Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  That exactly the point of a symbol. A symbol means something.
But the important thing is whether a certain agreement exist in a society in it's culture.
It doesn't matter that much whether that agreement is written down (which it isn't in the UK). |
Eh? First, Britain isn't exactly a shining beacon to the free world.
Second, are you saying that the UK doesn't have a constitution or written laws that determine what the government can and can't do? Because it does.
Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For crying out loud, modern England was founded on the "Original Constitution," the Magna Carta.
Quote:
If the US doesn't understand that difference you get major problems. You think that you can go into a country like Iraq, write up a constitution and get the agreement.
Unfortunatly it doesn't work that way, because the important thing aren't the written down words but the understanding of the agreement.
If that agreement leaves the cultural identity the written words are useless.
|
Apples and oranges. The United States went into Iraq and
imposed a new government on them. They didn't bring it about themselves. I agree that it doesn't seem like the people of Iraq want a republic, but that doesn't imply anything about the necessity of a written constitution.
A constitution is important because it's a
contract between the governor and the governed. Its main effect is to limit the power of the government.
Values are subjective and language is inefficient. One man's idea of "freedom" is different than another man's. That's why it is necessary to define these values in written word. And even then the definitions are subject to interpretation.
Do you hold this same line of thinking for other agreements that typically require a contract? If you made a business transaction with someone, would you simply accept their word for it instead, because they claim to have the same values as you?