Fairly short read effectively, it’s never been made public what the loophole was/is, and all those who knew first hand are dead now. But it’s speculated to be a few different things, the leading theory (and the one I think is it) is article V, the process by which we amend the constitution. If we can amend the constitution, we can amend article V, meaning we can then make it easier to amend again later, in a downward spiral. We could also amend the constitution, do a bunch of fashy shit, then amend article V to make it so the constitution could not be amended ever again.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
on 11 Jul 08:55
nextcollapse
and this is why people need to be informed of the ultimate legal loophole: the law is simply a collective agreement, if enough people make it clear to everyone else that they think the law is nonsense we can just change it regardless. It’s not a magic document enforced by fae.
As far back as high school I assumed this was possible. All it took was learning about amendments 18 (Prohibition of alcohol) and 21 (scratch that).
Those touting their pocket edition US Constitutions (I think we saw Ted Cruz do this?) do the same with bibles. All I see is John Brittle from Django Unchained.
threaded - newest
Everytime the supreme Court does something batshit that allows Trump more power, I wonder if this is what Godel was worried about.
Fair. Although they don’t need to be clever, just complicit.
The main flaw in the constitution, as it turns out, is that’s it’s a piece of paper, and means shit without all people agreeing to do what it says.
Is it true about the U.S. constitution? I want to learn more…
I don’t think they ever publicly stated what the flaw was. Would love to know, too.
just wait a few months
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_Loophole
Fairly short read effectively, it’s never been made public what the loophole was/is, and all those who knew first hand are dead now. But it’s speculated to be a few different things, the leading theory (and the one I think is it) is article V, the process by which we amend the constitution. If we can amend the constitution, we can amend article V, meaning we can then make it easier to amend again later, in a downward spiral. We could also amend the constitution, do a bunch of fashy shit, then amend article V to make it so the constitution could not be amended ever again.
and this is why people need to be informed of the ultimate legal loophole: the law is simply a collective agreement, if enough people make it clear to everyone else that they think the law is nonsense we can just change it regardless. It’s not a magic document enforced by fae.
I’m picturing “Mr Bill Goes to Washington” with some dapper wings.
If the last few months haven’t made that clear to people, maybe the next few years will.
One of my favorite ways this has ever been expressed is through David Graeber. Paraphrasing:
If you convince 100 million people that you can breathe under water, and you go sit at the bottom of a lake, you drown.
If you convince 100 million people you’re the king of France… Then you’re the king of France.
As far back as high school I assumed this was possible. All it took was learning about amendments 18 (Prohibition of alcohol) and 21 (scratch that).
Those touting their pocket edition US Constitutions (I think we saw Ted Cruz do this?) do the same with bibles. All I see is John Brittle from Django Unchained.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ed2da106-1799-4c50-abb6-d3883f4df7fb.jpeg">
If you’re paranoid about food poisoning, maybe cook your own food.
Edit: Just realised he’s not worried about someone trying to poison him, he’s worried about poisoning himself
Lol you born in USA and automatically accept a “Terms and conditions” that you didn’t read