From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 05:50:53 PDT
To: blancw@microsoft.com (Blanc Weber)
Subject: Re: Constitution and Contract [Was: CIA & FBI]
In-Reply-To: <9405010825.AA17980@netmail2.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <199405011250.AA09175@access3.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> From: Black Unicorn
> 
> This [concept of generational input to the constitution] seems to me like 
> the Jeffersonian notion that the Constitution should be amended in every
> generation.

[Comments on the danger of short term politics in this context.]

> 
> If your suggestion is more along the lines of a more reasoned and
> enduring amendment process with some respect for the concepts of old and
> more importantly an attempt to adapt the spirit of the document [the 
> Constitution] to the reality of the day, I concur wholeheartedly.
> ...................................................

Mr. Weber replies:

> 
> No, it has nothing to do with the amendment process; it has to do with 
> original thought.
> 
> As long as the people of today or tomorrow remain attached to a 
> document,  becoming dependent upon it for their thinking, then they are 
> still not free, because - especially in the case of the Constitution - 
> they have still not understood the message.


This almost sounds like you are calling for liberation from the 
Constitution of the United States.  In this regard your position closely 
resembles the anti-federalist doctrines.  Although it is a position with 
which I cannot agree, I do respect it as one with much scholarly support.


> The principle of 
> individuality and freedom from government coercion means that an 
> individual can make up their own mind, can use their own judgement, and 
> can decide for themselves whether or not they will become a member of 
> an institution - even if that institution is already in existence 
> surrounding them and it seems that it is no longer required of them to 
> think about making a choice regarding their relationship to it, that 
> the choice was already made for them a long time ago and the situation 
> no longer requires their input  -  almost as if their opinion were 
> irrelevant, almost as if that which was created in the past had nothing 
> to do with them in the present.

I think it's difficult to accomplish what you propose.  This seems to me 
to amount to calling for the status of sovereignty to apply to every 
individual.  A system of individual sovereignty strikes me as unworkable, 
and again a slippery slope to complete lawlessness.  I'd like to head 
that way, just not ALL the way there.

> If no one from an institution inquires whether you want to join, but 
> takes it for granted that you are a member and then proceeds to treat 
> you like citizen, then they have not been respectful of your 
> independent ability to make up your own mind, apart from their ability 
> to make that decision for you.  This is not in the spirit of the 
> Constitution.

I guess I'm not sure what the solution here is other than to grant 
citizenship on the basis that it is granted today.  Jus Soli or Jus 
Sangre.  How a legal infant can decide the state of citizenship for him 
or herself is a difficult proposition.  At the age of majority there 
exist a great number of options and several nations which grant 
citizenship on basic requirements.  In addition one can always become 
stateless.  Any social organization will be coercive by the standards you 
have set down as I understand them.  Protections for the collective 
always intrude on the individual.  I am not prepared to defend the 
position of absolute individuality as a natural right.

> The age of the concept is not what is important; it is the principle 
> elucidated.  Any document which presents important concepts is 
> valuable.   It isn't requisite, however, that one remain attached to it 
> in order to reap the benefit of its wisdom;  it is more important to 
> recognize that to which the wisdom therein refers,  and once the ideas 
> have been digested & comprehended, to advance using the perspicacity 
> which you should have developed from their study.

I agree.  However, the problem with the rather nebulous and elusive 
"spirit" of the ideas in the Constitution is that committing them to the
social memory almost insures their erasure in a number of generations 
less than the number of fingers on the hand of an expert woodshop 
vet.  In addition, the short term politics I mentioned before cause a 
problem.  There are certain concepts that are expressed in the language 
of the Constitution that I think are timeless.  These include but are not 
limited to:  The right to bear arms.  The right against self incrimination.
Applying these to the current era is the task, not modifying their basic 
content.

> My point in this discussion is only to say that in terms of a contract, 
> no one is really provided the opportunity to "sign the deal", so to 
> speak.  Too much is taken for granted, and therefore too many mistakes 
> are made from the absence of a foundation based upon actual agreements 
> made (rather than assumed agreement).

I agree in theory.  In practice I must dissent.  I still maintain that 
social organizations demand some degree of sacrifice.  Provided the 
borders are not closed to those who wish to leave, and there is a 
"market" of sovereigns to choose from, I don't find the power 
of a sovereign in itself offensive.  What I feel is the obligation of the 
sovereign is to limit the level of corruption of the individual by 
forebearing from unneeded exertions of authority.


> Blanc

-uni- (Dark)