Feb 11, 2020, 1:52 PM If you have juridical defense in matters private and public, but haven’t served, aren’t financially independent and responsible for yourself, haven’t had a family that you are responsible for, don’t run a company whose employees and capital you are responsible for, or haven’t run an enterprise whose employees, capital, and patterns of trade you are responsible for, or run a state whose entire economy you are responsible for, then why do you have a vote in any of those matters without having demonstrated sufficient ability to successfully hold that responsibility? If you haven’t served then why do you have free speech, ownership of property? If you haven’t had replacement number of children, then why do you also have a vote in matters of commons? If you haven’t employed dozens, then why do you also have a vote in matters of the economy? If you haven’t employed tens of thousands, why do you have a vote in matters international? If you haven’t governed a state, then why do you have a vote in matters of the state? About 1/5-1/4 of the population is informed enough to make choices. The rest are either biased to a political party, or dependent upon filtering propaganda and opinions of friends and family. We are all capable of different levels of intellectual resolution whether by level of ability, level of interests, level of knowledge, or constitution of character. We do not have standing in matters public today – only private. The state deprived us of the user of courts in matters public – we had to invent class action to circumvent that deprivation. But If you have juridical defense, in matters BOTH private AND public – called ‘universal standing’ – then you have defense against harmed by others private and political. But aside from defense why should you have any opinion on anything over which you cannot demonstrate comprehension, success, and responsibility? All government action is limited to coercion, either by informing/lying, bribery/deprivation, or force/defense. It is only the rule of law of reciprocity, the judiciary, the monarchy, and the military as last resort, that protects us from abuse of those levers of coercion. Combine rule of law of reciprocity, with demonstrated investment and capacity for participation, with demand for truthful reciprocal speech, with houses of the classes, with a monarchy as a judge of last resort – and democracy can work. But universal unearned franchise, political parties, single house majoritarianism, and devolution from rule of law to rule by legislation (or even rule by discretion) has proven too vulnerable to baiting the ignorant and unaccountable into hazard with false promise of circumvention of nature’s necessity for markets in everything.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
“WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE A VOTE?” (voting)
Feb 11, 2020, 1:52 PM If you have juridical defense in matters private and public, but haven’t served, aren’t financially independent and responsible for yourself, haven’t had a family that you are responsible for, don’t run a company whose employees and capital you are responsible for, or haven’t run an enterprise whose employees, capital, and patterns of trade you are responsible for, or run a state whose entire economy you are responsible for, then why do you have a vote in any of those matters without having demonstrated sufficient ability to successfully hold that responsibility? If you haven’t served then why do you have free speech, ownership of property? If you haven’t had replacement number of children, then why do you also have a vote in matters of commons? If you haven’t employed dozens, then why do you also have a vote in matters of the economy? If you haven’t employed tens of thousands, why do you have a vote in matters international? If you haven’t governed a state, then why do you have a vote in matters of the state? About 1/5-1/4 of the population is informed enough to make choices. The rest are either biased to a political party, or dependent upon filtering propaganda and opinions of friends and family. We are all capable of different levels of intellectual resolution whether by level of ability, level of interests, level of knowledge, or constitution of character. We do not have standing in matters public today – only private. The state deprived us of the user of courts in matters public – we had to invent class action to circumvent that deprivation. But If you have juridical defense, in matters BOTH private AND public – called ‘universal standing’ – then you have defense against harmed by others private and political. But aside from defense why should you have any opinion on anything over which you cannot demonstrate comprehension, success, and responsibility? All government action is limited to coercion, either by informing/lying, bribery/deprivation, or force/defense. It is only the rule of law of reciprocity, the judiciary, the monarchy, and the military as last resort, that protects us from abuse of those levers of coercion. Combine rule of law of reciprocity, with demonstrated investment and capacity for participation, with demand for truthful reciprocal speech, with houses of the classes, with a monarchy as a judge of last resort – and democracy can work. But universal unearned franchise, political parties, single house majoritarianism, and devolution from rule of law to rule by legislation (or even rule by discretion) has proven too vulnerable to baiting the ignorant and unaccountable into hazard with false promise of circumvention of nature’s necessity for markets in everything.
