governs least, governs best.

Where we radically disagree is on the fundamental nature of the state and of human nature.

Honest Libcons (As compared to greedy people who just want more), basically ascribe to the theory of Natural Rights. The problem with this, isn't the actual idea, but basically the same problem with the Communist Manifesto in that the Communist Manifesto was largely a reaction to the excesses of industry and as such goes on and on about class. Wheras Natural Rights was a reaction to Monarchy and so goes on and out about about rights as endowed by the creator and puts heavy emphasis on the individual.

Side Note -

This video is very popular among Libertarians because it highlights their mighty struggle against the State or the uncaring collective will of the we.

So instead of moderate clap trap, which simply seeks the middle of everything, I'm going to reaxiom the reaxiomation
libcons love to pull so much and simply call this radical idea "Rejectionism."

It rejects the idea that we need to reduce the world to this tiny little struggle between the individualism and capitalism or any ism of any kind whilst at the same time avoiding Anarchy.

I might build up on this, but I think the central tenet of Rejectionism is the rejection of Isms including the absense of the necessity of political philosophy.

Or in other words Posit 1) Don't go fucking nuts in any particular political direction.

Which must be followed by posit 2

2) Lack of a political direction is worse than no direction at all.

We've seen that from moderates and being Chaff just makes you a road hazard.

This might seem like a distraction but by defining and establishing political shorthand, it lets us reference it later.

-End Side Note

Specifically, I think with Rejectionism, another point has to be that there are a finite number of ways to do things. Which means that as awesome as the idea of keeping power in the form of the government in check by dispersing it among local governments, why in the name of all that is holy would you not do the same with individuals?

This obsession on the individual vs the collective makes libcons blind to the very facet of human nature that seeks to enslave them in government. There are greedy people in the world. Smart greedy people understand this and agree that government can hold other greedy people in check so everyone can profit, and dumb greedy people just want to be in charge or just want the government to get the hell out of the way so they can do whatever they want.

But the assumption of natural rights that the individual comes first and interferance should be as minimal as possible (and I agree with this) ignores the fact that since there will be as many opinions of what 'minimum as possible' is as there are people, then the PRACTICAL reality of what that means is that the rule of the majority should ultimately apply, if you accept that a sentient being capable of participating in society has equal value on a base level to all others.

That's a tough question...after all, the weak, children, the impaired, the insane etc, should be afforded protection by the majority, but are they truly citizens? They have rights in advanced society...so if you define citizenship as 'having rights' then yes, but if you define citizenship as 'the ability to participate at the base level of power' then 'er...maybe' applies because CHILDREN DON'T VOTE.

My point in this is, natural rights as a concept were fine but we've moved on since then and we're going to move a lot farther as our concepts of what it means to be human chance as we unlock the mind and link it to technology and unlock the genome and splinter as a species....

These are questions we would be wise to answer ahead of time and my answer is that any being capable of communicating with other beings and recognizing its worth and their worth and establish and negotiate terms for mutual benefice between the two should constitute a participating empowered citizen. The base line upon which the majority is constituted.

But the point is...if a balance between centralized and localized power in institutions is needed, then in no society should it ever be acceptable for power to accrue in that of individuals vs the majority such that the majority cannot check it.

In practical terms, that means that power is power and to separate government power from economic power is ludicrous. You do not need communism or even socialism to have societal mechanisms in place to prevent the accrual of wealth too high from the baseline, because since money is time and power and the abstraction thereof, possession of too much by such indivduals should be intolerable to society.

Because too much power in the hands of one unless in a situation with unlimited space and unlimited resources, inherirently will result in reduced power for the many.

Because the MANY is comprised of INDIVIDUALS. The 'collective' of collectivists ARE ALSO INDIVIDUALS thus making the entirity of the libertarian position ludicrous on its head. The very individuals they seek to break against are individuals themselve and they are imposing a tyranny of the minority and a tyranny of inaction due to their concept of natural rights, acting as if natural rights as a concept has abrigated since the foundation of the species, which it has not.

Its silly, and it has to stop.

[Cons] How Firm a Foundation

What is the Value Added of the Constitution, or having a constitution at all?

