Were All Men Really Created Equal?

[Ronin Truth]

What does the following sentence of the D of I, say?

 

[bandwidth]

R3V, you have confused me with your idea of “Absolute monarchy”, but I have drawn some inference from your reference to his power not being only on paper etc – he should have absolute power!! This is the thing the founders of America fought strongly against, viz. any form of government having such power over citizens, not merely the monarch. They fought against any extra power in the hands of the government than minimal necessary – you want absolute monarchy????? The American Revolution started against The King, was based on ancient Greco-Rome ideas (coming via Renaissance) about man’s freedom from any authority – and while claiming to be a Libertarian you want a monarch??? Whether the monarch is good or bad is besides the point – each individual will determine his own life and only a small power will be given into the hands of the government (minimal Government) was the central idea of Americans, and also of Libertarians – and you want a so-called “good” momarch??
One thing I know for sure – there were no benevolent monarchs anywhere on earth prior to European conquest of the world – there were only murderers who had usurped power; and even now in savage places like Africa, Af-Pak type of Asian societies etc there are lot of countries far away from benevolence. Same was the condition of Europe during Dark Ages. The one factor common to all these rules is that part of the rulers (generally the priests, but sometimes replaced by another elite as in communism) have had an absolute control over ideas!!! Any thought not tolerable to the ruling elite was crushed ruthlessly, murderously, like public burning of heretics in European Christianity. It was thinking / ideas released from the iron grip of the absolute rulers that brought in benevolent monarchies, not absolutism.
Your argument about what is good or bad for the monarch himself in the long run requires lot of thinking, i.e. ideas – but as bad ideas replace good ones, an instance of which is Founders’ interpretation of equality versus that of today’s welfare-state – then progressively rule goes into the hands of evil people, government power goes on increasing by the slow-poison method of democracy / welfare state which lands society into a vicious circle wherein more and more rational ideas get destroyed; that goes on till the only ideas that remain are the ones given in “the Holy Bible”, the Koran, the Bhagwad Gita, the Manifesto, Mein Kampf – to be whimsically interpreted by the rulers (priests, commissars etc).
Ideas matter to such an extent that ideas are central to a man’s, and to mankind’s existence!!! They determine whether you will have any freedom at all or no.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

R3V, you have confused me with your idea of “Absolute monarchy”, but I have drawn some inference from your reference to his power not being only on paper etc – he should have absolute power!!

Just to be clear, absolute power doesn't mean that the king controls every aspect of life.

An absolute monarch could pursue totalitarian policies or he could pursue libertarian policies.

What makes him absolute is that he alone decides which policies to pursue.

This is the thing the founders of America fought strongly against, viz. any form of government having such power over citizens, not merely the monarch.

All governments have absolute power over their citizens, in the sense that they could pursue whatever policies they like.

That's the very meaning of the state; it is a monopoly of power.

The difference between different forms of government is who decides which policies the government will pursue.

As for the Founders, they were well meaning classical liberals for whom I have a great deal of respect, but they were very naive about how government works (words on paper cannot constrain the power of the state, dividing power does not make government smaller - those Enlightenment ideas are wrong), which is why we are where we are today.

there were no benevolent monarchs anywhere on earth prior to European conquest of the world – there were only murderers who had usurped power

That's just not true. The murderous tyrant is the exception not the rule when you look at the actual history of monarchy.

The one factor common to all these rules is that part of the rulers (generally the priests, but sometimes replaced by another elite as in communism) have had an absolute control over ideas!!! Any thought not tolerable to the ruling elite was crushed ruthlessly, murderously, like public burning of heretics in European Christianity. It was thinking / ideas released from the iron grip of the absolute rulers that brought in benevolent monarchies, not absolutism.

Modern democratic states have infinitely more control over ideas than any monarchy could have ever hoped to have.

This is not merely a function of technology (e.g. TV), it has t do with incentives as well.

An absolute monarch only needs to control ideas to the extent necessary to prevent the people from revolting.

A democratic state needs to control ideas in much more minute detail, because they need the people to actively support it by voting.

Your argument about what is good or bad for the monarch himself in the long run requires lot of thinking, i.e. ideas

Yes, but only knowledge, not ethics. If the king is greedy, he will want to maximize his revenues; and so, if he understands economics, he will pursue liberal economic policies, because that's the way to maximize his revenue. That is, to rule well, he only needs knowledge of economic; he doesn't need libertarian ethics.

 

[Jingles]

We are equal in terms of rights. Equality on anything else doesn't matter.

 

[Viking]

We are equal in terms of rights. Equality on anything else doesn't matter.

That is the one big misunderstanding Michael Spencer is trying to clear Jingles. As you know, parasites in our country including the lowest scum of society like criminals are living lavish kings’ lives as compared to such people elsewhere on earth, or during times of America’s founding. That is because of the huge doles distributed by the Dems. But we all know that it is not the function of the government to produce money, so obviously it is the producers / honest workers’ money; the latter are now the slaves, while the parasites are the owners!! These parasites, even if they not be 47% as Romney claimed, are still an astounding number, and loyally vote for the Dems in exchange for doles. Spencer has also explained why this slavery has remained imperceptible, one reason being the huge debt which will have to be paid off eventually, else will result in huge crash (see Ron Paul’s warnings about this). Even the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) of GOP is based on similar misunderstandings of Americans; one unfortunate part of it is honest, innocent, gullible American boys are causelessly dying all over the earth while the politicians and money-bags are conducting wars merely as games and for vested interest. Equal Rights is just an aberration which has allowed the rulers to drag America to abyss, fool the fools unbelievably, and grab power over people, money, glory, sainthood etc.
I visited Spencer’s website, I urge readers to read his excellent analysis of a Typical Democrat President L B Johnson -- you will be shocked to know what we have given into!!! https://americanemesis.wordpress.co...typical-democrat-president-post-new-deal-lbj/
A shorter version of LBJ-analysis is also available on the site, but that may create minor difficulty because of being an extract from the middle. The analysis being excellent and innovative, I recommend the full version.

