So...

[Occhidiangela]

There are so many built in assumptions, so many fallacies, and so many half truths and untruths in that statement that I am almost at a loss to find a place to start. Perhaps we should examine some terms first.

I suppose I started in the middle. To start in the beginning, you have to choose whether or not "government" is the preferred model of enforcing a set of norms that social groups of increasing complexity and size use to guide their varied and myriad of interactions. My semi humorous comment that Italians in Italy use government for entertainment rests on a "truth" that I observed: they don't need to be told how to "be Italian." :) It appears that perhaps Americans, or some Americans, "need" to be told how to be American, most often by some of their fellow citizens. More on that under "social conflict." :o Reason why? Mismatched sets of norms. Some modes of social behaviour are incompatible. (Recently saw two of my neighbors get into a heated exchange at a BBQ on, of all things, circumcision!) To answer one of your later comments, the agreed level to which we leave each other alone to get on with our lives differs greatly, a habit that seems not to have changed since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. I'd suggest that is due to much of politics "being local."

Back to models of government. By taking the position that rich families (ancien regime model) is a broken model for a system of government, a different idea was adopted. I assume that, when you get past the Village level, or the parish level in a theocratic structure, the need for something bigger, or rather, something to handle things as they and the group get bigger, is a given. The evolution into a global commune where people intuitively act out or are moved to pure equality and "fairness" in their dealings with one another seems a Utopia unachievable by imperfect human beings. Like a helicopter, it, human society, has too many moving parts. So, they rub on one another and create friction.

Anarchy, the absence of government seems a poor choice, since once in contact people or groups of people, absent identical moral principles and patterns of behaviour, will come into confict. They may do so even with identical sets of norms. Some form of government or framework seems necessary to reduce, or ritualize, the methods of conflict resolution and prevention.

Democracy has been called "the ultimate tyranny". In many ways that is true. A true democracy with no rule but majority rule is indeed "the tyranny of the mob". Unlike a government where an individual wields total power, there is no hope of replacing the leader through death, through revolution, through any means. Unpopular opinions become illegal actions. In a complete democracy, there is little room for any but the sheep. While there never has been a complete democracy, that of some of the city states of ancient Greece comes closest, with Athens probably leading the way. And even in that state, one could be executed for being unpopular -- just ask Socrates.

Until we start turning out identical clones and raising them to all think identically, I see the tension of differeing individual preferences as being an eternal source of social conflict. The question is, what forms of "norming" meet the "good enough" test? None will meet the "it is perfect" test. Democracy approaches "good enough" to a certain level, even though it leaves some folks dissatisfied per your observation above. As the groups get larger, the chaotic nature of pure democracy could be easily assumed to make it an impractical form simply due to the geometrically expanding number of conflicting opinions or preferences. More moving parts.

A republic likewise can meet a "good enough" standard, but like a democracy will always leave someone unhappy, at least in the short term: whichever party or faction's preferences are least supported. Seeking the perfect through theoretical absolutes is chasing a chimera.

That journey toward 'the perfect' now and again bears fruit, to include the final abolition of slavery, and the changes to suffrage. Our republic's framework presented an agreed on mechanism for improvement, the ammendment process. Your comment on voting ends with the agreed amendments on suffrage, first "universal for male' and then the inclusion of women. I suggest that the change in that direction is consistent with the Founders' intent, and we appear to agree on that element of the framework as being a strength.

But that still leaves us with a condition of continual social conflict, unless universally agreed upon mores are enacted as law and bought into by the vast majority, or even a unanimity, of the population. So far, murder is a universally condemned behaviour. I can't say the same for theft, and most definitely not for adultery or infidelity.

As the founding fathers of the USA learned, one way to avoid those pitfalls is to establish the government on a constitution. In many ways, the concept of a constitution and what it says is more important than that of democracy per se. While the parts of the constitution that define the structure of the government is important, more important than that are the limitations on what government can do. In many constitutions (both of the states in the USA and of other countries) the limitations of the government, the rights of the individuals, is contained in a bill of rights. In the case of the US Constitution, it required a separate Bill of Rights.

We are in accord.

The underlying, important assumption is that the we have the freedom of individual choice in matters that do not impinge on the security of the nation.

I would lower the threshold there to say "the security of the community" by extending your comment to the State Constitutions, the various city charters, and all of the lesser articles and acts that codify the agreed boundaries of individual liberty vis a vis "everyone else." The security of each State, I would argue, was just as important to the Founders as the security of the Nation. To some, perhaps moreso. Which brings us back to part of this topic's present discussion about "what law and which state and full faith." Bone's and other comments are germane.

