I must confess, accounting is not my strong point. I basically try to stay out of debt and keep food, shelter and health at the top of my priorities. Although I pay taxes, they are removed from my pay each pay day before I ever see them, so I never end up owing taxes. If I think I am owed a tax rebate, I am free to apply, but in practice I never do anything that would either make me owe more taxes, or deserve a rebate. So I guess you could say I keep my personal accounts very simple.
I know a lot more about philosophy, but I don't have a lot of respect for it as a 'do or die' principal. I am 100% a practical person and would rather do what works than what looks good philosophically. For instance, I am a vegetarian in philosophy and practice, but if times ever got tough, food wise, I would eat meat to survive. I am a socialist in philosophy, but if social order collapsed around me I would do whatever I needed to ensure me and my family's survival. To me the philosophy of the US constitution has out-lived itself. American society has mostly moved on. Many of the things that the framers of the constitution knew were needed for the constitution and republic to work as intended just didn't pan out. The amendments to the constitution are an aknowledgement of this. The second amendment reflects this, as do all of the others that reflect that changes or clarification of the constitution are necessary and desirable. Why is it that hard to accept that, for instance, voting rights and eligibility needed to be changed or clarified, but the second amendment can't be altered? Agreed, it won't solve all, or even most social problems and violence, but it could clarify exactly what those the right to bear arms entails to reflect modern culture and technology. The pro- second amendment people feel this could threaten their rights to the extend that all guns could be taken out of their hands. Do they also worry that their voting rights could be taken away? Given about the number of people eligible to vote but who don't is similar to the number of people who could own guns but don't, I just can't understand why 'arms' in particular are so sacrosanct.
As I understand it, the ideals of a republic eschewed by the forefathers, by their own recognition, required a thriving middle class of people who were engaged in political education and philosophy, and who were generally civic minded. They recognised that factions, especially by wealthy and powerfully groups, were detrimental. They recognised so many things that needed to be in place for it to work...many of these things do not exist now, or in the case of powerful factions, exist in the extreme now. Surely it's time to move forward!