Deal (as it was when we started).
As to the effectiveness of our Constitution, we definitely differ.
Here’s an article from today’s Rational Review News Digest:
It can’t happen here
The Power of Narrative
by Arthur Silber
“I’ve made this point repeatedly over the last several years, and
it is
only a measure of the remarkably primitive quality of our national
conversation that so many Americans seem incapable of grasping
it.
To
put the point the other way, which will hopefully penetrate the
wall of
resistance erected by so many people: the only reason you aren’t
in
a
concentration camp right now is because Bush hasn’t decided to
send
you
to one – yet.” (04/30/06)
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/04/it-cant-happen-
here.html
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D.
Berry
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 10:27 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship Undermines the
Cause
for Freedom
Mike,
Well…we don’t have a state religion (no 10 commandments in City
Hall),
we do have a free press (Ron Getty need not be too concerned
calling the
City police “disfunctional”), and we can peacefully assemble
(lots
just
did regarding immigaration). So, the Constitution looks pretty
effective to me. Again, I do not know whether the same thing
could
be
achieved without a written document, since that feat has never
been
achieved in heterogeneous complex groups.
Yes, you are correct that most unfortunately all the laws and
rules
in
the world did not keep you from harm. And, yes, you are correct
that we
could “organize to defend ourselves.” I suppose where we differ
is
that, 1) I cannot visualize any system that would keep
every member a group from harm; the best we can do is to choose
a
system that will keep most from harm; and 2) we can organize
to
defend ourselves in a variety of ways (neighborhood watch, group
instruction in self defense methods, town hall meetings to bring
about
safer streets, walking buddies).
On second thought, it is OK if we do not agree on whether the
Constitution helps or hinders liberty; or whether it is better to
be a
minimalist or an anarchist. We keep moving toward your goal of a
rule-free society, which necessarily means moving toward my goal
of
a
least-amount-of-rules-as-possible society! Deal?
Marcy
— In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, “Acree, Michael” <acreem@>
wrote:
Thanks, Justin. Of course, we know that “are guaranteed”
and “shall
make no law” were about equally effective.
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Justin T.
Sampson
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 1:29 PM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] Re: Constitution Worship
Undermines
the
Cause for Freedom
Your comparison with Argentina is especially interesting. I
haven’t
read Argentina’s Constitution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if
it
were
rather similar to ours. The Soviet Union famously had a
Constitution
which supposed guaranteed all sorts of wonderful things. If
that’s
true, it inclines me to think that it isn’t the Constitution
that’s
making the difference, so much as something about the
culture.
Again,
the point that, if the supporting culture is there, the
Constitution
is superfluous; if it isn’t, a Constitution won’t help.
The Soviet “constitution” actually had some interesting, and
perhaps
important, stylistic differences from the Constitution for the
USA.
Whereas the Constitution for the USA is a foundational legal
document,
dominated by “shall’s” and “shall not’s”, the Soviet
constitution
was
more of a press release every several years, dominated
by “is’s”,
“do’s”, and “have’s”.
USA: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging
the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.”
http://constitution.org/billofr_.htm
USSR: “In accordance with the interests of the people and in
order
to
strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the
USSR
are
guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly,
meetings,
street processions and demonstrations.
Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting
public
buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working
people and
their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and
by
the
opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.”