On many Internet
sites that provide information, there is an area provided for the readers to
comment on the article, whatever it may be. Some of these commenters know what
they are talking about, but the majority are clearly ignorant about even the
most basic concepts and facts. Most of the "discussions" devolve into
a name-calling contest and those with the most stamina eventually declare
themselves "the winner" after everyone else has given up and gone to
bed.
Ignorance Can Be Cured
Merriam-Webster defines "ignorance" as "lack
of knowledge." The corollary of this is that ignorance can be cured by
acquiring said knowledge. With the advent of the Internet and smartphones,
there is a plethora of information available to nearly everyone twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, year-in and year-out. However, information is
only data. It must be interpreted and understood before it becomes knowledge.
When I was growing up, there were certain facts that
everyone knew. There were seven colors in the rainbow, there were nine planets
in the Solar System, and the Universe was expanding at an ever-decreasing rate.
Now I know that there are only six colors in the rainbow, there are only eight
planets, and the Universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate. Nothing has
changed about the rainbow, the planets, or the Universe, but opinion and
astrophysics itself has changed its collective minds. The facts are immutable,
but knowledge is not (unfortunately).
If you read or see something on the Internet, you may
well accept it as "true" data and adopt this information as
knowledge. Or you may regard it as "false" information and choose to
ignore it. But how do you tell the "true" information from the "false"
information? If there was a simple answer to this question, P.T. Barnum would
have never been able to make a living.
We learn about reality in two basic ways. The first is
through personal experience where we convince ourselves that a stove is hot and
that we always fall down and not up. The only other way we learn is from others
who share their knowledge with us. However, what they choose to present and how
they present it, doesn't necessarily give us "true" knowledge, but
simply their own interpretation of the facts as we currently know them. Not the
truth, but their opinion.
There is a somewhat uneven sci-fi parody of Star Trek
called "The Orville." In an episode titled "Majority Rule,"
the Orville is investigating an unknown planetary society where everyone votes
up or down on everything using their ubiquitous smartphones and badges. During
a discussion with Lysella, one of the inhabitants of this society, an
observation by the Spock-like Isaac says it best:
Captain Mercer: "So
this is an absolute democracy?"
Lysella: "Yes.
How does your world work?"
Captain Mercer: "We
select representatives who discuss issues and enact laws."
Lysella: "But
... what about everybody else? Everybody deserves a voice. That's what we're
taught."
Lieutenant Commander Bortus: "A voice should be earned ... not given away."
Captain Mercer: "How
do you know what foods are healthiest for your children or what medicine to
take if you're sick?"
Lysella: "We
vote."
Isaac: "I
believe you are confusing opinion with knowledge."
The belief that the "wisdom of the crowd" is
superior to a few knowledgeable individuals is, of course, the commonly-held
opinion of the crowd itself. Unfortunately, the majority of us are ignorant and
don't even know it. Fortunately, all we have to do to cure our ignorance is to Read
The Fucking Manual (RTFM). Whatever media we choose to learn from, we are
constantly told what something means. One source may say one thing about it
while another says the exact opposite. They can't both be right, can they? So,
who do you believe?
A long time ago, along the side of a dusty road in India,
sat six blind beggars. They would wait patiently until they heard someone
approaching and then they would lift up their bowls with their pleas for alms.
One day, they heard something different coming along. In addition to hearing
the thudding steps of some great beast, they could feel the ground shake
slightly beneath them.
"Who goes there?" asked one of the beggars.
"I am Paji," came the answer.
"What is that great beast that we can hear breathing
before us?" asked another.
"That is an elephant," replied Paji. "I am
its mahout."
"An elephant?" asked the first blind man.
"Yes," he answered. "I am taking it to its
new owner."
"We've never heard of an elephant before," said
the second beggar. "As you can see, we are all blind. Would you mind if we
came forward and ran our hands over this elephant?"
"Yes," added another. "That way we can
better understand what this creature is truly like."
"Not at all," smiled Paji. "He's about
three steps in front of you."
The six beggars carefully placed their bowls behind them
and stood up. Holding out their arms, they slowly approached the elephant.
The first blind man encountered the trunk of the
elephant. As it squirmed in his grasp, he thought to himself, "It feels like a snake! An elephant is just
like a snake!"
The second blind man found the tusk of the elephant and
ran his hands down its smoothness. At the tip, he tested the point and pricked
his thumb. "It's just like a spear!"
he thought. "An elephant is like a
spear!"
The third blind man reached out and grabbed the ear of
the elephant. As it waved to-and-fro, he felt the breeze from it and thought,
"This elephant is like a giant leaf
or fan!"
