| "of free and equal human beings" The problem starts with how you define those two(or any political expression). Because by many definitions, they are contradictory. Equal chances? Money gives people advantages, so all should have the same money? Even if all would have the same money, some are born smart and some are born dumb. Genetic equalisation? Pretty much against the idea of "freedom" like I know it. When people are free, some will party all day, some will work like a dog. So some will get rich. Some will get by, some will starve. Unless you mean strictly "equal in front of the law", which we supposedly have, but we all know that the one with the more expensive lawer (or any lawer at all) has a big edge. So de facto we are not even equal in front of the law. The big question is, how and what would you change about it? I would actually start with free speech, because when people cannot speak freely, they will start speaking in code. And this will just make the whole political discussions even harder, as it will blur the definitions even more. I think this is mainly what we have on the internet. Lots of talk and lots of people thinking they are right, but only little actual communication and adressing the core problems because people are mostly talking about different things. |