-
The Real Power Analysis
The Real Power Analysis https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-real-power-analysis/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 13:38:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266725713056587776
-
The Real Power Analysis
At the end of the day, all power flows from the end of a g-u-n. “But any rightwing force would be demonized heavily by our enemies.” Of course. Always go back to the main point – no matter how badly our enemies slander & demonize us, they have no enforcement arm they can fully/confidently count on. This is a very different situation to WW2 where the USA, its population without internet/alternative info sources, was rallied to defeat Germany with military might. Who are our enemies going to rally to crush “those evil Trump supporters”? Our military voted 2/3rds Trump. Cops questionable but the only data I’ve seen shows they are at least at a basic level mostly pro-2A, and are only staffed for barebones crime suppression anyway. Even if our enemies could count 100% on those 2 groups (they can’t, but just for the sake of argument), sheer numbers and 4G warfare aspect are still massively in our favor. Also most sheriffs seem to be far better than cops. Some say our enemies will bring in UN troops, as if that would somehow turn the tide. No one who says that knows how small UN troops are in number. Some say the establishment will bring in chinese troops. But China has very little expeditionary military capability, and more importantly there are a lot of other reasons the establishment is highly unlikely to do that, & China would be highly unlikely to agree. China’s economy is totally dependent on ours. It would also, given that our military voted 2/3rds Trump, amount to the invasion of one nuclear power by another – highly, highly unlikely. If the US govt has to bring in foreign armies to kill their own citizens, it’s an open admission that they have very little favor with their own citizens & can’t control their own population. Even if they did bring in UN or foreign troops, it would activate far more rightwingers to fight – any moral hesitation rightwingers have (the only thing currently holding back the right – “maybe there’s another solution” – would instantly disappear), and it would be open season, all-out, no-holds-barred war. The establishment does not want this. They want to manage the status quo decline & skim off the top parasitically. Massive conflict is very bad for biz. Trillions lost per day. The whole world (the world economy largely depends on USA) would be begging to restore normalcy. This is a very different situation than Germany in WW2, because the “teams” that have ability to project force, and the incentives of those teams, are very different in their power balance. Our enemies’ only possible enforcement arms: U.S. military – voted 2/3rds Trump Cops – mostly pro-2A, staffed only for bare minimum crime suppression Sheriffs – largely on the Right side UN troops – small in number, negative consequences of bringing them in to U.S. soil exceed the benefits Chinese troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed benefits Other foreign troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed the benefits, foreign troops would be essentially paid mercenaries, we’d be fighting for our lives, our people, our civilization Left grassroots – far, far fewer guns than us, not “into” force/guns as a lifestyle/norm Inner city gangs – more of a liability than a benefit to the left, especially in 4G scenario Mexican/Central American drug cartels – relatively small in terms of sheer numbers, PR nightmare to employ FBI/other 3-letter agency goons – small in number NPCs/normies – will not fight for either side, want comfort/ease, some/many may hate the Right but all will benefit the Right bcuz they will cry out for restoration of order at any cost. There, that’s it – a full list of our enemies’ potential enforcement arms. Pretty pitiful. And even IF they could get the entire U.S. military (2M, many not frontlines), all cops (600k), and the entire Chinese military (2M, many not frontlines) to obey them 100%, we would still outnumber them 20-to-1 (roughly 40 million grassroots rightwing men), our team would also have 10 times more former U.S. military than our enemies current militaries, and our enemies would still have major difficulty countering 4G warfare. This answers the question “Does the Right have a chance of winning in a conflict?” (Yes. A very, very good chance. Even if our numbers were dramatically lower than they are, ease of 4G warfare BY ITSELF – the difficulty of defeating it & maintaining/restoring order – gives the Right a major advantage.) The next question is “To what extent will the Right fight? (How many will fight?)” That, each man must answer for himself. But the excuse “I don’t know if we have a chance of winning” is illegitimate.
