A solid framework should never be "outdated". Even as the language changes the underlying ideas are still sound.

well said brother Denver

Well Data, solid framework can't predict what new technologies etc. come along.
for example the idea of ownership in digital world where everything can be copied without a real cost.

gotta hand it to you though as your constitution is very old and it's held it's relevance till today. Good job your founding fathers.

Y'all should have dissolved the government, not have an appointed Prime Minister.
Especially one that thinks the gender pay gap is an actual thing, etc.
sanna-marin-finland-prime-minister-interview

...and yeah y'all don't kill each other with guns, y'all do it with ****ing axes. Sisu!

Originally Posted by Denver

Well Data, solid framework can't predict what new technologies etc. come along.
for example the idea of ownership in digital world where everything can be copied without a real cost.

gotta hand it to you though as your constitution is very old and it's held it's relevance till today. Good job your founding fathers.

Human nature doesn't change at the same rate as technology. I'd argue it rarely changes at all. And since governments are (usually) designed to control the behaviors of people (not technology), any decent founding documents will tend to concentrate on those aspects of human nature and leave out anything regarding technology... because it's irrelevant.

If a certain technology comes about that proves harmful to people in a novel way then governments should work on the underlying behaviors that lead to harm, within the framework of their Constitution, rather than wasting time focused on the superficial technology.

There's always some new "terror" to fret over. But that's not what Constitutions are for.

a constitution is a technology . . .

Originally Posted by bowl of blood

a constitution is a technology . . .

I don't disagree.

Do you think that invalidates anything I said about them?

I'll try to provoke here a little bit.

Your constitution tries to (1) form a more perfect Union, (2) establish justice, (3) insure domestic Tranquility, (4) provide for the common defense, (5) promote the general Welfare and (6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Now as new information emerges, it can be at odds with the basic goals of your constitution. For example, currently (and in the past) US has promoted it's general welfare by increasing consumerism (with the idea of trickle down economics) and abusing third world countries (modern colonialism). Your system of consumerism has caused large differences in economical status between individuals, which is causing harm to domestical tranquillity (4) and by abusing middle-east you've also caused terrorism that is targeted on your citizens. Logically what should follow is the adjustment of the course you're on (so that the goals of the constitution can be better met).

And where the constitution comes to odds with itself is when rights need to be restricted in order to meet the bigger goals of the constitution. For example, the right to bear arms could cause greater harm to domestic tranquillity than it enhances it. Here technology changes things, for example right to bear a musket in 1780s in comparison to a random billionaire owning a nuclear submarine in manhattan harbour. Same general principle but in the modern case the danger to main goals of the constitution are much higher (nuclear detonation versus one guy going ham with a musket).

Human nature does not indeed change, but the capacity to do evil increases as technology moves forward. And also the understanding of what in human nature causes greater harm to the principles of constitution increases. Ie. constitution was formed in a time where there was no idea of limited resources... so human greed is not well covered in constitution. Which has allowed for greater economical advances of your country, but in addition the sixth extinction wave, man made climate change (if we pretend it's real), countless wars for resources etc. which can be seen as potential threads to all of humanity. But locally it has allowed the ownership of collective resources to become private (like water, oil, infrastructure etc.)... which I feel like goes against the goals of the constitution. You might have the right to freedom, but you're not free if the air you breathe in-debts you to a private company.

Probably lost my train of thought somewhere, oh well can't be bothered to read what I wrote.

Yes, you have a very European understanding of our culture.

Probably yes.

tl;dr

Finland is told its welfare state can't cope with virus fallout - BNN Bloomberg

You read it right?

"Money***8217;s not the problem, Managing Director Sanna Alamaki said in letters to members sent through April 1. It***8217;s ***8220;that the benefit applications can***8217;t be processed and, consequently, money can***8217;t be paid out quickly enough,***8221; she said."

... there's relatively easy solution to this. hire more people to go through the applications

Originally Posted by Denver

You read it right?

"Money’s not the problem, Managing Director Sanna Alamaki said in letters to members sent through April 1. It’s “that the benefit applications can’t be processed and, consequently, money can’t be paid out quickly enough,” she said."

... there's relatively easy solution to this. hire more people to go through the applications

Going to be a lot of fresh roads this summer, I bet.

Originally Posted by Data

Human nature doesn't change at the same rate as technology. I'd argue it rarely changes at all. And since governments are (usually) designed to control the behaviors of people (not technology), any decent founding documents will tend to concentrate on those aspects of human nature and leave out anything regarding technology... because it's irrelevant.

If a certain technology comes about that proves harmful to people in a novel way then governments should work on the underlying behaviors that lead to harm, within the framework of their Constitution, rather than wasting time focused on the superficial technology.

There's always some new "terror" to fret over. But that's not what Constitutions are for.

ANDROIDS HAVE RIGHTS!

ANDROIDS ARE NOT SECOND CLASS CITIZENS!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/w...and-masks.html

How's it hanging for the rest of the world?

That is something to be proud about ^^^^!!!
Good Job Finland.

The stockpile, considered one of Europe***8217;s best and built up over years, includes not only medical supplies, but also oil, grains, agricultural tools and raw materials to make ammunition. Norway, Sweden and Denmark had also amassed large stockpiles of medical and military equipment, fuel and food during the Cold War era. Later, most all but abandoned those stockpiles.

NATIONAL Capitalist socialist

That one place that's not really Finland...

Capitalist Economy w/ an expanded welfare state*
Yet still filled with Reds.

Yep, y'all be preppers. Those masks deteriorate though and the prep food doesn't store well for more than 10-20 years. As long as they replenish it regularly, then it'll all be OK. I think Americans will start to be more so now, after this.

"Happiest nation in the world." You see that a lot...

• 7.4% of adults in Finland take anti-depressants.
• 10-20% may suffer from at least mild symptoms of depression.

The US isn't better off, in fact it's the worst, because doctors prescribe the **** like candy.

Also drunkenness and the long term health effects of hazardous drinking oh boy...


I still like Finland, even though I'm even more pale/white than the average Finn and they still look at me like I'm the devil. The language is a *****, and If I moved there (I have the opportunity), it would be up north in the middle of a ****ing forest with a lake named after a swampy horse ******* or something.