[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: Speaking of history, isn’t a non-representative authority (in the form of a tyrannical monarch like George III) a tautology?
Also, can the Sons of Liberty, in your example, be considered “Constitutionalists”, given that the Constitution hadn’t even been written yet?[/quote]
Re tautology:
Lots of authorities are powered by representative democracy.
Prior to colonial establishment, most British subjects were represented through their MP.
The colonies were the exception.
Nobody really cared until the crown started throwing its weight around.
It lost that argument.
Britain lost the Americans colonies.
And the crown was so weakened that it fully lost any real authority shortly thereafter.
Nor was that isolated to the hypercalcemic King George.
Its the same way the glorious revolution, the English civil war, and gelding of King John went down.
Ambitious monarch gets checked by players in the broader power base after failing to read “the Prince” (film at eleven).
Also, King George was foolish in his application of force but not much of a tyrant in my opinion.
Re Tea and Boston:
And no, I did not mean to say that the SOL were constitutionalists but that their rebellion had become a big part of the mythos underpinning this new wave of deified constitutional fundamentalism.
I strongly doubt they would identify with the Tea Party (which complains about taxation WITH representation).
Re Wes Clark:
So….you really think the NATO supreme commander was that much of a doofus?
