4 ms·

Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it! The average American sees the system producing bad results, a

Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it! The average American sees the system producing bad results, at some level people still worship the Constitution like a god when it says something they agree with, on an other level the system can feel like an exhausting and dispiriting legalistic hellscape. How bad the results we are getting is open to debate. People today seem to be really angry about inflation and cost of living issues although the official numbers don't look too terrible. There's the explanation that the numbers are wrong and the explanation that the perception is wrong. There's probably some truth in both, but more fundamentally people don't find centrist politics of any kind emotionally satisfying anywhere anymore but when you get emotionally satisfying politics you wake up with a hangover the next day. I think a lack of meaning is a part of it. If you're not really sure your citizenship is worth something or that you're part of something you're proud of, it's easy to get worked up about illegal immigration. If you don't have a sense of purpose, what is there to be concerned about than the price of eggs? Purposelessness turns the slightest irritation into an existential threat.

mothballed 10mo ago
It's not a question of whether the Constitution is legitimate. It's that it's the only plausible thing that authorizes our government to exist. If they aren't following the constitution then they're just a collection of people LARPing in costumes while initiating violence on others.
1718627440 10mo ago
> Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it! You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship, if you don't want a constitution to bind you. You can always ask another country whether they want you as a citizen, if you prefer their constitution. > emotionally satisfying Democracy is not supposed to be "emotionally satisfying", Democracy is boring. That's what makes it great. If you want "emotionally satisfying", than you have better lack with a monarchy, dictatorship or civil war.
- PaulHoule 10mo ago
  The problem with that is that disaffected people vote and politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying when the alternatives aren't. The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Until recently you would have thought right wingers only cared about the second amendment although in the last ten years they've discovered the first but in the garbled sense that Facebook owes you a megaphone (for "free as in beer") and Twitter is doing a crime if they don't give your posts maximum visiblity with all the other spam and scams.
  - 1718627440 10mo ago
    > politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying That is called populism and comes with a huge stigma for a reason. > The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Sure, a disagreement with what people think and what the constitution says is going to cause problems. Ultimately society is based on trust, once you loose that you have already lost some important part. The existence and growth of para-country organizations (e.g. FAANG) has certainly affected if not effected your current issue (and continues to do so for other countries in the world).
    - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
      Pedantry: the general term is emotivism, not populism. "intellectuals" (shorthand for the average HNer) are vulnerable to that, we just won't admit it. It's hard for trust to work beyond the Dunbar limit-- representative democracy is a jerry-rig-- but Swiss sidestep that with (a version of) direct democracy Update: since there's a false etymology that "jerry" comes from "German", may I suggest we stay below the line https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/the_term_is_gerryrigged_not_juryrigged_right/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/...
- aebtebeten 10mo ago
  > emotionally satisfying I think this is the basic issue: politics is about satisfying objective needs, in terms of allocating public goods and coordinating independent actors; it's not about satisfying emotional needs. The latter is better done by oneself, or at worst through one's kith or karass, and certainly not at the granfalloon levels at which politics operates.
_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
WTF are you talking about? We give consent to the status quo every year we don't make Constitutional amendments. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution I have lost 15 pounds in the last month because I have had to change my food habits due to price increases. It's healthy for me so far, but soon it won't be. People have been promised an immigration fix since Ronald Reagan gave millions of undocumented amnesty in the 1980s. This frustration isn't new, and people in the 1980s under the cold war were pretty avid supporters of the US system.
- PaulHoule 10mo ago
  "... every year we don't make Constitutional amendments" is kinda proof of the opposite, that the system is broken and no longer able to make constitutional amendments. The Constitution is legitimate in terms of itself, but if you want ask the question of why people don't take threats to our institution seriously the answer is that people don't actually believe in it. The people who run our institutions reject the idea that output legitimacy matters and they will lose our republic on account of that. ("how could we be held accountable for the results we get, we can't control that" is a Hillary Clinton line that she'll borrow trouble with, Trump will only use that line after it has all fallen apart)
  - cindyllm 10mo ago
    [dead]
  - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
    Gen Z in swing counties within swing states, for they are aware that the republic is not theirs, so paradoxically, it might be emotionally satisfying to lose it for the other gens ;)
  - _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
    Because we haven't flexed out power authority in forever doesn't mean we did have it, just that we were too apathetic to be willing to use it. We picked this route, and yet your response it 'but politicians did politician things'. Weak sauce. Politicians don't hold themselves responsible, we do. Or in the case of the USA for the last forever, we no longer do. If it's because the politicians convinced us we are powerless, or some other reason, it doesn't matter. WE CHOSE to give up our power.

