Par excellence? <The current Constitution of 1917 is the first such document in the world to set out social rights, serving as a model for the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and the Russian Constitution of 1918 > Given the subsequent history of Germany, Russia and Mexico, it would be best to avoid the Mexican constitution.
Nowhere in the world has a sensible constitution. The best of the existing ones are a form of mob rule working on tragedy of the commons principles, with roaming gangs of kleptocrats and their backers taking while the taking is good; if you don't, somebody else will.
I'm struggling to think of something better, something that reflects private property with public value assigned to individuals, freedom of individuals, and the idea that the state and country should be run for individuals, rather than individuals being state serfs and chattels, herded, fleeced, milked and even murdered for the benefit of those who contrive to get power. Hey how about ... nah, nobody has done it and nothing that hasn't been done is ever any good. Too many double or triple negatives there? How about, if something is new, it's ipso facto no good. How to explain the iPhone in that case? Some new things are obviously good. What has been new in the last hundred years in constitutions for countries, nations, states?
A constitution for Mexico in 1917 as a good way to go now? Not for me thanks. "Social rights" are for chimps in a zoo and cows in a paddock. Humans should have Tradable Citizenship rights. They should own the zoo. At present, we have the chimps running the zoo with the humans kept in the cages. Some people think it's a great idea as it is, as long as the boss chimps wear a fancy hat. Some of us don't.
I'd rather have a Tradable Citizenship constitution of 2017, an iPhone and a Google car, than a Mexican Socialist constitution of 1917.
Mqurice |
