maximizing comprehension of the constitution so all can consent in full awareness
Can one consent to the constitution, or any contract intended to be binding, if one lacks the full awareness and comprehention on the agreement. How does one consent to the EOS constitution? Is simply holding EOS consenting to the constitution?
The underlying philosophical question is "Should consent without comprehension, be treated the same as consent with full awareness?" In the legal world, I believe this issue is addressed by placing limitations on what can be considered contractually binding when ignorantly agreed to. If we collectively decide that our constitution will be binding without consideration of individual comprehension, we must make every effort to ensure the constitution is accessible, self-explanatory, and impossible to misinterpret.
Either way, I hope we can all agree that it is desirable for the EOS community to comprehend the EOS constitution.
In an effort to maximize comprehension of the constitution across the entire EOS community, I would propose we use the worker fund to open an outlet in which the community can reach out it for assistance in comprehending all matters related to the constitution.
After coming to a consensus amongst ourselves about the meaning of the constitutional articles, a strong effort should be made to broadcast this consensus to all EOS users. we could make available a system of "constitutional comprehension support" gratis for all new EOS community members via a worker proposal. Also, we could write somewhere in the constitution itself an announcement, "do not agree to any contracts, including this constitution, until you fully comprehend the content. If you feel uncertain about any part of this constitution, you are encouraged to reach out to the comprehension support group" be it a telegram, phone line, e-mail, or whatever we should provide the correct contact info in the constitution itself. I ask for help from the community in determining if there could be a way to prevent non-EOS members from spamming the support line? If it was easy enough to prove, the support could be limited to folk actually holding EOS? If constitutional consent if required or implied in the act of holding EOS, this would manifest a catch 22. Also should or could the support line be anonymous?