= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Amanojack comments on Open Thread: April 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (524)
Re 1, if that is the case why not support the Articles of Confederation instead? I also take exception to the underlying assumption that society needs top-down designing, but that's a very deep debate.
If that was really the theory - "checks and balances" - the Constitution was a huge step backward from the Articles of Confederation. (I don't support the AoC, but I'd prefer them to the Constitution.)
I never said we should support it; I said we should care about it.
It would be silly to claim that anyone interested in FAI should be pro-Constitution; there were plenty of 18th century people who earnestly grappled with their version of the FAI problem and thought the Constitution was a bad idea. If you agree more with the anti-Federalists, fine! The point is that we should closely follow the results of the experiment, not that we should bark agreement with the particular set of hypotheses chosen by the Founding Fathers for extensive testing.