US VS THEM
You know, there are a lot more of THEM than there are of US and they LIKE their involuntary organization of mutual dependence.
Even if we manage to create separatism, If we desire access to them as a market, they are going to tax us for that access.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 18:07:00 UTC
de.aristocratia
—When asked what form of instruction was most in vogue in Sparta, he said, “Knowledge of how to rule and to be ruled.”—
[R]eform the academy with violence, not words: Testimonial Truth, Ethics, Law, Politics, Economics, Engineering and War.
One does not rule those who are immoral with their permission – but expressly without it.
Otherwise they would not need to be ruled.
de.aristocratia
—When asked what form of instruction was most in vogue in Sparta, he said, “Knowledge of how to rule and to be ruled.”—
[R]eform the academy with violence, not words: Testimonial Truth, Ethics, Law, Politics, Economics, Engineering and War.
One does not rule those who are immoral with their permission – but expressly without it.
Otherwise they would not need to be ruled.
[M]en are the walls of Europa, and the points of our swords its boundaries.
Words and laws do not freedom make.
[M]en are the walls of Europa, and the points of our swords its boundaries.
Words and laws do not freedom make.
[H]ow we construct classical liberalism from Anarcho-Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism from Nomocracy, and Nomocracy from Capitalism. You can’t do it any other way you know.
1. Capitalism (property rights) = Voluntary Organization of Production
2. Nomocracy (Rule of Law) = Organic Evolution of Law
3. Anarcho-… (anarchy) A Covenential Prohibition on Government.
…….. Removal of All Political Liberty.
4. Voluntary Contractual Covenants (Formation of a polity )
…….. Removal of Some Liberty on use of Property
5. Mandatory Contractual Covenants (Perpetuation of a Polity)
…….. Example: Removal of Liberty of Association and Disassociation
6. Mandatory Contractual Covenants for the Production of Commons (Government).
…….. Removal of Anarchic Prohibition in exchange for the construction of commons.
THIS DESCRIBES CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, NOT ANARCHO-CAPITALISM.
(Reminder: A Covenant is a Constitution without provision for government.)
[H]ow we construct classical liberalism from Anarcho-Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism from Nomocracy, and Nomocracy from Capitalism. You can’t do it any other way you know.
1. Capitalism (property rights) = Voluntary Organization of Production
2. Nomocracy (Rule of Law) = Organic Evolution of Law
3. Anarcho-… (anarchy) A Covenential Prohibition on Government.
…….. Removal of All Political Liberty.
4. Voluntary Contractual Covenants (Formation of a polity )
…….. Removal of Some Liberty on use of Property
5. Mandatory Contractual Covenants (Perpetuation of a Polity)
…….. Example: Removal of Liberty of Association and Disassociation
6. Mandatory Contractual Covenants for the Production of Commons (Government).
…….. Removal of Anarchic Prohibition in exchange for the construction of commons.
THIS DESCRIBES CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, NOT ANARCHO-CAPITALISM.
(Reminder: A Covenant is a Constitution without provision for government.)
AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT IS JUDGED AS GENERAL FIRST AND ALL ELSE SECOND.
—“looking at the timing of [Obama’s] decline, the only intruding event that might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have been devastating to the presidency.”—
This is true of all other presidencies. All other rulers.
I predict, using similar logic, that the martial caste, that has been forced from office under american hegemony will be restored world wide as it has been under Putin.
A king is first a general. After that he is merely the moral voice of his people. After moral voice he is mere bureaucrat. And we all hate bureaucrats.
re-nationalize liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 06:04:00 UTC
GEORGE FRIEDMAN (STRATFOR) ON FAILED PRESIDENCY
(Note: prior to reading this, keep in mind that this is an artifact of majority rule, and the necessity of the two party system that must evolve under majority rule.)
—“[U]nderneath all of the churning, about 40 percent of the electorate is committed to each party. Twenty percent is uncommitted, with half of those being indifferent to the outcome of politics and the other half being genuinely interested and undecided. In most normal conditions, the real battle between the parties — and by presidents — is to hold their own bases and take as much of the center as possible.
So long as a president is fighting for the center, his ability to govern remains intact. Thus, it is normal for a president to have a popularity rating that is less than 60 percent but more than 40 percent. When a president’s popularity rating falls substantially below 40 percent and remains there for an extended period of time, the dynamics of politics shift. The president is no longer battling for the center but is fighting to hold on to his own supporters — and he is failing to do so.
When the president’s support has fragmented to the point that he is fighting to recover his base, I considered that a failed presidency — particularly when Congress is in the hands of the opposition. His energy cannot be directed toward new initiatives. It is directed toward recovering his base. And presidents who have fallen into this condition near the end of their presidencies have not been likely to recover and regain the center.
Historically, when the president’s popularity rating has dipped to about 37 percent, his position has been unrecoverable. This is what happened to George W. Bush in 2006. It happened to Richard Nixon in 1974 when the Watergate crisis resulted in his resignation, and to Lyndon Johnson in 1967 during the Vietnam War. It also happened to Harry Truman in 1951, primarily because of the Korean War, and to Herbert Hoover before World War II because of the Great Depression.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 06:01:00 UTC
EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL ORDERS
How we evolve classical liberalism from Anarcho-Capitalism, and Anarcho-
Capitalism from Nomocracy, and Nomocracy from Capitalism. You can’t do it any other way you know. 😉
1) Capitalism (property rights) = Voluntary Organization of Production
2) Nomocracy (Rule of Law) = Organic Evolution of Law
3) Anarcho-… (anarchy) A Covenential Prohibition on Government.
…….. Removal of All Political Liberty.
4) Voluntary Contractual Covenants (Formation of a polity )
…….. Removal of Some Liberty on use of Property
5) Mandatory Contractual Covenants (Perpetuation of a Polity)
…….. Example: Removal of Liberty of Association and Disassociation
6) Mandatory Contractual Covenants for the Production of Commons (Government).
…….. Removal of Anarchic Prohibition in exchange for the construction of commons.
THIS DESCRIBES CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, NOT ANARCHO-CAPITALISM.
(Reminder: A Covenant is a Constitution without provision for government.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 02:09:00 UTC