You make a very good point.
Mike Meyer
21

Actually, if I could make available in written words, what I think, this board would implode. By the sheer volume of the amount of thoughts per Nano-Second. ;-)

But on a serious note, the so called ‘government’ was not instated to understand what the people had to experience in their life, how hard they had to work and under what conditions.

Now, let me prove the point by looking at the declaration of independence once more:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Follow me now into the Rabbit hole.

The fact, that the declaration of independence contains a paragraph, that explicitly addresses the possibility of the people ending up with a government, that is destructive, can now be interpreted as such:

A government can never become destructive of the ends that constitute to be a human being, IF “understanding” of the plight of the people would be part of its constitution. It isn’t.

The assertion “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive…” would mean, that either the majority of the people were just fine with whatever form of despair was hoisted on them for the sake of profits for the few and ‘needy’ for the masses;

or, that it means, that a government is not only not intended to, nor capable of understanding its people and their real living conditions,

but

quintessentially, not at all listening to the demands for redress by the population in issues of ‘unfair treatment’, ‘unfair regulations’, ‘unfair wages’, ‘unfair banking’, and ‘unfair justice’ and so forth.

A government can already be deemed ‘destructive’ if it does not listen to its people. In order to understand the people, a government must listen to its people.

Hence, the government ‘understanding anything’ is not part of the equation, or should I say ‘Matrix’?

The solution for the redress issue is very simple and could have been anchored into the constitution at the time. At the time of inception of the United States of America, Switzerland already existed as a Nation with the irrevocable right to call for a plebiscite.

Nothing really important, that will impact the bottom of the pyramid adversely, can be instated without a plebiscite. The majority of pages of the constitution pertains to administrative matters. In minute detail — and it still failed to protect the people from ‘Citizen United’.

We could argue whether the Supreme Court is actually part of ‘the government’, as described in above paragraph from the constitution.

Thank You for the opportunity to connect minds.

Like what you read? Give Helena Sophia Exel a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.