I think this assertion is silly just at first glance. Most of people involved in the development of the US Constitution were not of a "ruling class" (except in the weak sense of the role they happened to be in). And their selection was by their peers, often for things such as brvery or performance in the Revolutionary War or respect.

Further, where are the chartered corporations that these power seekers made?

It's worth noting that we can actually look at what the founding fathers wrote and said, rather than just accepting your bit of historical revisionism. For example, Madison said of the charters of the day (in debate on whether to create a public charter, the Bank of the US:

So there's an example of one of the most important of the founders eschewing the corporation of that time. While I imagine Madison would be dubious of today's legal fiction of "corporate personhood", he would have also resisted the formation of many of the US's current public institutions. And in the few cases where those institutions met his approval, he'd probably disapprove of their considerably enlarged scope.

And on other end of this spectrum was Alexander Hamilton who supported a strong central government and probably wouldn't have had a major problem with much of what has been done since.

Just like now, there was a mix of the many human opinions, vices, and virtues. To say that the founding fathers meant that or this, especially when what they supposedly meant is just a blatantly fantastical reinterpretation of their times through a modern ideological filter, is to lose understanding of them or of their times.

Finally, though I don't see the indication that the times of the late 18th century are sufficiently different from today that we can safely ignore the purpose of the Constitution or the various dangers it was designed to forestall or mitigate.

Yes, Note that all of those problems are solvable, should we decide they are worth solving.

Well, it is a less violent and scary place. That has changed.

Another problem solved by Slashdot. Next.

I would wager that militarization of the police results in more crime. Because a) priorities become screwed up, and b) basic police services become more expensive.

Those are natural fluctuations. And the weather never has been like it is today and never will be like that ever again.

Yes, let's get pouty about those cruel, ebil libertarians who are holding us back.

Except that this is not true either. There was a huge increase in income from about the 10% to 75% (that is, the two thirds of humanity who earned more than the bottom 10% and less than the top 25% over the past twenty years (actually 1988-2008). This has resulted in a considerable decline in global economic inequality despite the wealthiest managing to grow their portion of wealth over that time.

A few days back, we had a couple of stories about how automation was taking away jobs. It was instructive how detached from reality the observations were. One person claimed global median income was stagnant (instead it increased over 60% during the above period as the above link shows). Or that automation this time wasn't resulting in the usual (centuries long trend BTW) increases in employment. But if they had chosen to look, they would have seen at the global scale the usual increase in human employment. It was just in areas that weren't part of the developed world.

My point here is that we have a huge perception problem (this example is in the developed world, but there's nothing special about the developed world when it comes to provincial outlooks). If those previous stories had been about ferners takin' our jerbs away, it'd been laughed off as a clueless hick thing. But mersheens takin' our jerbs away? That's totally different even though the latter debate is driven by the same ignorance as the former.

"IF". If on the other hand, it doesn't - say because measles has been reduced to a handful of cases per year, then you wouldn't be stupid.

And there is public interest in making public land private. Note that the majority of public land in the US is not currently kept as wilderness or parks. Where's the public interest in keeping that land public?

Just because a test is conducted doesn't imply that there was a clinical diagnosis of measles. Another explanation in today's litigious world is that these doctors were CYA. A measles test is just another insurance-covered fee. Missing an actual case of measles could boost malpractice insurance rates or even cost the doctor their license to operate.

And what does this have to do with your alleged current underdiagnosis of measles since it supposedly errs strongly in the overdiagnosis of measles by a couple orders of magnitude?

And really, you are still ignoring the ethics of testing with controls. It means you're deliberately infecting people with a dangerous and infectious disease. What is the justification for this harm? Instead, it's a generally accepted practice to suspend controls in testing when the proposed cure is effective enough

He doesn't stand a chance because he doesn't have standing.

Yes.

I can see him over there. But how am I supposed to throw a net on him and beat him with a stick? This internet thing misses some vital functionality!

I quoted "even though it means you no longer have that cancer". There's no "next week you got a new lot".