The fourth beggar touched the side of the elephant. As he
ran his hands up and down and left and right he could easily tell that it was
like a wall.
The fifth blind man reached the hind leg of the elephant.
As he ran his hands up and down the leg and then placed his arms around it, he
thought, "This is just like a tree!
An elephant is nothing more than a tree!"
The last of the beggars touched the tail and grasped it
firmly in his hands. Feeling along its length, he knew that it was simply a
rope. "An elephant is like a rope!"
he grinned, knowingly.
They thanked the man and carefully retreated, feeling for
their bowls. After a bit, they were once more rearranged along the side of the
road and began to discuss the marvelous beast that each of them had just felt.
"It was like a snake!" said the first.
"No, it wasn't!" exclaimed the second. "It
was like a spear, I tell you!"
The third laughed, "You're both wrong. It was a giant
leaf-like fan!"
"The three of you are daft from the sun,"
disagreed the fourth. "I reached out in every direction and it was the
same. No, an elephant is big and flat like a wall."
The fifth shook his head, "You need to stay away
from the soma. That elephant was like a tree trunk. I put my arms halfway
around it."
"You're all wrong," insisted the sixth.
"It was a rope. How could you mistake a rope for a tree or a wall?"
Until their dying days, the six beggars argued over what
an elephant looked like. Each of them had "seen" for themselves what
it was like. Each of them knew that they were right and that the other five
were clearly wrong.
If you want to believe that an elephant is a tree, you'll
find people who agree with you and will go into great detail describing the
tree. You'll also find a lot of people who keep insisting that it's a snake. Or
a wall. But you don't believe them because you already want it to be like a
tree. You don't really want to know a fact, you want your opinion to be the
fact instead. That is because we are not rational animals, but animals that can
rationalize.
RTFM
This Is an Elephant:
This rendering of an elephant is provided on the
off-chance that some of you may not know what one looks like. Like the elephant
in the fable above, the Constitution appears to be many different things to
many different people. People that are as blind with ignorance as were the
sightless beggars of yore. The intent of this publication is to try and open
your eyes and see the Constitution for what it really is (and what it is not).
While what follows is admittedly my own opinion, I would suggest that you find
your own copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself. Don't let anyone
tell you what it means, RTFM and make up your own mind directly from the
source.
Most of us are familiar with something called the End
User's License Agreement, or, more familiarly, the EULA. Most of us have also
never read one. We just click on something to acknowledge that we've accepted
the terms and we can move on to more important things. Although we've all heard
the sage advice, "Never sign something you haven't read and fully
understand," how many of us simply initial where indicated and sign and
date something? And, how many of us have later learned that there were certain
caveats buried in the fine print?
Say it again: "Never sign something you haven't read
and fully understand."
About twenty-five years ago, it was common practice to
sell software on CDs. They came in a little square envelope with a holographic
seal across the flap. Underneath, it said, "By breaking this seal, you
agree to be bound by the terms of the EULA contained on the enclosed CD."
How could you read the EULA to decide if you wanted to accept it or not without
breaking the seal and reading the CD? By any analysis, this is clearly an illogical
concept, but legally enforceable, as it turns out.
If you were born in the United States, then
Congratulations! You are now a U.S. citizen and have broken the seal on the
EULA thereby indicating your acceptance of its terms. As a citizen of the
United States, you are now bound by the conditions in a contract that
originated in 1789 and exists today to define the duties and obligations of all
parties. This contract with its implicit EULA is, of course, the Constitution
of the United States. Whether you know it or not, you are bound by its terms,
even though you never had any say in the matter. In hindsight, since you've
already signed this agreement, shouldn't you at least read it and try to
understand it?
If you were not born in the United States, but
have completed the naturalization process, then Congratulations! You are now a
U.S. citizen and have willingly accepted the EULA in return for your
citizenship. Unlike those who are born here, you had a choice in the matter. If
you didn't fully understand the contract when you signed up, perhaps it's time
to do so.
It's important to understand that the United States
Constitution is a legally binding contract that spells out the rights of the
citizens and the limitations of their government. If you are a visitor to the
United States, you are not a part of this social contract, but you are governed
by its laws, nonetheless. As the old adage says: "When in Rome, do as the
Romans do."
Whether you are a citizen or not, we are all governed by the
byzantine layers of laws that exist from Washington, D.C., down to the various
states and principalities and eventually down to the county and city levels.
