Kurt Gödel: A Contradiction in the U.S. Constitution
morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com
morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com
John Adams warned of the people voting to gain "wanton pleasures, the capricious will" and how that would cause a decay into anarchy.
As far as contradiction goes, there a a few areas that the Constitution is rather vague. The place that comes to mind is the conditions under which a President can suspend Habeas Corpus. Does Congress need to declare a national emergency first? Or can the President do this himself? The Constitution does not provide much guidance on the federal courts. This is also an area where we must be vigilant- to ensure that activist judges don't take over our country.
Other than a few areas of vagueness coupled with the fact that freedom requires a virtuous and moral people (Washington and Adams), who are ever vigilant in the defense of freedom, I don't know of any outright contradictions in the Constitution. I suppose that is why it is part of the reason for it being amendable- so that future generations can give further guidance to their servants in government. (Which, in itself, could lead our nation into despotism).
Anyone who thinks that America could never turn into a dictatorship is fooling themselves, and would be wise to remain vigilant for freedoms sake.
Anarchy != chaos. Pet peeve #472.
Yeah, but recent developments lead me to think we'll have a 15-year dead cat's bounce on the decline to serfdom, and I have another passport, so...
...yeah...
"Apparently, the "inconsistency" noted by Gödel is simply that the Constitution provides for its own amendment. Suber says: 'He noticed that the AC had procedural limitations but no substantive limitations; hence it could be used to overturn the democratic institutions described in the rest of the constitution.'"
If we are going to be conspiracy theorists (or something similar) we should at least try to find some interesting conspiracies.
The idea that damned the US is equality. I'm not talking about equality in the sense of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I'm talking about the idea of putting everyone on a level playing field so that people's feelings are not hurt---not keeping score in youth sports, substantially dumbing down curricula, etc. This is what will eventually cause the downfall of American civilization. Anyone who will challenge the way things are currently being done will be viewed as a brutish person with an inclination towards intellectual elitism. I already see this happening.
As far as your question is concerned, if things are bad enough to justify over throwing the government- of course the government isn't going to go peacefully. But some things are worth dying for.
America is a land of hope and opportunity, we have been through a lot of challenges (like the Civil War) and survived, and I believe we can survive the onslaught of socialism. The Principles of the Constitution will survive (eventually), even if our Representatives fail us, even if, for a season, the People fail.
In one year, Einstein wrote four papers that individually could have won Nobel Prizes. Perhaps Gödel's revelation was more profound. But was Gödel smarter? I doubt it, at least using impressiveness of accomplishments as a proxy for intelligence.
With that logic you might infer that Brin and Page are at the apex of programming ability.
I don't even know what it is to measure impressiveness poorly -- I don't know how to measure it. Nobel-worthy publications are surely impressive, but it still does not measure intelligence. It measures how Nobel-worthy your work is.
It helps if the media will portray either as a hero or role model for kids. So in that regard, Einstein was more of a success. Those guys started vocations. There is an exponential effect when your life inspires people generation after generation.
Regardless, your basic argument continues to be that "more general => more profound." Which is quite simply not a true principle.
Example: whose work was more difficult to understand? Godel's work came "naturally" to Godel; Einstein's came "naturally" to Einstein. They are both "unnatural" for most people. That says nothing about smartness, aside of that both are capable of something that most are not.
Next question: was Godel better at math than Einstein was at physics? My answer is "... huh?"
I'm not surprised. People usually find their own subject more <fill in the blank>.
I think you also don't realize how profound Einsteins relativity is. It's a lot more than acceleration and gravity (even if that's how it starts), the implications change an immense amount of stuff.
That's why people find their own subject more compelling - they understand it more completely.