Canadian History - Economic Inequalities?

[Renegade]

Yes, you have just agreed with what I've been arguing this whole time, in one sentence. The principles of the United States haven't changed since inception, but the interpretation of those principles has changed dramatically.

No, instead you have agreed with me. If the interpretation can vary so radically it would indicate that we are not talking about the same princples at all. If you are ambigous about the wording of the principle, you can never really know what is meant by the principle. As a result if the principles vary, you simply call it an "interpretation". Maybe you can give an example of where the "interpretation of those principles has changed dramatically". Use the US constitution as the starting point as it is more clearly defined on when it is implemented.

If you agree with me that the principles don't really change so often, then why is it you are so afraid to be clear and unambigouous in the wording? Maybe you can tell me how often "interpretations" change and who is responsible for changing these "intrepretations"

Change every 200 years is certainly not frequent by my standards. But a change in the text itself is far different from a change in interpretation. That is my point, that the principles ought to be flexible, or ambiguous, enough for significant changes in interpretation to occur without requiring changes in the constitutional text.

According to you both "communism" and "capitalism" are "interpretations" of the same principle, according to me they are completely different principles. The fact that you can interpret two completely different schools of thought as the same principle, makes your concept of principle worthless IMO.

[Sean Hayward]

Alright we are making no progress here, but I will give it another shot. Take equality as an example of a principle that has not changed but whose interpretation has changed dramatically. 200 years ago, equality meant only equality before the law for white protestant males. Today, equality is a much more expansive and inclusive concept, but the principle, the idea itself, has not changed.

I believe that making the principles unambiguous and specific would be a mistake primarily for two reasons: 1) narrowly defined principles would inevitably not be shared by a consensus of the population because they would be too specific to accomodate varying but similar interpretations of the same principle; and 2) the principles would be in danger of becoming unreflective of society's principles because the specific details of the principles would have to be changed regularly in order to ensure that.

Interpretations change constantly and gradually, sometimes more rapidly than others. Most directly, the courts are responsible for developing current interpretations of the principles of the constitution, when interpreting the constitution itself. Also, the people and their elected representatives are responsible for interpreting the constitution and its principles, when making laws and amending the constitution. These interpretations are to be found, just as other legal interpretations are to be found, in court rulings, parliamentary debates, current laws, etc.

I have never said that capitalism and communism are of the same principle. I would say that certain elements of both are founded in different interpretations of the same principles. Do you deny that elements of both of those ideologies are founded in vastly different interpretations of the same basic principles, specifically freedom and equality?

Edited June 29, 2008 by Sean Hayward

[Renegade]

Sean, my apologies for the late response. I'm travelling and on vacation and so I have very intermittent internet acces.

Alright we are making no progress here, but I will give it another shot. Take equality as an example of a principle that has not changed but whose interpretation has changed dramatically. 200 years ago, equality meant only equality before the law for white protestant males. Today, equality is a much more expansive and inclusive concept, but the principle, the idea itself, has not changed.

IMV, we are not talking about the same principle at all. A principle which previously meant a set of priviledges to white protestant males is distinctly different and opposite to a principle which states white protestant are no different and are equal to all other individuals. If society evolved to thinking from only white males had a set of privlidges and rights to thinking that no one had preferential rights, then society's principles have changed, not simply their "interpretation".

I believe that making the principles unambiguous and specific would be a mistake primarily for two reasons: 1) narrowly defined principles would inevitably not be shared by a consensus of the population because they would be too specific to accomodate varying but similar interpretations of the same principle; and 2) the principles would be in danger of becoming unreflective of society's principles because the specific details of the principles would have to be changed regularly in order to ensure that.

If society cannot draw consenses to agree on the specifics of the principle then that would indicate that they don't support that principle and it shouldn't be embedded in a constitution. So what if principles change and and constitutions need to be updated to reflect those changes. I see no indication that the time between revisions is so rapid that it could not be accomodated. Society's principles change slowly if at all.

Interpretations change constantly and gradually, sometimes more rapidly than others. Most directly, the courts are responsible for developing current interpretations of the principles of the constitution, when interpreting the constitution itself. Also, the people and their elected representatives are responsible for interpreting the constitution and its principles, when making laws and amending the constitution. These interpretations are to be found, just as other legal interpretations are to be found, in court rulings, parliamentary debates, current laws, etc.

Yes, law-makers pass laws which "interpret" the consitituion. Frequently they are found by courts to be "wrong" and forced to rewrite laws. IMV the courts for the most part interpret the constitution based upon what is written and the original framers intent, not based upon evolving societal standards.

I have never said that capitalism and communism are of the same principle. I would say that certain elements of both are founded in different interpretations of the same principles.

You are reinforcing what I have stated, that you view communism and capitalism are "interpretations" of the same principle. IMV the system are based upon completely different sets of principles.

Do you deny that elements of both of those ideologies are founded in vastly different interpretations of the same basic principles, specifically freedom and equality?

Yes I do. Capitalism is not based upon equality, it is based upon freedom. Communism is not based upon freedom it is based upon forced equality.