-
The Real Power Analysis
At the end of the day, all power flows from the end of a g-u-n. “But any rightwing force would be demonized heavily by our enemies.” Of course. Always go back to the main point – no matter how badly our enemies slander & demonize us, they have no enforcement arm they can fully/confidently count on. This is a very different situation to WW2 where the USA, its population without internet/alternative info sources, was rallied to defeat Germany with military might. Who are our enemies going to rally to crush “those evil Trump supporters”? Our military voted 2/3rds Trump. Cops questionable but the only data I’ve seen shows they are at least at a basic level mostly pro-2A, and are only staffed for barebones crime suppression anyway. Even if our enemies could count 100% on those 2 groups (they can’t, but just for the sake of argument), sheer numbers and 4G warfare aspect are still massively in our favor. Also most sheriffs seem to be far better than cops. Some say our enemies will bring in UN troops, as if that would somehow turn the tide. No one who says that knows how small UN troops are in number. Some say the establishment will bring in chinese troops. But China has very little expeditionary military capability, and more importantly there are a lot of other reasons the establishment is highly unlikely to do that, & China would be highly unlikely to agree. China’s economy is totally dependent on ours. It would also, given that our military voted 2/3rds Trump, amount to the invasion of one nuclear power by another – highly, highly unlikely. If the US govt has to bring in foreign armies to kill their own citizens, it’s an open admission that they have very little favor with their own citizens & can’t control their own population. Even if they did bring in UN or foreign troops, it would activate far more rightwingers to fight – any moral hesitation rightwingers have (the only thing currently holding back the right – “maybe there’s another solution” – would instantly disappear), and it would be open season, all-out, no-holds-barred war. The establishment does not want this. They want to manage the status quo decline & skim off the top parasitically. Massive conflict is very bad for biz. Trillions lost per day. The whole world (the world economy largely depends on USA) would be begging to restore normalcy. This is a very different situation than Germany in WW2, because the “teams” that have ability to project force, and the incentives of those teams, are very different in their power balance. Our enemies’ only possible enforcement arms: U.S. military – voted 2/3rds Trump Cops – mostly pro-2A, staffed only for bare minimum crime suppression Sheriffs – largely on the Right side UN troops – small in number, negative consequences of bringing them in to U.S. soil exceed the benefits Chinese troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed benefits Other foreign troops – extremely unlikely for various reasons, negative consequences exceed the benefits, foreign troops would be essentially paid mercenaries, we’d be fighting for our lives, our people, our civilization Left grassroots – far, far fewer guns than us, not “into” force/guns as a lifestyle/norm Inner city gangs – more of a liability than a benefit to the left, especially in 4G scenario Mexican/Central American drug cartels – relatively small in terms of sheer numbers, PR nightmare to employ FBI/other 3-letter agency goons – small in number NPCs/normies – will not fight for either side, want comfort/ease, some/many may hate the Right but all will benefit the Right bcuz they will cry out for restoration of order at any cost. There, that’s it – a full list of our enemies’ potential enforcement arms. Pretty pitiful. And even IF they could get the entire U.S. military (2M, many not frontlines), all cops (600k), and the entire Chinese military (2M, many not frontlines) to obey them 100%, we would still outnumber them 20-to-1 (roughly 40 million grassroots rightwing men), our team would also have 10 times more former U.S. military than our enemies current militaries, and our enemies would still have major difficulty countering 4G warfare. This answers the question “Does the Right have a chance of winning in a conflict?” (Yes. A very, very good chance. Even if our numbers were dramatically lower than they are, ease of 4G warfare BY ITSELF – the difficulty of defeating it & maintaining/restoring order – gives the Right a major advantage.) The next question is “To what extent will the Right fight? (How many will fight?)” That, each man must answer for himself. But the excuse “I don’t know if we have a chance of winning” is illegitimate.
-
The West’s Crime Against Russia
The West’s Crime Against Russia https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-wests-crime-against-russia/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 13:14:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266719578996047873
-
The West’s Crime Against Russia
Feb 20, 2020, 10:12 PM
“The only greater tragedy than the fall of the soviet union is the west’s crime of not saving the russian people from suffering because of it. The restoration of eastern europe was great, yes, but it was offset by the collapse of everything east of it was and remains a terrible horror. The russian colonial program failed like the european colonial programs failed. The lesson is that we cannot colonize other peoples – nor let them colonize us.”
-
The West’s Crime Against Russia
Feb 20, 2020, 10:12 PM
“The only greater tragedy than the fall of the soviet union is the west’s crime of not saving the russian people from suffering because of it. The restoration of eastern europe was great, yes, but it was offset by the collapse of everything east of it was and remains a terrible horror. The russian colonial program failed like the european colonial programs failed. The lesson is that we cannot colonize other peoples – nor let them colonize us.”
-
Threats
Feb 21, 2020, 8:16 AM
“Revoke citizenship to 1965. Revoke benefits. Prohibit anyone with socialist or postmodernist activities or ‘alien’ religions from residency or citizenship. charge 30% additional income taxes for non-citizens.”
-
Threats
Feb 21, 2020, 8:16 AM
“Revoke citizenship to 1965. Revoke benefits. Prohibit anyone with socialist or postmodernist activities or ‘alien’ religions from residency or citizenship. charge 30% additional income taxes for non-citizens.”