Theme: Sovereignty

  • BIG SORT – AMERICAN REGIONAL NATIONALISM – AND THE NECESSITY FOR SECESSION “Our

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0077FAYES/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkTHE BIG SORT – AMERICAN REGIONAL NATIONALISM – AND THE NECESSITY FOR SECESSION

    “Our continent’s famed mobility — and the transportation and communications technology that foster it — has been reinforcing, not dissolving, the differences between the nations. As journalist Bill Bishop and sociologist Robert Cushing demonstrated in The Big Sort (2008), since 1976 Americans have been relocating to communities where people share their values and worldview …. As Americans sort themselves into like-minded communities, they’re also sorting themselves into like-minded nations.“

    THE BIG SORT

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Sort-Like-Minded-ebook/dp/B0077FAYES

    OUR PATCHWORK NATION

    http://www.amazon.com/Our-Patchwork-Nation-Surprising-ebook/dp/B0052RDI78/

    AMERICAN NATIONS: ELEVEN RIVAL CULTURES

    http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-Regional-Cultures-ebook/dp/B0052RDIZA/

    THE NINE NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859

    BETTER OFF WITHOUT THEM MANIFESTO

    http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-ebook/dp/B0061QB16Y/

    THOMAS WOODS: NULLIFICATION

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490?


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-13 03:34:00 UTC

  • NO MAN IS FIT TO RULE Plato’s Republic is his attempt to creat a society capable

    NO MAN IS FIT TO RULE

    Plato’s Republic is his attempt to creat a society capable of manufacturing a contemporary heroic general.

    But Tolkien has a different take:that none of us is fit to rule .

    “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people. […] Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. ”

    (Thanks to Francesco Principi.)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 06:07:00 UTC

  • HIGGS’ MORALIZING – PULL OUT OF EUROPE I think the answer to this problem for bo

    http://blog.independent.org/2013/06/30/why-fight-for-king-and-country/CONTRA HIGGS’ MORALIZING – PULL OUT OF EUROPE

    I think the answer to this problem for both sides is to pull the US military, state and intelligence organizations from Europe entirely so that European defense, international relations, and the stabilization of commodity prices is left to the management of Europeans. It’s not really necessary for Americans to stabilize the price of oil, or any other commodity, now that we’re close to being energy independent. And our dollar will remain the currency of last resort even more durably if we drop our international intrigues.

    That would stop the American cultural necessity for jingoism in order to preserve the cultural will to pay for the necessity that we police the world for largely European convenience. And it would allow us to save three quarters of our military expenditures, and focus our efforts on domestic reality rather than ideological propagation as a means of further discounting the cost of our policing. I’d be nice to have a domestic government rather than an internationally focused one actually.

    Conversely, it would force holier-than-thou Europeans to do all the nonsense that Americans now do and also to pay for it. Which would require the re-nationalization of european propagandism in order to motivate the already heavily taxed population to pay for.

    I’m sorry that you don’t like being a client state of Rome dear Athens-after-the-overreach, but without us you’ll be a client state of ether German political and economic power and cultural discipline, or Russian resource and military power.

    It probably doesn’t occur to silly people on the other side of the pond that it’s because Britain was so bad at containing its self interest, rent seeking, politics and policies that Americans ended up with the entire Empire in our lap, and had to militarize our entire country quite against our naturally isolationist inclination and will.

    (…)

    It is profoundly naive to think that nations have the degree of nationalism that they want to rather than the level of nationalism that they need to. People are too practical to waste their energy.

    Glass houses and all that.

    (NOTE: I attack my country all day long. I want it split up. But the arrogance of European criticism sometimes irritates the hell out of me – especially from the Brits. We dont directly charge Europe for providing its military, state, and trade policing services directly. We do it through the petro dollar. But Europe now has it’s Euro, and oil can be bought in Euros. So lets pull the USA out of Europe, save the money, and let europeans do their own dirty work so that they don’t have the privilege of insulting americans for it. Looking a gift-horse in the mouth and all. )


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-02 21:44:00 UTC

  • The Economist Magazine Is Wrong On Oligarchs: Flaunt It. Flaunt It Everywhere. Always.

    The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.* [E]very country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable. The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce? Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration. If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy. THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens. China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture. FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.

  • The Economist Magazine Is Wrong On Oligarchs: Flaunt It. Flaunt It Everywhere. Always.

    The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.* [E]very country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable. The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce? Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration. If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy. THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens. China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture. FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.

