Add new comment

Sending so many identical twitter messages to people who do not know you is likely to get your twitter account banned. Maybe you should consider a less risky way to get your word out, if it is truly important to you. I was nearly afraid to click through to your page for fear it might be a malware honeypot (unlike many people, I keep scripts shut off on new pages, but still, others might think like this).

I think the rule of law is more about the will of the people, along with good legal structures (constitution, etc.). Good luck!

As much as i want to get this message to people, I don't enjoy sending out mass tweets, This is why I only send one (1) tweet to an individual and never bother them ever again. Is it worth the trade off? Absolutely. What can be more important to a libertarian than to see liberty being seeded and nurtured?

Thank you so much for visiting and sharing your views, it is most appreciated

To really understand how the Constitution of the United States came about I encourage you to read The 5000 Year Leap. Our founding father's were brilliant. You will be inspired even more than you are now.

Really? Bad constitutions are the greatest cause of world poverty? I would have thought overpopulation, lack of clean water, lack of roads, and above all, religion were the greatest causes of poverty. It turns out it was just not the right words written on the proper paper.

The American constitution didn't set the people free from the tyranny of a Monarch - it was the British Parliament imposing taxes.

To have such an inaccuracy on your front page makes me distrust the rest of your site - sorry.

My good friend. the British parliament is only part of her majesty's Government. Territories were always won in the name of the monarch. Either way, lets not get distracted by who was oppressing the inhabitants of this great land. The important thing is that they were oppressed.

The UK is and was a constitutional monarchy & democracy.

The Monarch is only a symbolic figure with no real power. The power of the Monarch has been checked since the Magna Carta of 1215. Democracy stemming from that point expanded to give birth to the mother of parliaments in Britain.

I see your point - but the American war of independence was to fight against taxation without representation from the British government - not the symbolic Monarch. I think its important to get this right.

My dear sir, there is a always a difference between what the man on the street and the politician who negotiates demands. The common man just wanted the ever increasing taxes and burden of the Brits to go away. The Politician wanted to replace the Brits. Many a man was completely against the formation of a new state in this great land. To lessen the fear and distrust the public had of government, great care was taken to establish a federal government where the people had the right to change it, if it ever became a nuisance. So thanks for the pointer, but I think it is semantics and does not gravely affect the substance of the narrative.

Both of you are wrong. The American revolution represented the transfer of power from some elites (british) to other elites (americans). The "democracy" established at the time in both places was a joke--the new constitution on the United States made clear how limited the powers of the "common man" would be through the electoral college, voting requirements, etc. The common man was promised alot by the declaration and those promises have still not been fulfilled, but certainly were not at the signing of the Constitution.

An example:

About time Africans did something about their future. If you want liberty you have to fight for it.

Talk about blaming the victim. Why don't you stop buying slave labor made clothes and then start pointing the finger.