[flagged]
In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
51–60 of 109 posts
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#52Thomas Paine is one strand of an ideological opposition to authoritarianism that doesn't devolve into lunacy (unlike modern "libertarianism", communism, etc). He was a good man in a time of bad men. One of the few founding fathers who was genuinely against slavery and supported real egalitarianism to the point of being ostracized for it. He was an honest to god liberal with a capital L, and he, unlike Thomas Jefferso…
> that doesn't devolve into lunacy
I mean he did literally dissolve into lunacy. He also was shunned for his "blasphemous" views on the role of the church. He died in penury, and largely in disgrace.
But, he should be read more, the rights of man is surprisingly readable, especially given the time and subject matter.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#53[flagged]
You’re spot on.
I haven’t heard a clear answer yet about why ‘King Red’ is bad and the prior ‘King Blue’ is any different.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
To cite one example: aggressive gerrymandering has required a response in the form of California Prop 50. I'm hoping that we can all find our way to competitive districts together, rather than permanently sorting into districts that are the province of one party or another, eliminating free elections in practice. But thanks to SCOTUS interpreting any amount of political gerrymandering as permissible, we may have in f…
I think there are multiple irreparable holes in the US Constitution. That doesn't mean tyranny is inevitable, though, it just means we need to start fresh (which is what they did when they came up with the Constitution anyway).
Amending the Constitution to fix such holes is impractical when it would require the approval of states whose hold on perpetual minority rule would be threatened.
So then we're looking at a constitutional convention. Can you imagine our current crop of politicians cooperating to negotiate something which improves on the current Constitution? I'd expect a prisoner's dilemma with a defect-defect outcome and the winner taking all of the diminished spoils.
I think we're stuck with what we've got and we have to hope that enough voters are persuadable, allowing us to emerge from the hole.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice slogan but right now in America, money is king and the law is bent to accommodate the wills of rich lawless men.
They aren’t bending the law, they’re outright breaking it. The question is whether we’ll demand enforcement or not. So far there has not been sufficient outrage to demand true enforcement.
Yeah,.critical reporters fall out of windows in Manhattan all the time.
That's not to say that America doesn't have problems. That the problems aren't unique.
But there has always been problems, and they have always been new.
Over time America and the rest of the western world, will adapt and move on to new problems :)
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you British? Personally, I like having a figurehead head of state that is subject to a directly elected Parliament. The King may have cerimonital power but he can never exercise it. As was proved in the Glorious Revolution we can remove our head of state anytime we like. I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.
I am British. I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Charles is a crank, but a crank that I happen to agree with, so fine. But I suspect things are going to go off the rails with his failson William. > I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended. I'd be very careful about that one. Making it elected would be a terrible idea. There are some reforms that are possible,…
What power does the king of England have to make things go off the rails?
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#57Paine 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...
Good comment. There is a trade-off between principle and loyalty, and "rule of law" puts the dial hard over to "principle". The mechanism behind its success is that it puts a society solidly into the "cooperate" Nash equilibrium. (Loyalty, by contrast, puts a society solidly into the "defect" equilibrium). I suspect that Christianity, taken broadly, also pushes the dial hard over to "principle". First, it "undermines…
Only Christianity? none of the other religions? It's funny pushing religion on a Thomas Payne post since he rejected religion as corrupt and irrational.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#58> Paine labels kingship "the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry" Given that this kind of deference to a perceived authority (which manifests in hero worship, tribalism, influencers, religion, celebrity veneration, sports figures, etc) seems to be built into the very genetic fabric of 99% of the general populace I despair at ever seeing it end. People simply can't wait t…
Plato spoke of a philosopher King more than 2000 years ago. I think we can do better. At the very least, I don't seek political leadership in a personality cult. It doesn't have to be this way
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
The older I get the more I appreciate the value of a shared mythology. In some cases that is religion. Or a creed, as it was for a long time in America. But I think it is very valuable to have it for a healthy functioning society. It feels like we have lost it in America, which does not make me optimistic for the future. I wonder if the monarchy serves that role for the UK. Might be better to keep it.
I was a fairly ardent anti-monarchist. The problem is, I had put my faith in politicians to unite the UK. The problem is, there isn't much mileage in uniting the UK at the moment, or competence in government. The only real way that the monarchy can survive is if the kingdom stays united. Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.
> Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.
I definitely appreciate the idea that if you lose confidence in the PM you can fire them pretty quickly. Being stuck with a crappy president for four long years kinda sucks.
Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you British? Personally, I like having a figurehead head of state that is subject to a directly elected Parliament. The King may have cerimonital power but he can never exercise it. As was proved in the Glorious Revolution we can remove our head of state anytime we like. I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.
I am British. I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Charles is a crank, but a crank that I happen to agree with, so fine. But I suspect things are going to go off the rails with his failson William. > I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended. I'd be very careful about that one. Making it elected would be a terrible idea. There are some reforms that are possible,…
> I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition.
Right. So many of us are like this -- more Elizabethists than Royalists.