Patrick Byrne response on Telegram , worth reading . It is about The Constitution

Right. I think it’s an ethical thing. We learn when we were kids that, “a deal is a deal.“

One way to support the constitution is the way I do: I understand its intellectual history, better than most, simply as a result of the fact that, I cancer in my 20s, recovering spent years in graduate school, encountered early work, are you up and it drove me to switch from mathematical logic to trying to understand them, which drove me to understand those principles more thoroughly. That means my defense of constitutionalism comes from an admiration of the principles themselves.

Another way the question could be approached would be this: we don’t want anarchy. Things will go bad for 90% of people under anarchy. And whatever emerges, whatever tyranny, it will be a world world, a small number of people rule the masses. The only way to avoid that is for us all to go back and remember the deal, and stick to the deal. Whatever the deal is. It’s like when you are scuba diving underwater with a swim buddy, and you and your buddy lose each other: the rule is that you surface. At the surface you hang out and look around until your swim buddy shows up. It’s a really simple no fail rule that if you both follow, you will both be definitely able to find each other… At the surface. Similarly, Frederick Douglass, great listen to us is that in times of turmoil, remember the great contract that we made.

So either from an admiration of its principles, or simply as a pragmatic matter, the right thing to do under times of stress is for us all to surface… Which, in this case means, “remember the constitution.”

One thing I can say for sure about them is that principles that we learned as kids, such as “a deal is a deal“ does not ring true for that. They are above all that, social justice warriors believe. For a Marxist, morality exists as just Welton element, and a framework, and intellectual construction, that is associated with a certain stage and historical development through different types of economies. As such, they don’t command any respect in the heart, anymore, than when one switches from playing monopoly, to playing scrabble, and thereby switches rules in the process, there is anything to be ashamed of. There’s no attachment to the rules. In fact, they see themselves like. Gnostics, possessors of some secret knowledge, adrift in a profane world, that itself is on its journey to some final resolution.

In other words, “they’re above it.”

In this case, their historical claim is simply false. Our natural rights based political philosophy can be seen as emerging from the Judeo Christian tradition, particularly winding up with Saint Thomas Aquinas, then conveyed through the Spanish scholastics to our founding fathers (particularly, Jefferson, read a book, called “the history of Spain“ by Juan de Marianus, and sent copies to the other founding fathers: if you read it, you will see where some much of what Jefferson thought was inspired by it).

But another way you can see those principles is falling out of a Lockean mental experiment. And it’s not really dependent on time or place. An Anglo, a Chinese, an African, and a Latin American, all performing the same thought experiment could arrive at that same set of principles.

Anyway, I ramble. But you made a good comeback so I thought I would respond