mothballed 10mo ago

It's not a question of whether the Constitution is legitimate. It's that it's the only plausible thing that authorizes our government to exist. If they aren't following the constitution then they're just a collection of people LARPing in costumes while initiating violence on others.

1718627440 10mo ago

> Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it! You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship, if you don't want a constitution to bind you. You can always ask another country whether they want you as a citizen, if you prefer their constitution. > emotionally satisfying Democracy is not supposed to be "emotionally satisfying", Democracy is boring. That's what makes it great. If you want "emotionally satisfying", than you have better lack with a monarchy, dictatorship or civil war.

PaulHoule 10mo ago
The problem with that is that disaffected people vote and politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying when the alternatives aren't. The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Until recently you would have thought right wingers only cared about the second amendment although in the last ten years they've discovered the first but in the garbled sense that Facebook owes you a megaphone (for "free as in beer") and Twitter is doing a crime if they don't give your posts maximum visiblity with all the other spam and scams.
- 1718627440 10mo ago
  > politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying That is called populism and comes with a huge stigma for a reason. > The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Sure, a disagreement with what people think and what the constitution says is going to cause problems. Ultimately society is based on trust, once you loose that you have already lost some important part. The existence and growth of para-country organizations (e.g. FAANG) has certainly affected if not effected your current issue (and continues to do so for other countries in the world).
  - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
    Pedantry: the general term is emotivism, not populism. "intellectuals" (shorthand for the average HNer) are vulnerable to that, we just won't admit it. It's hard for trust to work beyond the Dunbar limit-- representative democracy is a jerry-rig-- but Swiss sidestep that with (a version of) direct democracy Update: since there's a false etymology that "jerry" comes from "German", may I suggest we stay below the line https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/the_term_is_gerryrigged_not_juryrigged_right/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/...
aebtebeten 10mo ago
> emotionally satisfying I think this is the basic issue: politics is about satisfying objective needs, in terms of allocating public goods and coordinating independent actors; it's not about satisfying emotional needs. The latter is better done by oneself, or at worst through one's kith or karass, and certainly not at the granfalloon levels at which politics operates.

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago

WTF are you talking about? We give consent to the status quo every year we don't make Constitutional amendments. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution I have lost 15 pounds in the last month because I have had to change my food habits due to price increases. It's healthy for me so far, but soon it won't be. People have been promised an immigration fix since Ronald Reagan gave millions of undocumented amnesty in the 1980s. This frustration isn't new, and people in the 1980s under the cold war were pretty avid supporters of the US system.

PaulHoule 10mo ago
"... every year we don't make Constitutional amendments" is kinda proof of the opposite, that the system is broken and no longer able to make constitutional amendments. The Constitution is legitimate in terms of itself, but if you want ask the question of why people don't take threats to our institution seriously the answer is that people don't actually believe in it. The people who run our institutions reject the idea that output legitimacy matters and they will lose our republic on account of that. ("how could we be held accountable for the results we get, we can't control that" is a Hillary Clinton line that she'll borrow trouble with, Trump will only use that line after it has all fallen apart)
- cindyllm 10mo ago
  [dead]
- gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
  Gen Z in swing counties within swing states, for they are aware that the republic is not theirs, so paradoxically, it might be emotionally satisfying to lose it for the other gens ;)
- _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
  Because we haven't flexed out power authority in forever doesn't mean we did have it, just that we were too apathetic to be willing to use it. We picked this route, and yet your response it 'but politicians did politician things'. Weak sauce. Politicians don't hold themselves responsible, we do. Or in the case of the USA for the last forever, we no longer do. If it's because the politicians convinced us we are powerless, or some other reason, it doesn't matter. WE CHOSE to give up our power.