- 30 Jun 2014 11:56
#14430186
You are, of course, correct. The tool I propose to use to change what other people think is persuasion. I am hoping that over time, the libertarian/ancap message will change public understanding of what government actually does and how well society can function without it.
The Constitution (Capital 'C') is part of the democratic process. The constitution (lower 'c') isn't. The (lower-case) American constitution encompasses not just written words (the Constitution) but also the attitudes, culture, expectation and values of the American people. Those impact how government and society more generally function in ways far broader than the formal democratic processes allow.
For example, Constitutional interpretation is led by the USSC which is only remotely related to the democratic process. The Justices do, however, reflect the constitution (lc) in that they are chosen by elected officials amongst a small group of competent lawyers and judges, a pool of candidate itself both influenced by and influencing the American society's understanding of the role of government (if any).
The democratic process is merely one tool for transmitting societal attitudes to the formal process of government (through the election of particular people to specific roles). Deep-seated attitudes towards the proper role of government in different spheres of life are reflected in both the formal process of Constitutional amendments and the informal process of constitutional change through Constitutional reinterpretation by the USSC and lower courts.
Thus the role of government in religion has shrunk in the past few decades even while the role of (the Federal) government in the economy has increased. Both processes didn't follow a Constitutional amendment, but rather a gradual process of changed attitudes on the USSC, following, reflecting and shaping the American constitutional culture.
I am hoping for a similar process to lead American (or any other country's) society towards a preference for a smaller and smaller role for government. If that process does take place, it will manifest itself both through the formal democratic process and the informal process of Constitutional interpretation. For example, the Court could, in principle, reverse the changes that took place during the 1930s in the doctrine of interpreting the Commerce Clause.
This change, if it ever takes place, may be realised, in part, through formal amendments, but it doesn't have to. IT will lead to a progressively-shrunk role for government. It may or may not be marked, at some point, by formal dissolution of the US Government. Or existing organs of the US Government could be privatised, converted into non-monopoly not-for-profit service providers or eliminated altogether.
You don't, and never will have, the power to overrule what most people think, was my point. Doesn't matter if you think you "should" have that veto power, there is no way you can get such power. Not until you become a dictator and terrorize everybody to the point they are afraid to voice their opinions.
You are, of course, correct. The tool I propose to use to change what other people think is persuasion. I am hoping that over time, the libertarian/ancap message will change public understanding of what government actually does and how well society can function without it.
The constitution does not prevent the government from doing anything. It just puts a more stringent than usual protocol on the decision making process about some issues, because we have decided (democratically) it's good to be slow and careful about changing some of the more important things. If we thought a government religion was an awesome idea, we would change the constitution and start teaching Scientology in the classrooms. The constitution is part of the democratic process.
The Constitution (Capital 'C') is part of the democratic process. The constitution (lower 'c') isn't. The (lower-case) American constitution encompasses not just written words (the Constitution) but also the attitudes, culture, expectation and values of the American people. Those impact how government and society more generally function in ways far broader than the formal democratic processes allow.
For example, Constitutional interpretation is led by the USSC which is only remotely related to the democratic process. The Justices do, however, reflect the constitution (lc) in that they are chosen by elected officials amongst a small group of competent lawyers and judges, a pool of candidate itself both influenced by and influencing the American society's understanding of the role of government (if any).
The democratic process is merely one tool for transmitting societal attitudes to the formal process of government (through the election of particular people to specific roles). Deep-seated attitudes towards the proper role of government in different spheres of life are reflected in both the formal process of Constitutional amendments and the informal process of constitutional change through Constitutional reinterpretation by the USSC and lower courts.
Thus the role of government in religion has shrunk in the past few decades even while the role of (the Federal) government in the economy has increased. Both processes didn't follow a Constitutional amendment, but rather a gradual process of changed attitudes on the USSC, following, reflecting and shaping the American constitutional culture.
I am hoping for a similar process to lead American (or any other country's) society towards a preference for a smaller and smaller role for government. If that process does take place, it will manifest itself both through the formal democratic process and the informal process of Constitutional interpretation. For example, the Court could, in principle, reverse the changes that took place during the 1930s in the doctrine of interpreting the Commerce Clause.
This change, if it ever takes place, may be realised, in part, through formal amendments, but it doesn't have to. IT will lead to a progressively-shrunk role for government. It may or may not be marked, at some point, by formal dissolution of the US Government. Or existing organs of the US Government could be privatised, converted into non-monopoly not-for-profit service providers or eliminated altogether.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.