RE: Ron Paul poised to take on the Fed at head of financial subcommittee
November 30, 2010 at 10:51 am
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2010 at 11:14 am by Anomalocaris.)
(November 30, 2010 at 7:30 am)Tiberius Wrote: List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Monarchs don't tend to change the way the country is ruled, especially if it takes away some of their powers. The Constitution is set up in precisely a way that allows this to happen. Comparing it to a monarch is nothing short of absurd.
Sure they do. Look at your own monarchy. Look at how the way your country is ruled in reality fundamentally changed between 1680 and 1815. Every monarchy responds to ebb and flow of social forces, some enhances the influences of the person of the monarch, some enhances the power of the beaucracy that is nominally a part of the monarchy but does not necessarily act in strict accordance to the will of the person of the monarch, and some checks the power of the institution of monarchy either in favor of a singular outside organization like clergy, or distribute it amongst an entire class, like the landed gentry or a military aristocracy.
Ultimately, the only reliable, long lasting bulwark against tyranny is persistence of social and economic reality in which Pluralism manifestly ensures large part of the population are continuously be better off in the short term economically and security-wise, and the large part of the population is wise to this fact not only in an overall sense, but also alert to the impact of small scale changes to their economy and security interests. The constitution is but a prop, a luxury for the superstitious, whose fundamental efficacy in ensuring the survival of the constitutional system is much less than that of ensuring the persistence of those social and economic realities.
