Laws and order should not be constraints governing us, but services we voluntarily choose. In other words, all matters must be based on mutual agreements. For example, private insurance companies could provide judgment services. Someone might argue, "Without a single unified legal system, disputes will never end." However, the response would be: Even now, disputes with foreigners aren't governed by a single law, yet they generally function effectively.

Democracy was never meant for a large population. The Founders read Plato and Aristotle. They knew the history of Athens. They understood the potential for corruption. They knew above the county and state level, democracy would be a disaster.

No. But better than what we have now… do you feel like your interests are at all represented now?

Seems so

Some. But I don't live under a democracy either. You've probably seen a lot of my complaints. Our constitutional republic in the US is far from perfect. But in general, I'm not delusional enough to think I don't have it pretty good relative to most of human history. I don't know of a better alternative. Anarchy is a joke. The admin state IS awful, and that's really where a lot of the problems stem from. It's less the fault of the constitutional republic and more the fault of us handing it over to administrators. Again, US perspective.

The constitutional republic was lost with Lincoln. He imposed a federal will upon the states at the end of the civil war. You can trace the start of the bureacratic state to him up through Woodrow Wilson.

They also both knew good government cannot exist, in a highly unequal society, and proposed radical wealth caps and vows of poverty for the elite. See Plato's _Republic_ and Aristotle's _Politics_.

Seems to put the nix on democracy right there.

do you think they should? the avg citizen is pretty dumb and has no idea about policies and geopolitics, now half of the folks are dumber than that avg joe for everyday life, yes, i'd love my interests to be represented for national and international politics, no they shouldn't -> meritocracy

The core issue lies in whether elected officials have a personal stake in the outcomes of their decisions, or if strict incentives are in place for anyone seeking leadership, where failure carries serious repercussions. Consider a system where implementing a policy could result in severe penalties instead of just being voted out.

If there is a large disparity, the poor will rapidly grow in number, as inequality inevitably feeds more inequality, and then you would have rule by the poor. Which would result in the rich purchasing the ruling elite or simply taking over the government and forming an oligarchy, to protect their wealth. Everything is playing out, exactly according to their predictions. It's uncanny. Plato suggested society should not have anyone wealthier than 4x the poorest citizen. Anything above that was destined to quickly collapse. As politics follows economy, it doesn't lead it. Middle-class dominated economies, with high rates of private property ownership (particularly land), tend to be well-governed and free. That was also what the Founder's considered the ideal. Everything else well be poorly-governed and/or tyrannical. (Land because it is controlling physical territory that makes you part of the sovereign.) They considered "rich elite" an oxymoron. The rich are preoccupied with their own physical wealth, hustling, nepotism, etc., whereas a true elite would be thinking about nobler things and would be grateful to spend their life serving the public selflessly.

Do I think what should? Do I think our interests should be represented? Yes. I don’t see the country aligning with Israel AT ALL, yet our representatives fully align with them. I don’t see Americans voting for pointless wars to transfer money to MIC and FIC but that’s what they are doing 24/7. Clearly the representatives are not representing the interests of the people OR the country.

yep, that's the fallacy of representatives and meritocracy by entrusting somebody you are kicking yourself out the bubble this is gonna trickle down to an hour long convo, so i'll leave it be rabbit hole i've discussed previously with friends for hours upon hours

And what was the conclusion? TLDR?

Agree. I don’t think the constitution has mattered for a long time. You could say a lot of shit going down now is unconstitutional.

nuke it all

it's just picking between dog shit and cat shit with any regime, which drawbacks are you willing to tolerate and for what gain, what do you find as the non-negotiables etc

A subsidiarist, municipalist, Catholic monarchy. Subsidiarity means that every task should be handled at the lowest, most local level possible (the individual, family, neighbourhood, or town). Municipalism emphasises local legislation and the local application of laws. It is Catholic because Catholicism is the foundation of Western Civilisation, which has been the most prosperous historical model in a long-term perspective. Finally, it is a monarchy because this reflects natural human hierarchies with a single executive decision-maker to maintain order, provide a unifying symbol for the people, and think in multi-generational terms, not the next election. Just as a father heads a family and a CEO directs a business, a king leads a nation.

What kind of penalties?

Feminism is one of the cornerstones of western ruin? What the fuck are you talking about?