It is a reasonable question to ask. Those of us who live in the real world, who are not the 1%, must justify our existance, and our time. Now sometimes there are institutional shields for this, such as "Child" which is cared for by their parents, or "Disabled" which is cared for society at large, but as a practical matter, to receive resources in our current society (ie money which obtains food) you must have a place in society and a reason to have the rights and privilidges you receive. In theory, there are certain baseline rights we all receive, but from an enforcement perspective, those rights are applied very differently based on who you are - All of which comes basically down to the question the 1% asks of us on a daily basis, "What is your value added?"

So why a constitution?

The standard off the shelf answer is that a Constitution provides a blue print for society. It's the foundation, the touch stone upon which all other elements of society are built.

That makes sense, because that's really the way most of us think about the constitution, when we bother to think about it at all.

But what most people don't realize, is that as much as our society has changed, conservatives have inherent biases and advantages built into the founding document; its why they like it so much.

Some of this might seem obvious, but its worth going over again:

Who wrote the constitution? Rich, White, Elite, Business Owning Men 200+ years ago

Why did they write it? Because the previous government, the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. It was feeble and couldn't enforce its own laws. We needed a government that would allow the states to remain united and strong but flexible enough to give the states the individual freedom that both the states, and the inhabitants of those states demanded at that time.

What has changed? A lot has changed. On a practical level, its been amended in a lot of ways; but primarily it has expanded the right to vote to more of the population and determined practical matters of how power is handled within certain branches. The other major change was that it clearly established the dominance of the federal government, but the actual wording of the document is still kind of vague in certain areas; it does not say for example, "States can't leave" or "The Federal Government shall always triumph over States in any disupte between the two"...that was established by Right of Conquest, which isn't in the constitution at all.

But think of all that has gone on in 200 years -

Racism is now acknowledged.

Sexism is now acknowledged.

The inherent superiority of an indivudal just because they have money has been challenged....but that question is still very much in play.

There are elements of the constituion that favor the wealthy, because it also favors commerce. There really isn't any distinction between markets or governments directly in terms of which is which and which role one should play. Of course there were implied elements, but the phrases of the time have often changed, leaving room for interpretation.

But if the constitution affects all of us, every one of us, shouldn't the language at the blue print level be simple enough so that almost anyone who has the right to affect it, and obligation to be governed by it be clear in a way that anyone and everyone can understand?

How much do you have in common with Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or the slave owning southerners from the slave states? The former were honorable, intelligent men. The latter were perhaps intelligent but still thought that owning slaves was a cool idea.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

A lot can change in 200 years. A LOT can change in 200 years.

If the purpose of the constitution is that it is the social contract, the thing that binds all of us together and are the rules that we play by; how then can something that was crafted in so distant and so alien a time be binding upon us?

Are the amendments sufficient to govern society today? Conservatives argue yes. Liberals just assume the answer is yes.

But if the Constitution is the foundation of our society; then the advantage automatically falls to Conservatives. Conservatives resist change. Liberals embrace it.

The most common arguement for a stable constitution is that stability promotes growth. And that is absolutely true. For a lot of reasons. Change of any kind risks conflict, and the more conflict rises, the greater the chance that it will resort to force of arms to resolve.

The popular historical narrative is that this only occurred once in the Civil War.

The practical actual narrative is that it tends to occur about once a generation: The calling of the army against Unions in the early 20th century, the crushing of the occupy movement, the calling out of the national guard in the civil rights era (either to crush protest or ensure that desegregation would occur), the whiskey rebellion, the Bonus Army, etc etc.

On a practical level, the federal government seems to need to show force on the domestic population every 10-15 years, and if you notice, the VAST VAST majority of the time it is to resist change rather than embrace it.

Our society has changed. Our constitution has changed very little.

Right now there is a huge disconnect between our conservative society and our progressive society, and independents tend to sort of dangle in between them.

That's because we're on two different foundations...the conservatives are on the written constitution that is TWO HUNDRED YEARS OLD with a few patch works to keep the raft floating about expanding the franchise...

And liberals are on what judges have said the constitution means, such as the 1937 expansion of the commerce clause which was an unspoken agreement between the executive and the supreme court that the president would not dilute the power of the current court in exchange for their more generous interpretation of his measures.

