Leave off the libertarian leaning lecture.
You can run around in circles all you want. If the judge says you go left, you go left. If the judge says the law means this and will be enforced this way, then that is the way it is. The executive enforces nothing if the judge says no. You are lost.
Lafayette, my response was appropriate. I don't tolerate nonsense or rudeness in discussion, and I do as you: move right along.
So you have nothing, why not just say so?
So nothing tangible, just partisan talking points from you.
How can protection be meaningful when it is at the detriment of something else? What is it exactly that the smaller states need to be protected from especially in the light of the very tight interdependence of all the states in the union, something that really did not exist at the time of the founding?
Are you really? Is there a point at which you would say no? Is all the crap that Trump has said and done really meaningless for you?
Lets look at this differently. What realistic scenario can you envision where, because of the outcome of the election, any of the smaller states would suffer a bad consequence?
Indeed and it is great that the implementation of any policy does not happen at the whim of a simple majority.
Or lack of it, depending on the issue.
Why would that be so, instead of simply making it relevant to the times and the core principle in it, that of self determination? Are we less entitled to that now than they were then? And as long as we are on "not as good" why dismiss the other changes that took place? Were those not subject to the same question?
Or it makes it tastier.
Like all things, only those that can adapt to present conditions can survive.
Risk is what produced everything humanity has achieved to date and while yes we did get it wrong at times and it did cost dearly to fix, it always cost more to fix that which was willfully ignored.
Yes, in the careful process that was laid out for such change.
The horse and cart worked too, but we found better ways.
Exactly.
With small episodes in which some people decided to ignore it for some expediency.
Dinosaurs were at the top of the food chain for a very long time too.If a well used law works for a couple of hundred years, it implies a certain Darwinian stability.
That is truly sad. A failure of education in the least and lack of self determination.
You are prattling about something THAT DOES NOT EXIST in the EU. There is no "command socioeconomic organisation" that seems to be fruit of your imagination.
Name one bureau or office that has the right to impose upon all nations its desires. Any and all EU-community regulations are debated by the heads of state in meetings in order to obtain consensus. The process is agonizingly slow.
The only exception to that rule has been some eastern-states (Poland notably, run presently by a first class dork) that enjoy the economic comfort of the common-market but dislike accepting migrants. They are demonstrating the same totalitarian principles that they lived under when run by Communist governments. (And should be dealt with in a very special manner - like cutting off EU-fundings.)
The EU - contrary to your accusations - is about as democratic an alignment of nations as Europe has ever got. (Except perhaps under Charlemagne - and history teaches us what happened when his agglomeration fell apart. So did Europe with its warring nations.)
Europeans have far more to gain from the EU than they lose in terms of personal freedoms. And despite the Great Recession, imported from Uncle Sam in 2008/9, which the EU was wholly unprepared to address (due to high running debt), the total EU-economy is rebuilding itself gradually as the GDP-per-capita swells once again:
How does in your world the recognition of reality amount to backpedal?
Perhaps so in the abstract and certainly so in the minds of those who are older. However, the millennials as a whole prefer collaboration to individualism in work and policy making, mostly because of the development of information service and social media.
I have no information to dispute that, nor do I particularly disagree. However, effective collaboration to work, it can not be to the detriment of someone, in this case abrogating individual freedom. If individuals are not free, they can not collaborate, only be forced to participate and accept.