
Kurt Gödel: A Contradiction in the U.S. Constitution‎ - Jebdm
http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/
======
ensignavenger
The Founders warned of several ways that America could be turned into a
Dictatorship. Washington warned against political parties, calling them a form
of despotism, which would, if left unchecked, lead to a worst form of
despotism.

John Adams warned of the people voting to gain "wanton pleasures, the
capricious will" and how that would cause a decay into anarchy.

As far as contradiction goes, there a a few areas that the Constitution is
rather vague. The place that comes to mind is the conditions under which a
President can suspend Habeas Corpus. Does Congress need to declare a national
emergency first? Or can the President do this himself? The Constitution does
not provide much guidance on the federal courts. This is also an area where we
must be vigilant- to ensure that activist judges don't take over our country.

Other than a few areas of vagueness coupled with the fact that freedom
requires a virtuous and moral people (Washington and Adams), who are ever
vigilant in the defense of freedom, I don't know of any outright
contradictions in the Constitution. I suppose that is why it is part of the
reason for it being amendable- so that future generations can give further
guidance to their servants in government. (Which, in itself, could lead our
nation into despotism).

Anyone who thinks that America could never turn into a dictatorship is fooling
themselves, and would be wise to remain vigilant for freedoms sake.

~~~
rw
> "... decay into anarchy."

Anarchy != chaos. Pet peeve #472.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy>

~~~
jhawk28
Anarchy != chaos in Utopia.

------
Jebdm
Morgenstern's descriptions of Einstein and Gödel are neat to read. Gödel seems
really naive, and Einstein is a bit meaner than I would've imagined.

~~~
asnyder
Not so much naive, as crazy.

------
gcanyon
Summary of what I think this says (it's really long, in several posts, and I
only skimmed): we don't know what the supposed contradiction was that Godel
found in the Constitution.

~~~
jsomers
Presumably it has something to do with an amendment that prevents future
amendments, or gives that right to a single person (dictator).

~~~
Jebdm
According to <http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship-2.html> :

"Apparently, the "inconsistency" noted by Gödel is simply that the
Constitution provides for its own amendment. Suber says: 'He noticed that the
AC had procedural limitations but no substantive limitations; hence it could
be used to overturn the democratic institutions described in the rest of the
constitution.'"

~~~
ensignavenger
Yes, but that is not really a contradiction, is it? The People always have the
authority to overthrow their government and setup a new one. That much was
laid forth in the Declaration of Independence.

~~~
brentr
While in theory the People have the authority to overthrow their government,
in reality, do you honestly think that the US government would allow this to
happen without a mass killing of its own people? I have long been upset with
the US, yet I have long given up on any hope that the US can put itself back
on the right path.

The idea that damned the US is equality. I'm not talking about equality in the
sense of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I'm talking about the idea of putting
everyone on a level playing field so that people's feelings are not hurt---not
keeping score in youth sports, substantially dumbing down curricula, etc. This
is what will eventually cause the downfall of American civilization. Anyone
who will challenge the way things are currently being done will be viewed as a
brutish person with an inclination towards intellectual elitism. I already see
this happening.

~~~
ensignavenger
You mean socialism? Yes, that has been a threat for a long time. I have not
given up hope yet.

As far as your question is concerned, if things are bad enough to justify over
throwing the government- of course the government isn't going to go
peacefully. But some things are worth dying for.

America is a land of hope and opportunity, we have been through a lot of
challenges (like the Civil War) and survived, and I believe we can survive the
onslaught of socialism. The Principles of the Constitution will survive
(eventually), even if our Representatives fail us, even if, for a season, the
People fail.

------
patrickas
Mark Jason Dominus wrote about this a couple of years back at
<http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship.html> and
<http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship-2.html> then again here
<http://blog.plover.com/law/Godel-dictatorship-3.html>

------
newt0311
Interesting question: who was smarter, Einstien or Godel. Admittedly, Einstein
is _much_ better known but consider their insights: Einstein had the insight
that acceleration and gravity were manifestations of the same phenomenae and
could be modeled by curvature of space. Godel had the insight that all
sufficiently complex mathematical systems are incomplete. As an (aspiring)
mathematician, I find the latter to be much more profound.

~~~
fizx
But did Gödel have an Annus Mirabilis? (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers> )

In one year, Einstein wrote four papers that individually could have won Nobel
Prizes. Perhaps Gödel's revelation was more profound. But was Gödel smarter? I
doubt it, at least using impressiveness of accomplishments as a proxy for
intelligence.

~~~
whacked_new
Impressiveness of accomplishments measures the impressiveness of
accomplishments. Not intelligence.

With that logic you might infer that Brin and Page are at the apex of
programming ability.

~~~
fizx
Or that Alexander the Great was a good general. Brin and Page aren't in the
same league. One who thinks so measures impressiveness poorly.

~~~
whacked_new
This is quite confusing: you're talking about using "impressiveness" as a
"proxy" to measure intelligence, then you're talking about measuring such
impressiveness.

I don't even know what it is to measure impressiveness poorly -- I don't know
how to measure it. Nobel-worthy publications are surely impressive, but it
still does not measure intelligence. It measures how Nobel-worthy your work
is.