I agree with what I think you are saying, which is that individual sovereignty needs to be stretched as far as it can practically go, the limit being where it infringes on either "the security of the community at large" (toxic dumping into the local water supply, for example, should be taboo) or on the similar sovereignty of "everyone else." Absent groupthink, the disagreement on where that limit lies is and will be continuous. The between consenting adults proviso is not, for all the press it gets, yet universaly agreed. (Hef, bless his heart, did what he could to promote that theme.) I'd say it's more agreed now, though, than when I was a teen.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers considered the right not to be forced to shelter soldiers in our homes (except to in times of war) worthy of specific mention (while religion, assembly, the press, speech, and petition are all crammed into one Amendment, indeed, in one sentence) more important than the right to freedom for anyone other than white Anglo-Saxon non-Catholic (except in Maryland) christian land owning heterosexual males. Anything else was either directly discriminated against or ignored as being too insignificant (e.g, women) to mention.

Closest wolf at the door syndrome. Lack of unanimity left slavery to be resolved later via social and then armed conflict.

The greatness of our nation is based on the ability we have shown over the generations to extend the freedoms to those who were overlooked or intentionally denied by the founding fathers.

The ability to go beyond their limitations, their biases and prejudices so fundamental that they didn't even recognize them. The ability to find a place of legal equality (and, sometimes even actual equality) for many. Hopefully, eventually for all. And each time someone said, "I'm human, too" there were those who replied "Not in my eyes". Fortunately, those with the greater vision prevailed till now.[/quote]

I can't say I agree that now is any different from any other time, in paticular as I have seen, in my lifetime, an extension of the 18th -20th century overt, ideological attacks on Christianity cross the pond from Europe to America. The assault on the family farm continues. (I have watched the same social attacks on the white male materialize during my generation, as well as the attempts here and there to substitute The State for The Father. Whether all or some of it is deserved, or even a matter of self-inflicted wounds, is a topic for another time.) The greater vision you refer to is heavily driven by individual point of view and perceptions of how best to "share" power. De Tocqueville's commentary on how religious Americans were in a general seems as apt now as it did then, but of course in a different sense. (I wonder at how he would have commented on the proliferation of ever smaller splinter sects, for example.) Gandalf's comment to Saruman about how hard it is to "share power" strike me as entirely apropos. Social power. Power to have the world ordered to fit one's idea of "what is best." The present topic cannot, it seems, extricate itself from religion . . . at least not yet. Why? I suggest the answer to that lies on how religious norms impact the base of common cultural assumptions.

Here I arrive again at common cultural assumptions. (I know I use that term alot. It was driven home very forcefully to me when I lived in Japan.) While America could grow without significant interference across a continent, which it did for a century and a half, a lot of conflict could be resolved via "flight" rather than "fight." Joseph Smith, anyont? (Slavery was not, of course, one of them.) Those who "got along well enough" under the predominant agreed norms could do so, but that is not to say that all "got along perfectly." An ancestor of mine was the target of such witty signs outside of pubs in New York as "no dogs or Irishmen allowed." Rather than rely on draconian social changes, some folks adapted, perservered, and overcame. They also assimilated because, I think, the predominant cultural assumptions were "close enough" to their own. Good enough, not perfect. Others could run but not hide, the Chinese or blacks for example, simply due to standing out visually. It seems that the past few decades of emergence from "the closet" has put some in the gay community in a similar position. Tired of "flight," they are taking up "fight."

Our present state of play strikes me as more akin to the problems addressed by Boyle's and Charles' law, with our social body feeling a pressure build up. The "flight" option is decreasing, so people are turning more frequently to the "fight" option, whether the means are behavioural, financial, via use of a deadly social weapon (lawyers) or via armed force. (Young McVeigh and some of his militia peers.)

And that takes us full circle back on topic.

Yes and no. The measurement of "just" and "fair" is subjective. The matter of laws that do not require unanimity to pass and be sustained will always leave some parties unsatisfied, as will the matter of sloppy or unequal enforcement, or non enforcement, of various "agreed norms" in the form of statutes.

The strength and a weakness of our republican form is that not a single law on our books is "written in stone." They are all subject to change via referendum or amendment. The challenge to crap enforcement of some laws, Dr King's efforts, built a foundation for change. It strikes me that the overt challenge to the California statute may have a similar outcome, or, it may not. Dr King's work was built on "common moral principles." I am not sure that the current challenge has as strong a foundation. Crystal ball is murky.

Spooky thought, now that I think of the opener to that last paragraph. Conceivably, though I'll resort to arms against it in my lifetime, slavery could again be made legal and Prohibition could be re enacted. Come to think of it, I'd resort to arms on that second score as well, just with considerably less fervor than the former.

Fight or flight. A battle has been joined, and is so far close to compliance with Marquis de Queensbury rules.

I can't see how or where to bet this one, so I will place my bets on a different table.