100 lashes (whip sounds) 😀

I think the core argument around feminism being a contributor to “western ruin” is the idea that it continued to socialist policies that while on the surface sound great create a less meritocratic environment leading to the nanny state and redistribution policies that ultimately lead to more taxation , larger govt and so on. Oversupplied, broad idea. Not saying that this is how he interprets it, just how I understand that point of view. Also the destruction of the family unit, the bedrock of strong societies.

Contributes … sorry typing on the go 😆

Fking autocorrect

And who determines if it’s a bad policy or not? Bad for who?

The mathematically optimal solution is probably something like quadratic voting, but how do you actually implement that in a political system in practice. Interesting book about it called radical markets (trigger warning for anyone who spent time arguing with the ETH bros on the topic)

Even the current system would work much better if you implemented minimum requirements to vote. Examples: - Minimum 35 years old; - Minimum 10 years of salary/work, no matter the income; - Married for at least 5 years and minimum 2 kids; - IQ >= 100; - Ability to shoot, do push-ups/sit-ups/squats, have your own gun, be willing to go to war for your country; - Own property. Basically be a functional adult.

There’s gotta be something better. At current scale of the US and most western large countries, representation doesn’t seem to work at all. Lobbies have completely overtaken the voice of the people.

The god that failed.

In theory, people vote if its good for them or not. But in practice, those in the power will just win by exploiting the outcome to make themselves richer.

È persino fastidioso notare come 2500 anni fa i greci avessero già detto, scritto e capito praticamente tutto in qualsiasi disciplina dello scibile umano.

Hmmmm. 35 years old? I know a lot of people older than that who are smug, irresponsible and ignorant. But there are also curious and original-thinking teens in the world. Honestly, I don't think lowering voting age to 12 would harm any Western country, that's about the age the median voter stopped growing up. Minimum ten years work is unfortunately easily gamed; most politicians today have never had a productive-economy job. Married five years is harder to game, I'll admit, and kids more so again. The ancient Romans delayed a lot of privileges in this way. IQ tests are trivially gamed, read up on how they are normed vis different populations and you will never take them seriously again. Raven's Matrices have much more temporal and cross-cultural stability, much better choice, but even then there are many shrewd, experienced blue-collar types who would fail this hurdle; and many bright-but-unwise who would pass. Me in my youthful Social Democrat phase, for one :p Abilities: yeah that's how many ancient tribal democracies worked. But defining which weapons and which exercises matter is tricky in an age of drones and joysticks. Owning property is an ancient tradition, too, but is gamable - what if I own one sq ft? Some British islands game residency this way.

I like the idea of liquid democracy

Liquid democracy - Wikipedia

where you can shift your voting power for every vote and also can split it by topic. The nice part is the the representatives get punished immediately if they act against their promises or their supporters wishes. Voting power becomes very decentralized and dynamic.

Anarchy

Ancient Athens had "ostracism" which seems to have worked okay. But generally speaking, you're correct...

Free helicopter rides for commies

We can always discuss if 35 or 30 years old, IQ 100 or 90, minimum property size etc, but there must be minimum requirements. I know a lot of people that drive well after drinking a bottle of wine, still the system takes into account that way too many people drive recklessly after drinking. A requirement will always find a good exception left out, and we either accept it or we keep using systems as they are now.

Its rarely ends with them, alas and alack...

I meant: Age is a noisy signal. Could still be useful in a points-based system, but if it were actually as useful as people expect the West wouldn't be like this. IQ tests are normed to erase gender and cultural differences, and the result is mostly noise, not "g". Useless, or nearly so. Any restriction that can be gamed will be. And those that game it best will be organised political factions, to enfranchise their fan club and disenfranchise everybody else. A losing game, don't play, Representative Democracy is just a circus fronting for tyranny. Direct democracy degenerates into circus too when people are asked to vote on matters they feel no personal stake in. Less government is the best remedy. Less, and local. Protocols, not platforms, and markets, not monopolies.

Let go of the dream of government that works..we don't get to see that unfortunately as it further enshittifies for our lifetimes. Assume you are a civilian in occupied land. Tread lightly, prosper in what ways you can and. We must be more like Rick in this age age

Democracy works and is awesome. But all systems require people to make them work. Families, clubs, etc can all fail if people don't do their parts.

