[PLUG-TALK] Anti-war vs war mongers. (ick)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> >Remember, this is the man who said -- during the discussion of this aspect
> >of the Constitution, so it's not quoted out of context -- that, "the
> >purpose of government is to protect the opulent minority from the
> >majority".
>
> Actually, you paraphrase. The quote really goes, "They (governments) 
> ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent 
> against the majority." (ref: 
> http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/Parrington/bk03_01_ch02.html)

I may have misremembered the exact wording, but I don't think the meaning
is changed much by rephrasing.

> Regardless, that IS the law of the land, until it's changed. A few
> more botched elections like the one we just had and it may get
> changed, for better or worse.

I'd say that we're only seeing the RESULTS of the botched elections more
clearly now, but they've been quite badly botched for some time.  Ah, the
benefits of massive person-to-person communication.

> >He changed his tune late in life, after the proliferation of market
> >capitalism, and realized the great error in leaving the nation in the
> >hands of only whose who accumulate personal power.
>
> I assume you ment "those".

I did.  Shall we point out every typo, henceforth?  I think that's an
efficient use of time and bandwidth.  Let's do it.

> >>Even then, if the EC is unable, then the House of Representatives do
> >>it.  Either way, the people are mearly making what amounts to a strong
> >>suggestion, not a mandate.
> >
> >All the better reason to follow a more Enlightened or Jeffersonian
> >approach to the problem putting the will of the people first and change
> >the mode of rule in this country.
>
> That's fine. Change the rules. But until it's changed, ignoring the
> bad law will still get you in trouble.

Aren't you the big proponent of jury nullification?

Anyway, I think there are causes worth getting yourself into a little
"trouble" in the process of reforming.

> There are rules and procedures for doing this.

You MIGHT be missing the point here.

The point is that the system's rules and procedures were designed to NOT
be reformable in the direction of public control and democracy.  The
system itself, in which the "rules and procedures" for reform are defined,
is "constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the
majority".

The point is that the entire structure works against change in a
democratic direction and works toward change in an autocratic direction.  
The future rulers are determined by the rules set down by the current
rulers.  That was the original intent and in that Madison was very
successful.

Personally, I think the whole deal is a direct result of the American
Revolutionary War in which the wealthy land-owners decided that, since
they bankrolled the war, they should be the ones who lay down the new
rules.  The few rich and powerful men who opposed this view were
somehow-or-other prevented from taking part in the framing of the
Constitution.

(Perhaps the most qualified person for this job was Thomas Jefferson,
author of the Constitution of the State of Virginia and founder of the
University of Virginia, but he found himself as the embassador to France
at the crucial moment after the war and unable to participate.  Upon his
return he insisted that the political rights of the people be included in
the Constitution itself and so parts of the Virginia constitution were
adapted to become the Bill of Rights.  None of his amendments to the
system that concentrates decision-making and enforcement were allowed a
hearing.  His adamant opposition to the so-called copyright clause
resulted in the relatively minor concession that he be allowed to draft
the Act itself.  This Act was rewritten soon after his death with a broad
expansion of powers.)

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org