"We are a nation of laws" is often used to describe this collective
assembly of do's and don'ts, and all of them are ultimately governed by the
terms of the Constitution. This is why it is sometimes referred to as The
Supreme Law of the Land.
One of the implicit duties of the visitors and citizens of
the United States is to obey the laws as they exist. Failure to do so may result
in some form of punishment and/or incarceration (or possibly even death). When
more people than not ignore the laws they don't like, then the "Nation of
Laws" becomes the "Nation of Outlaws." Laws were not made to be
broken, they were made to be obeyed or changed. It is this ability of the
citizens to make changes to the laws that distinguishes the Constitution from
other forms of government.
While the Constitution was originally ratified in 1789,
it has been changed many times since then (twenty-seven times, as of this
writing). When enough of the citizens decide that something has to change, it
can be amended to say something else entirely. This is by design. The people
that wrote the original document argued for years over its wording, but were
honest enough to admit that their best effort might need to be modified from
time to time.
The Founding Fathers believed that people would actually
read what they wrote and understand it. That they would see the beauty of its
construct and understand how it protects them from their own government. How
the government serves at the pleasure of the citizens and not the other way
around. That the citizens would obey the laws because they created them and
that they would change them if they disagreed with them. That each citizen
would have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness while
protecting their neighbor's right to the same.
Unfortunately, for all of us, they grossly underestimated
the ignorance of our society some ten generations later.
The legal concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse
has always been rather unfortunate, in my opinion. I don't think that anyone
knows all of the laws that are on the books. If you accidently violate one,
it's quite possible that even the most diligent citizens amongst us can unknowingly
transgress in some fashion.
Merriam-Webster defines "ignorance" as "lack
of knowledge." The corollary of this is that ignorance can be cured by
acquiring said knowledge. Whatever country you happen to visit, it's important
to know the laws of the land or you might find yourself being stoned to death
for smiling at a girl on the sidewalk. In America, this means understanding
(having knowledge of) the Constitution and whatever derivative laws might apply
to your locale. Once informed, you will no longer be ignorant of the law and
you won't need an excuse when you choose to disobey it.
The Constitution looks complicated, but it's actually fairly
simple if you understand why it was created in the first place. For thousands
of years, geographic groups of people have lived under one form of government
or another. From the small tribal model with a chieftain in charge, to large
territories ruled by a king and his military, people have existed in various
states of mind and body. Some of these arrangements have been more successful
than others. Some of them have been disastrous for the people involved.
Regardless of your feelings for America, if you are a U.S. citizen, then you
are bound by the EULA whether you like it or not.
The phrase, "Can't we all just get along?" is a
misquote from 1992 when Rodney King implored everyone, "[C]an we all get
along? Can we, can we get along?" However, its sentiment was well-known in
the eighteenth century (i.e., the 1700s) and it was the basis for the
Constitution as the Founding Fathers worked out a framework in which everyone
could, in fact, get along.
By 1776, countless regimes had risen and fallen since the
founding of Eridu in 5,300 BC. Almost all of them were rebellions from within
and simply rearranged the same players into the new social order. The Colonies
of the Americas was one of the exceptions. As North, Central, and South America
became more settled by waves of immigrants, they were ruled by the various
countries that laid claim to the different areas. In 1776 North America, these
were primarily France, Spain, Great Britain, and Russia. The original thirteen
colonies (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York,
North Carolina, and Rhode Island) were all under British rule at the time.
Being ruled by a country that was 3,500 miles and
six-weeks' journey away was not an efficient management structure. Whatever
emergency you might have, it would take six weeks to send for help and six more
weeks for it to arrive. Being self-sufficient was notably critical to the
survival of the colonies. Each under separate rule by families or governors
appointed by the King of England, the people living there learned to go along
in order to get along. By 1776, they had finally figured out that they could
actually thrive a lot better if they didn't have to send the bulk of their labors
off to England.
According to the laws of the Crown, they had nothing to
complain about. After all, it was through the grace of King George III that
they were even allowed to exist in the first place. However, that didn't stop
them from complaining. And, even more importantly, they realized that if they
somehow got rid of the British rule, they would have to replace it with
something else. Something that was fair to everyone. Something that would let
all of us get along.
Most folks today believe that we are each a lot smarter
than the Founding Fathers would ever be. They knew so little and we know so
much. But smarter? Not so. We are just less ignorant due to some additional
knowledge. By 1776, the major philosophers over the previous twenty-five
hundred years had explored almost every possible arrangement of the human
condition. In order to replace the British law of the land with one of their
own, they had to first come up with a good reason to disobey the King and start
their own country. This, of course, was the purpose of the Declaration of
Independence.