Compromise is good, and it is necessary...

But the conservative foundation is built on stone, and the liberal position is built on sand; especially modern liberal tradition which is based on a wide interpretation of the social contract and judicial culture...but if a sufficient amount of judges are CHANGED...

Where in the constitution does it say that politicians should be honest? Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to health care? Social Security?

Having your food labels so it isn't poisoned or bad for you?

All of these are good ideas; and there are LAWS for some of this...but the more time passes, the more you have to IMPLY that the government can do this things rather than DEMAND it do them because that's the founding purpose of what it does.

A constition that promotes stability is a good thing; but a foundation built in an earth quake zone needs to be flexible. Granite foundations in California are going to crack and buckle eventually...

And our constitution is crumbling. You don't know it. You don't look at it that way, but how much do you approve of government?

And that's on both sides.

What's congress's approval?

The courts?

If they were working so well, why aren't people satisfied with the result?

And every generation there is a test, a stressor that forces force to be used. 9 times out of 10 that comes down on the side of the conservative view point. Historically, there has been a compromise after this to make things work.

But....Fox News exists now. There is a disconnect between the ways conservatives and liberals look at the world. Fox news is perfectly legal and perfectly constitutional. One message and one reality can be crafted and created...

If that generational test occurs...and the people who believe in Fox take power....why do you just assume that the compromise will take place after the fact?

I argue it won't.

Amending the constitution is difficult. Very difficult, and in those moments of pressure in the past, a sufficient number of conservatives had to come to the table to make change possible - such as allowing 18 year olds to vote or eliminating poll taxes.

How likely do you think conservatives are to come to the table to reform immigration?

To change tax policy in a liberal direction?

To put health care in the constitution?

The number of 'red line' issues is only growing...thanks to Fox. And Occupy was already crushed.

The center cannot hold because a house divided cannot stand.

Either we come to an accord on a constitution that we can all agree on, or sooner or later there will be a civil war. Now think about the most radical conservative you know..and ponder how they feel about liberals...

Now add in 10 years of civil war and think about how that person now talks about immigrants or muslims or someone they REALLY don't like...

They would feel that way about liberals in a civil war.

Now imagine that person in charge of nukes...

You see where I'm going with this?

Either we solve the problem of the disconnection from reality NOW (their problem, not ours) or they will KILL us later.

This is not hyperbole. It is basic observation of human nature and repeatable human fact.

Either we have a shared narrative where we can make our disagreements work...or we die.

Because the current constitution gives THEM all of the cards, not us.

But more importantly...when we build the next constitution, we need to build certain safe guards that cannot be changed (basic rights and representation) but a repeatable mandate that it be rewritten and reinterpreted on a cycle long enough to ensure flexibility stability but short enough that the past does not govern the present or much more importantly, the future.

Personally, I think a cycle of 50-75 years is good...indeed, make it flexible based on the current expected life span, so if we all start living 300 years, it can go up to 100 if we need it to.

The advantage in the constitution should be with liberals, not conservatives...since as far as history is concerned, its the conservatives that are wrong 99% of the time. You want a firm enough foundation to keep hysteria from taking over (usually also from conservatives) but flexible enough so that legitimate change is acknowledged over time in a way that makes it real and makes it happen.

It also means that a region that is alien as the south compared to the rest of the country probably shouldn't be a part of your country to begin with.

[Rant] If Conservatism is So Strong....

If conservatism is so strong...why does it need to shout down any other ideas?

If conservatism is so strong...why does it claim to be the victim when it victimizes?

If conservatism is so strong...why is there only one "true" conservative network in a society with a "free market" in which the majority of the country is "center right?"

If conservatism is so strong...why is there always an excuse?

If conservatism is so strong...why do they need to raise the bar on voting as high as possible and pretend its for "voter security?"

If conservatism is so strong...why does it need to crush truth instead of nourish it?

If conservatism is so strong...why is that only rich people, selfish people or theocrats seem to be its most strident advocates?

Some liberal blogs, sites and individuals delete comments they don't like.

ALL conservative blogs, sites and individuals delete comments they don't like.