Before the Paradigm Shift

Until we move up in consciousness on this planet and eliminate money, for our next steps, into a planetary society (to begin to prepare us for engaging with our material dimension in a further way than ever heretofore), we need to deal with our terrestrial situation as it is. I feel drawn here and now to look at some aspects of that challenge.

Item. Occasioned by the recent (and still current) banking crisis, the new UK government is looking at a major slashing of public spending, to bring the national debt under control. That review has surfaced a number of atrocious spending facts, including in the widely circulated story of one fecund teenager who has been spreading his seed around liberally to all nubile comers, of whom there have been quite a few. Most of whom have no income, except for the largesse of the welfare system (and hence their willingness, and even, it would appear, eagerness); both in direct child support (and housing benefits; and...and), and indirectly with a pittance deducted from our NEET's own welfare support.* For yes, our young Lothario has no job either. And many such young women come from generations of females who have had neither jobs nor partner support.
How has the matter - the matter, stripped to its bare bones, of a welfare underclass - come to this? Out of a misguided sense of sympathy. Can't let the child bear the burden of mistakes of its parents.
Sorry; not good enough of an excuse in the creation of generations of people trapped in poverty.
The word 'entitlement' would appear to bear a lot of the responsibility here. The UK welfare system has led some - too many - of its citizens to believe they are 'entitled' to child support, housing benefits, etc etc. Excuse me? Fact of life: No one is, or should be, 'entitled' as a matter of right to the earnings of any other person. Taxes are for social basics: roads, education, and in this exampled country, health care. But it is immoral to force taxpayers to pay for other people's children - in many cases, for their lifetimes - especially when often they can't even afford to have their own children.
People can give support to other people out of a sense of charity. But this business of 'entitlements' should stop. It has spawned generations of feckless citizens.
The state can legitimately provide monies for contraception advice and even, in particularly straitened circumstances, materials. But should spend not one cent for tribute. If someone wants to have a child, they need to be able to provide for it (or with the help of their own family). Full stop.**

Item. There is a move afoot in the US to call for what is called, in the Constitution, a constitutional convention, for the announced purpose of passing an amendment forcing the federal government to live within a balanced budget. This brings up a couple of issues in particular.

(1) Some citizens fear that this can be an excuse to break open the Constitution for further amending - as happened in the creation of the present Constitution itself, after some years of the fledgling country living under something called Articles of Confederation, and some of the political leaders of the time feeling the need for a better working arrangement. Their response to this, to-them dangerous initiative: The US citizens already have all the amending process they need: the ballot box. Stop electing irresponsible spenders of the people's money.
(Not a bad point. But it overlooks the power of the corporate world in today's America. Money talks big time; and to the folks on both sides of the political aisle. There is a Grand Turning needed here; not just a little tinkering around the edges.)

(2) The US citizenry need to face a particular fact of political life in the country, regarding the Constitution. And that is that there are many people - and of much political substance - who have already left the Constittuion behind, in their minds, and so are not bovvered with its terms anyway. So, playing with the amending process misses the essential point: that the liberal intelligentsia in particular already ignore the Constitution.*** Already amend the Constitution constantly. They call it recognizing it as 'a living document'. Subject to interpretation by the Wise Beings sitting on the Supreme Court, and bringing socio-economic-political policies up to date by virtue of applying to the law their own personal socio-economic-political proclivities. So a formal amending process would be superfluous. To them. And they have the momentum, now; with a man sitting in the presidential seat**** who has already appointed two new members of that august body who believe in this 'living document' persiflage.
Hear ye, hear ye: The Constitution of the US - like any constitution - is a contract (in this case, between the States and the federal government). It cannot be amended from its original intent except by virtue of its formal amending process. Otherwise there is no rule of law. There is only rule of men. Oligarchs.
Despots.
The people have been led to believe that there are two legitimate judicial perspectives in this matter: those who believe in 'original intent' - aka 'originalists' - and those who believe in whatever sophistry the relativists try to slip by the public. (N.B. They seem also to be known as 'legal positivists'. Whatever that phrase means, precisely.) This is all also encompassed by the debate-point terms 'strict construction' vs.'broad construction'.
It's time for this farce to be brought to an end.
Either the Constitution is a contract or it is not. Either its terms mean what was meant by and to those who entered into the process of making inclusions into the contract - and then getting the necessary quota of States to agree to those contractual terms - or they do not. If they do not, then the law has become an arbitrary and capricious weapon, to be employed by those in power to achieve their ends, irrespective of the means employed.
By, in a word: despots.
They can appear all emollient. But appearances can be deceiving. Don't trust them. Bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution - as one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, specifically warned all subsequent generations of Americans about.
That includes us.
In spades.

You have been warned.

---

* Not In Eduction, Employment or Training

** It is a measure of the mental attitude in the country that no one, not even the Toriest of the Tories, has called for a major, root-and-branch reform of the welfare system. They fear the wrath of 'the people'. (And taunts like 'Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher'.) I've got news for them. 'The people' will follow an intelligent lead in this matter. Because 'the people' can see the system as is is not working. If the state will crack down on the 'spivs and gamblers' in The City who caused the economic meltdown, and thereby shows its commitment to fairness, 'the people' will trust them to do a proper cleanup. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of one end of the town against the other, and each looking out for its own interests. So the key to a change for the better is honesty, and sincerity, and fairness - across the board.

*** Not to overlook George W. Bush's purported expression of the Constitution as being "just a damn piece of paper". So 'the Right' is not exempt from this critique. People can be totalitarians from either the Right or the Left of the political aisle.

**** Notice I did not say 'the president'. The man in that position today has not proved his eligibility to have run for that particular office in the first place. But I have dealt with this matter elsewhere. (A shame it hasn't been dealt with. Yet.)