  • THE BORDERS OF NATIONS – AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY “… the Leviathan equ

    THE BORDERS OF NATIONS – AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY

    “… the Leviathan equilibrium … is based on a darker but realistic assumption that, for most of history, borders have been determined by rulers who attempted to maximize their net rents, broadly defined, with little regard for the will of majorities.”

    Enrico Spolaore;Alberto Alesina. The Size of Nations (Kindle Locations 134-135). Kindle Edition.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-04 12:12:00 UTC

  • FROM QUORA: IS GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE PROPERTY MORE “NATURAL’? QUESTION: “Is priv

    FROM QUORA: IS GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE PROPERTY MORE “NATURAL’?

    QUESTION: “Is private property is more natural than government? Why or why not?”

    AN INTERESTING QUESTION – THANK YOU FOR THE REQUEST TO ANSWER IT. I’ll try to give you the best answer currently available.

    “We have laws because we have property, we do not have property because we have laws” – Frederic Bastiat.

    PROPERTY AS A SPECTRUM

    We define private property as something over which one EXPECTS TO HAVE exclusive “monopoly” control, and common family property as something over which we expect to have limited control and consumption, and shareholder property something over which one expects to have LIMITED control and prohibition from consumption, and ‘the commons’ over which one expects to be PROHIBITED from consumption and or exclusive control, but where membership is dynamic.

    NATURE

    Many animals treat their nests, stores of food, mates and offspring as property. Humans have more complex memories, and can put objects to a multiplicity of uses. And humans can learn to specialize in the use of certain resources to produce certain increasingly complex goods and services.

    The first value of memory is to observe resources and avoid dangers. But once we have complex memory, and the abilty to locate and store resources, we can create property, and therefore conserve energy by creating stores for future consumption, and stores for future production. The human mind is a is a difference engine, but the primary difference it calculates is property: what can I expect to make use of or not make use of, as a member of a family, band, tribe, or society?

    We can speak. That we can speak and negotiate demonstrates that property is natural. Without property cooperation would be unnecessary. To debate by definition is to acknowledge the existence of property. And we were able to speak before we were able to form governments. We were able to trade before we were able to form governments.

    However, just because property is natural to man, and humans can peaceably cooperate by conducting voluntary exchange of property, that does not mean that humans will do the hard work of trying to satisfy the wants of others. Instead, rather than exchange, humans try to harm, steal, commit fraud, commit fraud by omission. Rather than adhere to agreements as shareholders, humans free-ride, rent-seek, privatize assets and socialize losses.

    So, despite our natural ability to create and use property, and to negotiate exchanges and contracts, we also require the use of third parties to administer conflicts. We have used tribal headmen, elders, priests, judges for private matters, and politicians, lawyers, advocates, and lawmaking to regulate the process of dispute resolution itself.

    However, rather than justly administer agreements people engage in all possible manner of direct and systemic corruption. But, rather than enter political agreements honestly, they lie, cheat, defraud, deceive, use incrementalism, use coercion and bribery.

    So, despite our creation of these administrative institutions, we have created the constitutions, rule of law, and a high court so that we may limit the ability of politicians, kings, bureaucrats to conduct thefts of many kinds. And hold them accountable. We have enacted democratic processes to remove them from office if they commit these crimes.

    However, rather than adhere to constitutions and rule of law, people undermine the rule of law, buy voters compliance with redistribution and privileges. Threaten to replace judges if they don’t rule in the politician’s favor.

    So, despite our creation of limits on politicians and law makers, and the bureaucracy, and judges, we must retain our ability to use violence and revolution in order to defend ourselves from those who would seek to live off our efforts rather than administer our efforts.

    Property is the result of memory. Property is necessary to make use of the vicissitudes of time, to store and produce goods. Property is necessaty to uniquely and efficiently calculate uses of resources. Property is necessary to reduce conflict over possible usees even within families and tribes. Property is necessary for the construction a division of knowledge and labor. Without which we cannot specialize, save time, and produce high value goods that make us independent of nature’s bounty.

    Property is prior to government. Government exists to resolve disputes over property.

    As our division of labor increases, it becomes useful to develop additional common property. In a marketplace, competition provides us with incentives to produce better products and services at lower coasts. Competition is the privatization of other people’s assumptions about the opportunities in the market. However, common property, unlike private property, is hard to protect from privatization, and necessary to protect from competition, which for any commons, is just a theft from those who organize and pay for the commons by those who fail to organize and pay for the commons. In the market competition and privatization are desirable, but in the production of commons competition is an unnecessary cost. Therefore, the second purpose of government is to allow the formation of commons at a discount by prohibiting privatization of any commons, and preventing free-riding on any commons by the use of mandatory taxation.

