[ExI] new covid case rates

[William Flynn Wallace]

Dan, you make it sound like the Supreme Court is a useless institution.
Bill W

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:35 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Apr 7, 2021, at 11:03 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat
>
> *>…*This would be exactly the same if the constitution you worship…
>
>
>
> Wording it like this almost makes it sound like you don’t worship the
> constitution.
>
>
> I’ve made my position clear here over the years. You rarely directly
> respond when I critique the ‘awe of constitution’ line.
>
> It is the only thing standing between us and complete tyranny.  It is the
> only thing keeping government in check.
>
>
> No, it isn’t. What keeps tyranny in check anywhere is not a piece of
> paper. It’s a wider cultural norms in society (or people acting on those
> norms) and various factions in the ruling class vying against each other.
> At best, a constitution either reflects that wider culture and the power
> dynamics (think of why the mostly unwritten English constitution worked to
> some extent: wider culture and it reflected the the vying between commons,
> aristocrats, and royals — a rivalry already in place not one created by
> some committee). When it doesn’t reflect that then it doesn’t matter... Or
> as Lysander Spooner put it:
>
> ‘But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much
> is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have
> had, or has been powerless to prevent it.’
>
> Still not convinced. The US Constitution did little to restrain taking
> land from indigenous people. It was simply ignored. The same document did
> not restrain the Federalist Party when it decided to abrogate free speech.
> It wasn’t until the Federalists were out of power that their anti-speech
> laws were rescinded. If you fantasy version of reality worked, the Cherokee
> might still be living in the Southeast and the Federalists would’ve never
> passed the Sedition Act much less would anyone have been jailed or fined
> under it.
>
> >… some people would simply not comply and many of them would face little
> penalty for compliance even if, say, said amendment mandates the severe
> penalties for noncompliance…
>
>
>
> The legislature wouldn’t even bother trying to get 38 states to play along
> with creating such an amendment.  Without a law, there can be no penalty
> for non-compliance.  Without legislatures passing it, there is no law.
> Perhaps it will eventually dawn on the politicians that covid is not
> effectively controlled with law, it is effectively controlled by medical
> science.  It is not a good opportunity to seize additional power, is not a
> crisis going to waste, it is only a crisis.
>
>
> Let’s try this again. There are speed limits, right? Even were there a
> national speed limit enshrined in a constitutional amendment, do you
> seriously believe that everyone would suddenly follow the speed limit at
> all times never ever going over when, say, they felt they could get away
> with it? If you seriously do, then I’m sorry I’ll exit this particular
> discussion because I’m needed back on Earth. ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210407/0d41891d/attachment.htm>