Reddit reviews A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution

George Mason at the constitutional convention was fervently against the Bill of Rights for the reason that people might think those ten are the only rights Americans had. So the 9th amendment was a compromise. Not sure it worked though.

This book is a fantastic way to learn more about the constitutional debate: A Brilliant Solution

A simple recommendation is "A Brilliant Solution" by Carol Berkin https://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727. I would also recommend reading a biography of someone like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Personally I really enjoyed "Becoming Madison" by Michael Signer. It's interesting to hear about the debates that occurred between individuals we consider the "Founding Fathers" and how many of them actually deeply despised each other for much of the 1780s.

You are clearly a “true believer” in your own system, because you are defending an abstract concept with passion and vigor. Not necessarily a bad thing, but own up to it, because that's what you're doing and that's what you advocate; a non-existent system; you know, like heaven or nirvana. With that said, let’s try to grapple with a couple chunks of your reasoning.

First off, it's not bullshit. You are advancing a theoretical model that has, by your own admission, never existed. So then, how is one supposed to critique this model in a way that you can't defend in some equally rhetorical way? One probably cannot, therefore it's on par with a religious ideology. However, I’m going to give it a try, because I like to think people have the ability to change positions when confronted with new arguments.

On the Roman bit, I’m not critiquing that you didn’t write a thesis, I’m saying you lack nuance because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, yet insist on debating me on the particulars of a system of which you lack a sufficient amount of knowledge; again much like a religious argument against something like evolution.

Patronage was the dominant societal glue that transcended the fall of the republic into the era of empire. That’s not just my position, that’s the position of almost every Roman scholar who has written on the topic. Further, the only scholars that I’ve read who disagree are also the ones who also believed in the genetic inferiority of the “barbarians.”

“Corruption” is like the devil/Satan of your way of thinking. It’s a throwaway term that can be used to vilify everything, but actually means nothing. On that note, monarchy is still the norm, and I'd bet you'd agree, but the problem is that you agree for the wrong reasons. A strong executive branch was central to the Roman Republic and it is central to our own system, because the framers were essentially obsessed with the Roman model. In fact, the attendees of the Constitutional Convention debated the merits of a triumvirate, when figuring out how the Executive branch would function. So, in saying it was outside the scope of the debate, I was attempting to allow you to politely bow out of a topic in which you are outclassed. It is well within the scope, but I just don’t suppose that the finer points can be debated meaningfully until you attain more knowledge on the topic. Rest assured “corruption” is not really the answer you think it is.

So, you see, your understanding of Roman history doesn't require a thesis, but guess what? Corruption is baked into the entire system. The Constitutional framers knew it, just as the Romans did. Corruption is part of the political process, and arguably is the political process itself.

Now, let’s move away from Rome, and talk about your proposition itself. Am I defending our democracy as it stands? Of course not; it has many problems. However, you’re seemingly more interested in rhetoric than logic, so let’s play the rhetorical game. Democracy is bullshit, because the people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Guess who ordered that Socrates be put to death? Guess who wanted to maintain segregation in the south? Guess who has stood in the way of LGBT rights? It wasn’t a monarch, the corporate system, or any other abstract evil; it was the people.

Now more rhetoric: What system has higher quality? I’d say your model is totally lacking in quality, because it would assure majority rule. You think of the people in highly vaunted terms, but you should not. The people are every bit as tyrannical and misguided as the leaders that they elect, and that’s the true problem with our current system. Our government is designed, in part, to safe guard the minority against the very system you advocate. Could the civil rights bill have been passed with your system? No. Nor could any of the other laws founded on progressivism. The majority doesn’t know shit about shit. PERIOD. Your majority rule concept is shallow, but that’s no matter, because you know in your heart of hearts that you’re right. You know; just like the religious.

“actually, yes it does. my approval +50% of people.” Okay, so do I really need to point out the flaw here? You say we don’t have a democracy, then say you plus 50% is required for approval. I struggle to articulate the silliness of this statement, so I guess I’ll merely say that you know exactly what I was saying. You advocate a non-existent system, yet democracy has and does still exist. Therefore, your definition is completely irrelevant. Also, what if me plus 50% agreed you’re totally wrong? Would you still be wrong, or would you suddenly advocate Gandhi’s position that “the truth is still the truth in a minority of one?” Hmmm…

So, have I come across as a condescending dick? Yes. Is there a purpose behind it? Yes. I believe a lot of the same things you do, but when you run around talking about invisible chains and the subverted will of the people, you make progressives look just as dogmatic as ultra conservatives, because you are advancing a belief, not a logical argument. Below is a list of books I’d suggest you read, if you really, REALLY want to know about the topics upon which you currently so freely expound, and the ones which have informed my viewpoint. Your dogmatic tone and the fact that I have little faith that your viewpoint is changeable makes me trust that you’ll need to have the last word on the topic, so I’ll give it to you. However, I do implore you to actually allow the holes in your way of thinking to bother you… at least some day.
Here’s the list
http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Republic-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449345

http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915

http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Roman-Empire-Barbarians/dp/0195325419