    THE TWO NECESSARY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT

    These are the only two necessary properties of government. In order to perform these functions any body of people must have a portfolio of property definitions that describe each kind of property on the spectrum from private to commons. Most difficulties arise from the failure for societies to do so. One of the reasons the west was (and partly remains) superior in economic per capita perormance is that more of the property in the civilization is privatized, and therefore available for frictionless use, and therefore as an incentive for individuals to act to better their status.

    CLOSING

    I won’t carry this further for now, and it is a book length topic, but it is probably the most, if not only, accurate description of property and government that you will be able to find, despite extraordinary efforts to research the subject. That is because I’ve tried to articulate the necessary properties of government not the multitude of abuses we can put it to.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-05-12 08:09:00 UTC

  • TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.) CAUTION I agree with the value of hegemony. And I ag

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemony(LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.)

    CAUTION

    I agree with the value of hegemony. And I agree that the developed world pays tribute to the USA by purchasing debt for petrodollars, which is then inflated away. And I agree that this is a beneificial system for all, since the USA enforces consumer capitalism worldwide – which while it is an unnatural system in human history, is a beneficial one.

    The following factors trouble me:

    1) the great divergence between the west and asia appears in no small part to be the result of the intellectual class attempting to find a solution to the thirty years war. And china perpetuated stagnation in exchange for stability.

    2) The USA is an international hegemon, and we may argue in favor of the aggregate value of that function. But Washington is arguably also a domestic empire engaged in the cultural occupation and oppression of the middle and south of the country by the coastal immigration centers.

    3) While we tend to think of states as neutral, the fact is that all states have been, and remain, some form of oligarchy supporting internationally dominant industries – in effect, extended corporations/. And wars between the small states of Europe were trivial by comparison to the wars conducted by the states. It is easy to forget, in this time, where states primarily function as insurers of last resort, and liquidity providers, that the purpose of banking and central credit was to finance war. Including Napoleon, The Civil War, the world wars and the cold war.

    As a political economist I have to argue that I am a ‘Stratforian’ in the sense that I understand the primacies of geography and demographics. And I also understand the economic value of hegemony as a reduction against trade friction. I’m just not certain that from those statements we can deduce that hegemony produces greater goods than the balance of power. In fact, I’m pretty sure that economic history suggests otherwise.

    I realize that Stratfor is a voice of reason, making an argument for stability. I realize that the problem of torn states cannot be solved peacefully without our hegemonic influence.

    I question however, that, especially given the fragility of the western civilization due to demographic and economic changes, that this hegemony will produce net ‘goods’. In fact, like Spengler, I’m pretty sure it won’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-25 13:28:00 UTC

  • BALACE OF POWERS, EMPIRE, AND HEGEMONY America is a domestic empire prosecuting

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemonyANARCHY, BALACE OF POWERS, EMPIRE, AND HEGEMONY

    America is a domestic empire prosecuting coastal tyranny, cultural war, and genocide against the agrarian interior, and America is an international hegemony in power largely because it is cheap and easy to have America in power. And america IS in power, because everyone else (largely) WANTS it to be. (Certain oil producing minorities which America prohibits from forming a cartel are the exception.)

    As I’ve stated before (and generated a lot of comments) Americans finance the military through the export of debt which is then inflated away. For this service, americans have a higher standard of living and gain preferential status in world trade negotiations, not the least of which is because the USA determines the terms by which world trade is conducted.

    I would argue, that it would be just fine with me if we separated out Washington DC as a separate ‘nation’, and let it fulfill the hegemonic duties that it does, while returning power to the regions or states so that we may persist our local cultures and preferences without the imposition of coastal tyranny.

    You can undermine a bureaucracy, or you can promote it. I’m of the opinion that promoting washington is easier than shutting it down. And the world will happily shut it down for us over time. Meanwhile each region of the country is free to trade and behave as it sees fit without the dictatorship of the coasts.

    Think about that a bit.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-25 07:18:00 UTC

  • Would Creating A World Citizen Help Or Make Sense?

    Who is your insurer of last resort?  THat’s what citizenship is.

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Would-creating-a-world-citizen-help-or-make-sense