Kevin Baker's done it again
The near-endless debate over the dreadful State of our national Union has inspired the man to point out an assumption that underlies contentions put forth to advance even the most diametric of political positions. In summary, there is a widespread belief that a "return to Constitutional fundamentals" will somehow eradicate all the current plague of societal woes that beset us. This prescription is often prompted by opinions like the one Kevin notes being publicly aired.
Drawing from the same Billy Beck post as Kevin did allows me to summarize the contention of our age:
Here is the central problem surrounding what you people are talking about:
There is no coherent and cohesive philosophy underpinning it. Everybody's pissed off, but you all have your varying degrees of what you'll settle for.
Everybodys certain they know a better way, but nobodys agreed as to "What" or "How", let alone "Why", to achieve the assumed state of grace. The basic conflict of assumptions extends in both directions of history as well.
Leaving Mr. Beck's actual position to his own able advance, I wish to alter the field of conflict by injecting our potentiality into the equation being cyphered.
In the present iteration examined by Kevin, much is made of distinctual differentiations in the race to Armageddon by the contenders du jure. Instead, I suggest that our steady advancement of technological mastery will provide us with the mechanism to exceed our historical aggregation of limitations.
Liberty is defined as:
n. pl. lib·er·ties
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
The open source nature of technology like the RepRap Project promises the means of rapid prototyping technology to anyone willing to make the effort to duplicate the mechanism from the freely provided instructions. This project is explicitly intended to serve as an introductory format for eventual nanoscale manufacturing at the individual consumer level of the economy. I suggest that the ramifications resulting from such an occurrence (in the next decade and a half, I predict) will do much to alleviate the impositions on personal liberty that have accumulated over the preceding two centuries of constitutional tampering and manipulation. The potential suggested in this and other near-future technological achievements makes it plain to me that the better application of our present energies ought to be toward minimizing efforts to inhibit our realising those advancements. Through them we can achieve the terms and objectives set forth by the nation's founders two centuries and more ago and simply supersede the intervening restraints to our natural condition.
The Endarkenment will always remain to tempt us, regardless. Revolutions are enacted by a relatively tiny minority of a given population, so it is indeed true that "(the) 3% can drag - perhaps kicking and screaming, but drag - a significant (and, more importanty, sufficient) portion of the population into the fray". Although, I would seriously recommend close examination of the conflicted motivation and support influencing the "significant portion" thereafter. They may indeed hold their place in the line of resistance, but they'll do so with a baleful eye in the 3%'s direction, I'll warrant. Then we'll see for whom how glorious the Coming Day proves to be.
Since it seems a swim to the bottom of history's compost pile remains an ever-present option, why not concentrate our efforts towards some alternative outcome instead? With the right technology development, and a portion of perseverance on our part, the damn horse very well might sing after all.