Many people seem to get the words in the Declaration
confused with the words of the Constitution. The former has no legal relevance
today and the latter governs our very existence. This is an important
distinction since the Declaration based its logic on the existence of a Creator
(or God) that trumped whatever human laws King George might think up. Passed
unanimously by representatives from all thirteen colonies, it declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Often called "the most potent and consequential
words in American history," this was the basis to tell the King that they
were declaring their independence from the Crown and forming their own Union.
Even the Church of England herself would have to concede that God was above the
King in the grand order of things. But, as we all know, the King disagreed with
this logic and replied with his army and his warships instead.
It's worth noting that, unlike the Declaration, the
Constitution makes no mention of God or a Creator whatsoever. And, as we shall
see, it goes out of its way to avoid the topic altogether. The phrase,
"and the pursuit of Happiness," includes the right to worship as you
see fit—or not worship at all, for that matter.
The thirteen colonies realized, that in order to successfully
fight a war against King George, they would need to collectively cooperate
within a framework that united the colonies as one. To do so, each colony
amended their charter into a state constitution that incorporated their duties to
the Continental Association. This assemblage first met on September 5, 1774, to
formally protest their treatment by the Crown. This first meeting became known
as the First Continental Congress.
On May 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress met to
prepare for war with Britain. On June 14, 1775, the Congress created the
Continental Army and placed George Washington in charge of the war effort. It
was the Second Continental Congress that officially declared their independence
a year later.
On November 15, 1777, this same Congress proposed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual
Union which was sent to the thirteen States for ratification. On March 1,
1781, it became the first Constitution of The
United States of America (as declared in Article I). It allowed the States
to continue with their existing laws and gave only very specific and limited
powers to the new Federal government. Although the Articles were not ratified
until several years later, the Revolutionary War was carried out under its
framework. The Congress was formally named as Congress of the Confederation, but it continued to be referred to
as the Continental Congress.
This first trial run of the United States Constitution
left a lot to be desired. On May 25, 1787, representatives met in Philadelphia
to hammer out a new version of the Constitution that would remedy the problems
of the existing one. Once it was signed by the 39 delegates from twelve of the
thirteen States on September 17, 1787, it was sent back to the States for
approval. On June 21, 1788, when it was ratified by the ninth signer, New
Hampshire, it was approved and became official when the Congress of the
Confederation certified that it was legal on September 13, 1788.
All of this was made possible by the citizens obeying the
laws and working together against a common enemy. All of this assumed that each
individual would recognize the rights of others while having their own rights
protected by law. A civilized society treats each other as they would have the
others treat themselves. A rude and inconsiderate society is less civil and
inevitably leads to everyone being equally miserable through the collective
attack on each other's rights.
Unfortunately, in spite of all of their wisdom, the Founding
Fathers never foresaw the effect of smartphones and social media on the minds
of the People.
It isn't entirely clear what the phrase "pursuit of
Happiness" might have meant in 1776, but the concept is based on the philosophical
works of John Locke. He proposed that any form of government had to not only
recognize the inherent rights of its citizens, but it was also obligated to
protect those rights. It was with this in mind, that the Founding Fathers envisioned
a government that was created by the people for the people with the full and
knowing consent of the governed.
Well-versed in the history of the world up until then,
they sought to prevent their new government from falling into the traps of
other governments before them. Unlike the internal revolutions of previous
countries, they essentially had a blank slate on which to design a better plan
than any before. Something that would survive over the centuries and never
become tyrannical in nature.
The Founding Fathers deliberately chose a plan that was
not a direct democracy. Instead, they chose a representative republican form of
government. The citizens would select people from their individual areas to
represent them and these representatives would work to make sure that their
constituents were heard and that any concerns they might have would be properly
addressed. An indirect democracy, if you will.
All of this is spelled out in the United States
Constitution, along with the amendments that were added later.
Modern discourse appears to have no concept of how to
properly discuss things anymore. Yelling epithets across a police line is not having
a conversation. Nor is it any way to solve our problems. First published in
1876, the introduction to Robert's Rules
of Order points out:
The application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to
enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member’s opinion, to
arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying
complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all kinds of internal climate
ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion.
Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? It was this parliamentary
mechanism that allowed the thirteen colonies to meet, discuss, and agree on the
final structure of their new government. Most formal meetings today, whether
they be Homeowner Associations, School Boards, City Councils, or the Congress
of the United States, use some variance of Robert's Rules of Order.
(C) 2020 by Jim Hamilton
