4 ms·

I would argue too successfully. There are fundamental changes that could and should be made to the Constitution, especially in regards to climate change and inf

• ben_w 4y ago
  Climate change is too big for one nation, even a big nation, I'd say the de jure solution there is more a job for international treaties (while the de facto solution is making tech such that the right action is automatically desirable).
  • revscat 4y ago
    I think the idea of codifying the repair of the environment as a foundational legal concept to be an interesting one, and one arguably necessary to successfully combat the problem. Treaties tend to codify shared values between states; since almost all modern nations are capitalist, treaties tend to focus on trade and capital. Climate thus gets second tier status, which is the opposite of the ideal.
    • ben_w 4y ago
      I can sympathise with the argument, but economics (of which Adam Smith's capitalism; Karl Marx's communism; the original Liberalism, its successor Neoliberalism, and the Keynesian form between them, are all subsets) all pull in much the same direction with regard to the environment (i.e. valuing it mainly for what it can do and only protecting it when the cost of doing so is negligible, because the nations all compete with each other for power and influence under the constant threat of becoming irrelevant due to the growth of the others. Other than a single world government, or treaties with similar effect, I don't see how to achieve what I think we both agree would be a good outcome.