SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Some Interesting Ideas

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Some Interesting Ideas (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=148580)

Some Interesting Ideas

As I mentioned in the 'What Are You Reading Right Now?' thread on the Naval Topics board, I've just started We Hold These Truths, written by Mortimer J. Adler in 1987 for the bicentennial of the Constitutional Convention. I don't agree with everything he says, and I sometimes he seems to think too much, as true philosiphers will.

That said, he brings up a couple of fascinating ideas, at least to me. One is a discussion of natural rights vs. civil rights; the former being inherent, or 'God-given', and the latter stemming from the laws we make to protect ourselves from each other. These include things we feel obligated to grant to ourselves or to others, such as charity, which is where all the national health-care arguments should lie.

But the one that prompted me to write this is the one I just read on 'consent'. He has a chapter titled 'The Consent of the Governed', but he follows it with one titled 'The Dissent of the Governed'. In the chapter I'm currently reading, on the Preamble to the Constitution, he makes a distinction between the thirteen united States of "We the people", and the one united country called The United States at the end, under "do ordain...this Constitution". He then talks about dissent as consent, in that people who commit nonviolent but illegal protest in a just society are also ready to submit to the legal consequences of that technically criminal activity.

Under this section he asks whether the people who voted against the Constitution (or against the new president for that matter) are dissenting or consenting. He identifies local dissension with actual consent by stating that yes, while dissenting against an idea, or a person, we also consent to the system itself by submitting to the results of the vote, even while we disagree with them.

Odd, I know, but I had to put it out there for thought and reflection.

I think you're right, Steve, this gentleman thinks waaaaaaaaaaay too much:D A man after my own heart, he seems to be able to think a "problem" or concept to death. If disobeying a law is a form of obeying the law, then I think the space-time continuum has a huge rip in it.

I'm confusing myself now just thinking about the concept he's trying to put forth. Gonna have to do some deep :hmmm: before I can wrap my head around what he's trying to say.

Could you post some of the text in question?

Quote:

Under this section he asks whether the people who voted against the Constitution (or against the new president for that matter) are dissenting or consenting. He identifies local dissension with actual consent by stating that yes, while dissenting against an idea, or a person, we also consent to the system itself by submitting to the results of the vote, even while we disagree with them.

This is fascinating. And will annoy me for the rest of the day, at least. :hmmm:

Interesting comments! Which is what I was hoping for, of course.

I'll try to go deeper into it in my second library session this afternoon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Quote:

This is fascinating. And will annoy me for the rest of the day, at least. :hmmm:

I was right about this. It's still annoying me. :yeah:

I'd have to think they are consenting. Surely the opposite would mean an attempt at revolt upon losing? Ouch, my head hurts.....:haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But the one that prompted me to write this is the one I just read on 'consent'. He has a chapter titled 'The Consent of the Governed', but he follows it with one titled 'The Dissent of the Governed'.

As in to give assent to the principle that leads to opposition. Or as to give opposition to that which is given assent. :)

OK, where are my muscle relaxers so I can relax the muscle between my ears:timeout:

Technical question. If the person(s) who committed the illegal protests resisted arrest, would that make a difference as to whether they were consenting? If they didn't resist, then perhaps they consent to the law that makes their protest illegal, but don't consent to the law they were protesting. Unless, of course, the law they were protesting was the law that made their protest illegal which............ [head explodes]

Actually that's exactly right. People who voted against the Constitution tacitly agreed to live under it when they lost, and did their best to see that what they wanted - mainly the Bill of Rights - got put in as well.

I'm a huge fan of Benjamin Franklin's closing speech:

Quote:

Mr. President:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them; for having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.

Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right. "Je ne trouve que moi qui aie toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partisans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity.

Much of the strength and efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress and confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

So which definitions of each term are the people in question conforming to?
In my opinion they could quite easily be in both camps depending on the definition used for their behaviour. (Ah semantics are fun aren't they?)
con⋅sent
[kuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.pngn-sent]

1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
–noun 3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
5. Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.

Origin:
1175–1225; (v.) ME consenten < AF, OF consentir < L consentīre (see consensus ); (n.) ME < AF, OF, n. deriv. of the v.http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.png

Related forms:
con⋅sent⋅er, noun
con⋅sent⋅ing⋅ly, adverb

dis⋅sent
[di-sent]
1. to differ in sentiment or opinion, esp. from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often fol. by from): Two of the justices dissented from the majority decision.
2. to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.
3. to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.
–noun 4. difference of sentiment or opinion.
5. dissenting opinion.
6. disagreement with the philosophy, methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government. 7. separation from an established church, esp. the Church of England; nonconformity.

Origin:
1400–50; late ME dissenten (< MF dissentir) < L dissentīre, equiv. to dis- dis- 1 + sentīre to feelhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.png

Related forms:
dis⋅sent⋅ing⋅ly, adverb

I'll tell you this: This thread is a fantastic plug for said book....:yep: