Replies

I've had a similar journey to yours, although I see problems with any oranization of society I can imagine. Human society is somewhat like running Windows software. If you run it long enough, you will get a blue screen or the system will lock up and you have to hit the reset button. Human beings are just too lazy to keep any form of government going forever. It is simply not human nature to be vigilant. Nothing lasts forever and neither will our current Constitutional Republic. However, as long as there are a few members of the society who can "set brush fires in people's minds" there will be a way to hit that reset button.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

I can't believe that our common position on the role of the state (or lack thereof) was less incendiary than "Madison was a Deist." I find it heartening that some people put *anything* above the state in our politicized, statist society, but some christians do. I have been meaning to brush up on Leo Tolstoy's christian anarchism for a while, maybe now is the time. I liked your analogy of the state to the Windows. Samuel Adams' quote makes me want to check and make sure my Blue Tips are plentiful and dry.

Cheers!

You might want to read Hans Hermann-Hoppe "Democracy: the god that failed" as well. It is an argument for anarcho-capitalism, that is, a free market "solution" to government. He argues that even a monarchy has advantages over democracy since at least someone owns the property as well as the problems. You can't pass it on to future generations as easily.

Like I said, all organizations of human society have their problems and his is no different. His argument gets weak when it comes to national defence in my opinion.

"I can't believe that our common position on the role of the state (or lack thereof) was less incendiary than "Madison was a Deist."

I did intend to get around to addressing the main theme of your post, but have little time this week for more than quickly tossed out posts (hmmm, what is that saying?)
In short, I would say that written constitutions may be twisted, as is apparent, but that having them written provides more protection than leaving them unwritten, as the British have. You can see problems with "interpretation" even more there. When it is written, there is a greater likelihood that some irate group of folks will one day point back to it and demand that it be followed as it is written [aside: this is why I am particularly unhappy that the party currently in power has so easily resorted to redefining so many things, just as the previous one did].

The Christian tendency to place another power higher than that of the state is the primary reason that Christians have suffered persecution from the state throughout history. Ceasar didn't like it, theocratic states both Catholic and Protestant, didn't want it, Communist and Fascist governments to this day imprison and kill Christians because they threaten the state. A good argument can be made from the impact of Calvinist writings on English and Scottish thought, and the British terming of the American Revolution as "the Presbyterian Rebellion" that state fears about Christians may be justified, though people inside the faith might debate whether they should be fighting for a kingdom of this world.
The only close second reason for persecution of Christians is Islamic intolerance, which is where we find the vast majority of persecution today. But that is another thread.