[A_perfect_lady]

Does that mean that really we are all far too lazy? Do we find actual thinking so hard that we are prepared to just abdicate it and leave it all to someone else? If that is so, what hope for our liberal (classic sense) democratic processes? If the people cannot think through these things, or will not, or are too idle to, then what hope for "government of the people"?

By and large, yes, I think that's exactly what it means. You must remember that the average person is an IQ 100 couch potato, content to sit and watch TV while shoving donuts into his face. That is average humanity, and has been from the dawn of time. That's why most civilizations throughout history have consisted of a few ruthless people ruling, their mandates being carried out by a cadre of ambitious people, and the remainder of humanity lives under that rule, content enough as long as there are bread and circuses.

That has always been the norm.

The men who wrote our Constitution were rare and unusual types. There have always been philosophical individuals, and there have always been comfortably wealthy individuals, and there have always been well-educated individuals, but through some rare and random accident of fate, a handful of men who were all three were at the same place and time. Seeing that opportunity, they made a template. That template could only be followed by people carefully selected and trained to follow it. We had that, here in the US, for a few decades.

But by the early 1900s, it was already in decline. We reached a tipping point quickly of types who want the ruthless and ambitious telling them what to do, providing the bread and the circuses, and I do believe America will soon be reclaimed by the jungle. I consider myself lucky to have seen the tail end of it, but humanity is what humanity is, and it doesn't change. It can learn, but it can't change its basic nature. And its basic nature is as primitive as any gorilla. We just have imagination, and more sophisticated means of transferring information, that's all.

[Vanders9]

If that is the case, and I suspect it is, then you could argue that the men who wrote the constitution were not only philosophical, comfortably wealthy and well-educated, they were also very naive. Looking around the world, it is clear that dictatorship is the norm. Democracies, or at least societies that allow a peaceful transfer of power, are very few and far between.

In fact, I seem to recall (and I am not an expert on these matters, not being american) that there are statements made by none other than Thomas Jefferson that seem to indicate that he was aware of the fundamental dichotomy between the template he had created and the innate sinfulness of mankind (in this case exemplified by laziness). All this liberty being watered by the blood of patriots, and our society is only fit for god-fearing people, and so on.

This is the problem with any idealist solution to the problems of the world (and frankly that is what the US constitution is) - it all looks good on paper, and the people who come up with it I'm sure are good, honest and well meaning, but their efforts have to come up against the simple fact that Human Beings are very flawed creations.