If something is "perfect," then it cannot be improved upon. The question, it seems to me, is asking about making something that is presumed to be already "perfect" into "more perfect." Like saying, "more better." It is simply nonsensical, non sequitur, illogical conclusion, a fallacy. It is either perfect or less than perfect, or nearly perfect or almost perfect... HOWEVER, perfection cannot be improved upon, regardless of whatever sophistry you may want to engage in.
2006-10-06 14:42:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you're assigning a different interpretation to the word "perfect" than were our Founding Fathers. I believe they were simply talking about an "improved" form of government. Not "perfect", just "more perfect" i.e. "improved".
2006-10-06 13:02:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wayne H 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
One that would last. A system of representive government insuring that it would never be ruled by a single man/king. The separation of powers was to be that insurance that USA would never be ruled by a KING. Elimination of the possibly of a king may have seemed like a more perfect government.
2006-10-06 13:07:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by longroad 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't see a problem here.
The before, was a monarchy that didn't respect the rights of it's subjects.
The after is one where the citizens are participants in the gov't for themselves. I think it fair to argue that that is more perfect, but not completely perfect.
2006-10-06 13:04:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by Uncle Pennybags 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, in the eighteenth century, they weren't using the word "awesome".
Actually, the Brits saw their form of govenment as perfect, and the founding fathers wanted to deflate their egos a bit.
2006-10-06 12:58:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by F T 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
One can always work on improvement..
2006-10-06 13:06:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Marlio 2
·
1⤊
0⤋