http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/2/2/14302/91040

After the US war of terror began. the FBI stated that anyone speaking against US foreign policy was assumed to be doing so at the behest of a foreign power, therefore subject to treason laws. I am not aware of them enforcing this, and I strongly suspect that they had to back away from this stance since political speech has been upheld by the courts to be protected. Still this goes to show how weak the first ammendment is in the US. As a practical consideration I am fairly careful about what I say in the states so as to avoid becoming yet another victim of the government.

I understand the appeal of a constitution, but it is an ideal which requires fundamental changes in human nature, more so than liberty does, and so it at best a utopian dream. Power corrupts, and consolidating power into government increases the corruption and the thrill of using that power. There is no way to avoid this. That said, if there were a way to ensure individual rights I’d be all for it, but government has failed miserably not merely in principle but in practice, including a constitutional republic as seen in the US.

I don’t to come off as completely negative here, for certainly protection from mob rule can be a positive step, as mob rule is always a negative thing.

Anyway, I think that the Constitution was still a good thing, and you guys in the States would certainly be much better off if it was respected by governments. How often is the 1st Amendment ignored? (and, yes, I know it wasn’t part of the original Constitution)

As to the rest… I know you believe in anarchy, you’ve said so yourself several times. Me, I think most of humanity is too irresponsible for that. I’d prefer a libertarian government that protected my individual rights, but in everything else left me alone.

Actually, here in Portugal the government does so little that I’d guess I’m better off… though they’re certainly far from “libertarian”. They’re mostly social-democratic, but too lazy to be a problem, most of the time.

At the time the people were enjoying their freedom and were not going to easily give over to another strong state and the federalists knew it so they spun much of the rhetoric we hear today about the US Constitution protecting freedom when in fact they were using it to protect the state. Still, had it been abided by, rather than destroyed by the likes of Lincoln, FDR, and those who came after, it would have provided some small bit of protection of the individual because of the efforts of the anti-federalists Bill of Rights. Sadly today in the US the Constitution is a trivial historical fact not worth the paper on which it was written, paper which itself is illegal…

The thing is, constitutions weren’t created by a majority either.

Take the US Constitution, for instance. The Founding Fathers were much more educated than the average American (or ex-colonist) at the time. If, instead of writing them, all the points were voted on by everyone, the result would probably have been a lot worse, since people would try to put their personal bigotries into it… and a lot of people are bigoted. That constitution was a work of genius… and not everyone is one.

It may seem that I’m advocating elitism or something like that. But that’s not really my point. My point is that there must be something above the “will of the people”, something that prevents every single person but one from deciding that they’ll “sacrifice” that one to their interests. That “something” is individual rights, and rational principles. Sometimes, they’re the only thing protecting a minority - and, as Ayn Rand said, the smallest minority is the individual - from mob rule.

UK

Mostly by the will of the new Emir, Kuwaiti women voted and stood for elections for the first time this year. What’s been holding them back for this long?

The majority vote.