In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
1–10 of 109 posts
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#2It is tempting, given the success that kingly political approaches have seen of late, to adopt those strategies: to fight "your tyrant" with "my tyrant", and to fight your untruth with my untruth, eschewing skepticism. What if the Constitution, as interpreted by the current SCOTUS, really is a suicide pact?
We can only hope that Paine's approach will win out instead.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#3One funny fact about the “No Kings” protests held abroad is that they were called “No Tyants” so as to not be interpreted as anti-monarchist.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#4Paine kind of hit the nail on the head with this one:
> "The law is king!"
The 2024 Nobel prize in economics[1] was awarded to a team of three who investigated what causes a nation to prosper and identified "rule of law" as an essential ingredient[2].
[1]: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/pre...
[2]: https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-economists-daron-acemoglu-simo...
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#5[deleted]
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#6Next up: Fight the political class and the bureaucrats. Enlightenment step by step.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#7Paine kind of hit the nail on the head with this one: > "The law is king!" The 2024 Nobel prize in economics[1] was awarded to a team of three who investigated what causes a nation to prosper and identified "rule of law" as an essential ingredient[2]. [1]: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/pre... [2]: https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-economists-daron-acemoglu-simo...
So you get a Nobel prize for proving Benjamin Franklin right (who was rephrasing a more ancient saying).
Charlie Munger recalled it in 2003 as “Where there is no bread, there is no law; where there is no law, there is no bread.”
It's going to be some easy picking if more figure that out ...
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#8It is tempting, given the success that kingly political approaches have seen of late, to adopt those strategies: to fight "your tyrant" with "my tyrant", and to fight your untruth with my untruth, eschewing skepticism. What if the Constitution, as interpreted by the current SCOTUS, really is a suicide pact? We can only hope that Paine's approach will win out instead.
That'd be a vaguely interesting point, if I—searching my heart—I could find any evidence of this going both way.
Congress has never folded power to a president like this before. The Supreme Court has never faced such backlash from district courts (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-cris...). Scientists & researchers have never been up in arms about us health policy or what is being done. Colleges and universities have never been policed by a president, confronted with loyalty pacts.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#9It is tempting, given the success that kingly political approaches have seen of late, to adopt those strategies: to fight "your tyrant" with "my tyrant", and to fight your untruth with my untruth, eschewing skepticism. What if the Constitution, as interpreted by the current SCOTUS, really is a suicide pact? We can only hope that Paine's approach will win out instead.
The falcon listens credulously to far too many falconers.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#10One funny fact about the “No Kings” protests held abroad is that they were called “No Tyants” so as to not be interpreted as anti-monarchist.
I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. It's far outlived any purpose it may have had. Even without them actually participating in government they are basically just celebrities living off the social welfare of the people.