I wish someone told our elected representatives who don’t represent us …

Love it, pal. That’s exactly the point, or rather, those are exactly the points! Two of them, to be precise: participation and scale! Democracy only works if everyone actually exercises their right and duty to participate. That’s the first point I take from your answer; the other is “clubs, families, etc.” That is scale. Direct democracy works wonderfully on a small scale, but with 100 million people in a country, and everyone expected to participate in the discussion leading to a decision, now that’s difficult. On a large scale, we won’t be able to avoid representation. But career politicians are the death of democracy! Those who represent the people should of course receive compensation for lost income, but it must be TRANSPARENT AND COME SOLELY FROM THE SOVEREIGN, i.e. the people. Greed and the lobbying that goes hand in hand with it are the true enemies of democracy. A kind of continued pay during leave of absence, paid for by the state, with the amount of the allowances determined by voters based on performance. Well, what do you think politicians could accomplish in four years under such a system?

Democracy has always worked as intended… it’s just not right

Sorry to say the joke is sadly on you, my friend

It works if you go back to the demographic makeup of 1776. Only certain kinds of people understand honor integrity and putting principles above yourself.

It literally exploits the first sin, uses the natural differences between men and women against each other to establish a cuckolded, effeminate society where men can't be men but women should be worshiped in all but rite. You can trace every single major issue in today's society back to what feminism enabled. And I do mean EVERY.

Not exactly my reasoning 100% but definitely some of the bigger reasons 🫡

Since the mediocre and stupid always form a majority, democracy gives almost unlimited power to those who are best at manipulating the mediocre and stupid.

It’s a race to the bottom

This is incel mentality.

nothing shit work when CORRUPTION / PROFIT is the goal all shit can work - autocracy / monarchy / democracy / marxism / botcracy - when people at top are not corrupt or runnning for rat race.

No, it's a traditionalist mindset. We want to get back to the days when men could be men and women could be women. Incels think they have zero responsibility. I don't think that, I just think that feminism is the root of all relational evils. In fact, incels are a result of feminism as well, because they are weak, effeminate men in terms of their ideology. Put plainly, I want men to get back to being strong leaders within their families and marriages, and I want women to get back to being homemakers who love and appreciate their husbands rather than work against him at every turn. I want men to get back to being noble and strong and I want women to get back to being gentle and caring. I want society to get back to the days when a family voted together and when the husband was the provider rather than the co-provider. I want society to get back to the days where a woman stays at home to take care of the house and the children rather than sending the children off to be educated by the state, which only ensures the cycle will never end until there is change. I want to get back to the days where you could actually expect some level of elegance and femininity from women, even the ones that you don't know. I'd like to never hear about a woman's period ever again, for that is something that should be left among the privacy of their own personal grooming. I'd like to get back to the days where men didn't have to worry about walking on eggshells within their own families, their jobs, society at large, and could actually get things done instead of having to worry about being shut down and treated like monsters or harlequins for being pragmatic. Like I said, the root of all modern societal ills and relational ills comes from feminism, which itself is stemming from the first sin. Eve was the first feminist. She thought she knew better than God and her husband. She didn't want to obey either of them, so she decided to take matters into her own hands and listen to the temptation of the serpent which doomed all of humanity. And just so you know that I'm not some incel, Adam was wrong too, because he chose to listen to his wife rather than to God and common sense. They both share equal blame, but for different reasons, just as men and women have their own issues, unique to themselves. The problem is, we're trying too hard to make men and women the same. We were created differently for a reason.

Your religious views make you a backwards person who wants to force roles on people. This entire way of thinking just makes it sound you can't handle the idea of people having any actual choice. You seem unable to deal with the realities of life. Like, you're mad about hearing about the natural processes women go through? You can't handle a women who isn't "elegant" or even has her own opinions at all? Does any of this actually sound noble to you? You should try figuring out how your religion can lead you to being a better person instead of using it to justify this weak bullshit.

Its the best we got bud Do some history homework You might learn a little about different forms of government and how they do

This is a retarded answer. "oh it's the best we've got". No progress was ever made with this attitude. "It's the best we've got.. waaaaah, let's just stop here". "Oh, haven't you heard, we have tried EVERY SINGLE GOVERNING SYSTEM KNOWN TO THE FUCKING UNIVERSE so we as well stop now" lol cmon.. wtf kind of reply is that?

