5 ms·

I used to be a great admirer of the US constitutional arrangements (even though I'm not an US citizen and I've never been to the States), in fact I have a paper

I used to be a great admirer of the US constitutional arrangements (even though I'm not an US citizen and I've never been to the States), in fact I have a paperback edition of the "Federalist Papers" on the bookshelves that sit just behind me as I'm writing this comment, but lately I've come to see things in a very different manner. More exactly, I've come to realise that a legal/constitutional arrangement that supports actual human slavery for 70-80 years after having been put in place is maybe not that great to begin with, and I've also come to realise that one of main reasons for its "PR success" during the last two centuries was the fact that the US as a country got to be economically (and then militarily) successful. It is a perfect example of "might makes right" (in this case economic might). As a (failed) counter-example the legal system of Haiti from the late 1790s-early 1800s was a lot more "illuministic" and "human friendly" but because Haiti failed economically (and then politically) as a state all that didn't matter in the end.

supernova87a 6y ago
Well, I sympathize with that sentiment, and it's a valid criticism that such a system tolerated an evil for so long. However, slavery was a much greater evil than just one country or one actor, and it ran large parts of society and was accepted or overlooked by many people across many countries for a long period. How is a system to deal with something that many, many people are ok with at the time but some people recognize is not fair / immoral? What should a government system be set up to do to check / repudiate that? Something that many people are willing (mistakenly) to accept as normal? And, did our system do the best that could have been done (and compared to others) to fix it? And what does that system mean for other, but different, problems that may come along? No one said it was perfect, and certainly no system has handled every issue perfectly, far from it. The question is what should you set up as the general system that can operate and handle problems with long-run good outcomes. If a society had rapidly course corrected and fixed that problem, what would it mean for future things it rapidly course corrected and also fixed? Maybe not in a way that was good? I may dare ask, how did your country fare by that measure? Did it tolerate slavery, and for how long? Did it accept or deal in the profits of slavery or other exploitation, or overlook it? Does it do so now, for other issues? We're just talking in political theory, right? Sitting on our ends of the internet, theorizing. Let's talk about it. What system is better?
MockObject 6y ago
> More exactly, I've come to realise that a legal/constitutional arrangement that supports actual human slavery for 70-80 years after having been put in place is maybe not that great to begin with The alternative would have been forming the United States without the southern states, because they would never have agreed to join. Then the Americas would presumably have been too weak to win the War of 1812.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  To be fair, the british had plenty of other things on their plate in 1812 (consider Tchaikovsky). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent#Background
s1artibartfast 6y ago
>More exactly, I've come to realise that a legal/constitutional arrangement that supports actual human slavery for 70-80 years after having been put in place is maybe not that great to begin with, and I've also come to realise that one of main reasons for its "PR success" during the last two centuries was the fact that the US as a country got to be economically (and then militarily) successful. Constitutional modifications can be painfully slow for those on the receiving end of injustice, but I’m not sure what the alternative is or if it is better. Would a living constitutional philosophy or activist judiciary ended the practice earlier?
mensetmanusman 6y ago
A horrible system with tens of thousands of years of inertia might be expected to take some time to stop. It’s interesting to contemplate that there are more slaves today in the world than at any time. Why is that true? https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/slaves-time-human-history-article-1.3506975 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/slaves-time-human-his...

supernova87a 6y ago

Well, I sympathize with that sentiment, and it's a valid criticism that such a system tolerated an evil for so long. However, slavery was a much greater evil than just one country or one actor, and it ran large parts of society and was accepted or overlooked by many people across many countries for a long period. How is a system to deal with something that many, many people are ok with at the time but some people recognize is not fair / immoral? What should a government system be set up to do to check / repudiate that? Something that many people are willing (mistakenly) to accept as normal? And, did our system do the best that could have been done (and compared to others) to fix it? And what does that system mean for other, but different, problems that may come along? No one said it was perfect, and certainly no system has handled every issue perfectly, far from it. The question is what should you set up as the general system that can operate and handle problems with long-run good outcomes. If a society had rapidly course corrected and fixed that problem, what would it mean for future things it rapidly course corrected and also fixed? Maybe not in a way that was good? I may dare ask, how did your country fare by that measure? Did it tolerate slavery, and for how long? Did it accept or deal in the profits of slavery or other exploitation, or overlook it? Does it do so now, for other issues? We're just talking in political theory, right? Sitting on our ends of the internet, theorizing. Let's talk about it. What system is better?

MockObject 6y ago

> More exactly, I've come to realise that a legal/constitutional arrangement that supports actual human slavery for 70-80 years after having been put in place is maybe not that great to begin with The alternative would have been forming the United States without the southern states, because they would never have agreed to join. Then the Americas would presumably have been too weak to win the War of 1812.

082349872349872 6y ago
To be fair, the british had plenty of other things on their plate in 1812 (consider Tchaikovsky). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent#Background

s1artibartfast 6y ago

>More exactly, I've come to realise that a legal/constitutional arrangement that supports actual human slavery for 70-80 years after having been put in place is maybe not that great to begin with, and I've also come to realise that one of main reasons for its "PR success" during the last two centuries was the fact that the US as a country got to be economically (and then militarily) successful. Constitutional modifications can be painfully slow for those on the receiving end of injustice, but I’m not sure what the alternative is or if it is better. Would a living constitutional philosophy or activist judiciary ended the practice earlier?

mensetmanusman 6y ago

A horrible system with tens of thousands of years of inertia might be expected to take some time to stop. It’s interesting to contemplate that there are more slaves today in the world than at any time. Why is that true? https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/slaves-time-human-history-article-1.3506975 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/slaves-time-human-his...