Then invent a new form of government I guess I think they’ve all been tried though

Sounds like you still need to study history though. Complaining doesnt make you educated

The thing is, I don't even need my religious views to see all the negative impacts feminism has had. Try harder.

But I'm guessing you don't see any of the negative impacts the types like you have? You don't sound too different from an abuser.

You can tame a tiger and bring it into your home. You can even treat it like a harmless pet, but you cannot change its nature. When it mauls you, or even kills you, that would be a well-earned consequence. Men and women are different by nature. They've always had different roles and different traits. Trying to change that, trying to make men and women no different, it has consequences and those consequences have been remarkably bad for society.

Exactly, no people are equal, you and I aren't even equal and we are both men, so why do we pretend that the other sex is the same? Clearly by nature they are different. Different doesn't mean of less value. It means different. Equality as a whole is a dumb lie. No human is equal to another human.

You're agreeing with the guy saying that all men should act a specific way, and all women should act a specific way... by saying no two people are equal? I agree that everybody is different. Because everyone is an individual. Everyone should be who they want to be and that should be respected. What I don't agree with is your implication that you want to enforce hierarchies of people with your "no human is equal to another human" nonsense, which just sounds like some sexist/racist bullshit. You both sound like you share some 1950s American ideology to me. You should evolve a little bit. Maybe try catching up with modern society.

Oh I'm racist and sexist 😂😂😂 Typically response of a male feminist 😂

Maybe reading comprehension is a little difficult for you, let me restate. I said: "no human is equal to another human" nonsense, which just sounds like some sexist/racist bullshit. So what I'm saying here is that that statement SOUNDS LIKE sexist/racist bullshit. Don't get distracted. Address the points I made instead of being dismissive.

I'm dismissive because your view is a joke to me. I can read just fine but thanks lol. The moment you claim something SOUNDS sexist or racist you are no longer a serious person. Also let me say it again and see if you can read the words rather than between the lines. No human is equal to another human.

It addresses you male feminist view. If we aren't equal and nobody is equal and equality is a lie then fighting for equality is fighting for a lie. Which is the claim of feminism, it's supposedly for "equality".

And the IQ is plunging with endless immigration.

I heil Atatürk, Hitler and Hoppe, nigger. "The selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it practically impossible that any good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government; indeed, as the result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated."

Get aware of, and start to understand #Voluntryism aka Anarchy Time to wake up, gm.

Dude, you sounds heavily confused

Not at all. With every decade I spend in this world, I've been maturing in these particular matters in a way that leaves others feeling dumbstruck. As you get a bit older, I'm sure you'll catch on to the pattern too.

attatürk hitler and hoppe ??!? 🤣🤣🤣 How does this constellation come about? What the fuck does Hans Hermann Hoppe have in common with these two complete idiots? Hahahhhahah hahahahahha jakshahahahfjjagac 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Listen: Anarchism (voluntarism) and fascism are completely opposed to each other. Two completely opposite poles

That constelation is something special man

The Roman fable of the fasces brings out an immutable part of the human condition. It deserves respect and consideration. "Son, take this stick and try to break it." "It breaks easily, father." "Now gather 50 sticks just like the first and bind them together." "It is done, father." "Now break them as you broke the one before." "Father, I cannot." "Thus it is always among men, my son: Individuals are weak and easily broken; a united people is strong, even invincible." So I say: If you belong to no nation, you are prey and you are dead. If you belong to a disunited "multicultural" nation, you are prey and you are dead. Learn the lesson of the fasces.

One cannot be an anarchist without being a fascist and nationalist; nor can one be civilised without being racist and vigilant. All of these come together to form the foundational pillars of mankind.

There may be power in unity, but it is never right to sacrifice the rights of the individual, even when claimed to be for ‘the common good.’ Might does not make right.

Yes, I understand. But without might you are dead. And without a kinship-based society you have no genetic continuity, so you are also dead. That is the human condition.

Stoopid fuck ! You aint an Anarchists ! You are just trash Nazi scum

Why am I even see this goofy doofy type shit I defollowed you scumbag 😂🤷‍♂️ Dumb doofy 😂🤣

Stop following me Degenerated doofy

I think that I have finally found, right here on NOSTR, the acme of intelligent argument: calling your opponent a "dumb doofy." Touché!