I believe that this blog should reach Ron and Rand Paul; it will heavily strengthen their fight against big government.

 

[idiom]

How so?

You don't think politicians implement freeshit schemes for the purpose of winning more votes for themselves?

Outside of the US it mostly happens because the politicians genuinely believe in either wholesale redistribution as a communist system, or in safety nets of some kind as a moral duty or efficiency boosting thing.

In the US shit doesn't even happen to buy votes, it happens to pay off lobbyists.

Some times it is genuinely to buy votes. In New Zealand the right wing government sold off all the state housing to the people living in it because it turned them from welfare recipients into land owners and land owners vote right.

When the Labour party recently tried a bunch of vote buying here they lost the election in a landslide because it was transparent that they had been in power for too long and didn't believe in anything except more power.

Politicians sometimes eliminate freeshit to win votes.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Outside of the US it mostly happens because the politicians genuinely believe in either wholesale redistribution as a communist system, or in safety nets of some kind as a moral duty or efficiency boosting thing.

LOL, no. It happens to buy votes, just as in the US.

...not to say there aren't principled socialists out there (Bernie is probably one such example), but that's not the norm.

In the US shit doesn't even happen to buy votes, it happens to pay off lobbyists.

Same thing. Why do you think politicians care what lobbyists think?

...lobbyists who represent companies/groups who can make/withhold campaign contributions.

...contributions which can be used for advertising.

...to get more votes.

Politicians sometimes eliminate freeshit to win votes.

Sure, but that's not the norm, as evidenced by the nearly continuous growth in freeshit throughout the democratic world in the last century (as per the chart I posted).

 

[bandwidth]

Just to be clear, absolute power doesn't mean that the king controls every aspect of life.
An absolute monarch could pursue totalitarian policies or he could pursue libertarian policies.
What makes him absolute is that he alone decides which policies to pursue.
All governments have absolute power over their citizens, in the sense that they could pursue whatever policies they like.
That's the very meaning of the state; it is a monopoly of power.
The difference between different forms of government is who decides which policies the government will pursue.
As for the Founders, they were well meaning classical liberals for whom I have a great deal of respect, but they were very naive about how government works

R3V, Sorry for the delayed response; requirements of routine life distracted, but importantly, I was taken aback by your insistence on a monarch and unable to figure out a response – even now I am not sure you really mean you want a monarch.
There are many mistakes in your write-up I could have commented on – example your statements:

1. All governments have absolute power over their citizens, in the sense that they could pursue whatever policies they like.
2. That's the very meaning of the state; it is a monopoly of power.
3. The difference between different forms of government is who decides which policies the government will pursue.

The difference between what power American govt had during its founding, has today, and what the Soviets had between 1917 to 1990 is so huge that they are 3 different classes. In a rational society the government has monopoly of retaliation only, no other power over citizens. In irrational savage societies the dictator, the know-all monarch and his supporters decide policies (and everything else); in a rational, free society the citizens restrict the government to the minimal!!!
But I will restrict myself to your one single idea: handing over all power to an all-knowing monarch.
Considering the massive increase in diverse technologies, the hundreds of issues that are going on and on in parliaments, on discussion forums, political parties, media and everywhere -- to think of such a know-all king who will single-handedly implement his benevolent policies without so many government servants, bureaucrats, police – or maybe a large army of robots who have no vested interests (imagine CIA without vested interests), but are programmed to know what’s in the king’s mind on every issue and behave accordingly to govern vast countries like US, EU, China, India – I don’t think MS, Google etc are capable of such programming, and they should also be given into the hands of that king, which is where CIA, FBI etc are headed.
All dictators assume that they are know-all, and are acting for the welfare of society! But do you really mean: Checks and balances, separation of powers, insistence on doing away with a single authority etc everything gone????
Long time back (about 2500 years ago) there was one man in mankind’s history who preached such a know-all king – he was very, very influential in determining mankind’s fate, and even today is. He wrote a book which is since taught in colleges all over the earth and without which courses on philosophy are worthless! The title of the book is “The Republic”, the author’s name is Plato. But his know-all philosopher king too was not acting all alone; he rose from an elite Plato called as Men of Gold, followed by Men of Silver (today CIA, FBI and other bureaucrats are acquiring that position), and the rest 85% were Men of Bronze – the Men of Gold and Silver ruled while 85% Men of Bronze worked under their whip; the system was meant to achieve “welfare of society”. We people are so ungrateful, we call that Golden Age as the Dark Ages!!! Other-wise it was a real great idea, similar to yours. Communist etc rules, in fact all dictatorships are based on this kind of structure. In India they went a few steps ahead – the Men of Gold, the Brahmins, called themselves as BhuDev, means “God on Earth”, got their feet washed by the lowest strata who had to drink that water as pious / sacred, and so on.
You call the FFs (Founding Fathers) as naïve? Their constitution was “The greatest political document in mankind’s history”, and even today is – but it suffers from a common drawback that every good suffers in man-kind’s philosophies / social realm: the fight between good and evil is eternal so evil will keep changing its forms, keep adopting ever new techniques to destroy the good – subsequent generations have to keep fighting evil in all its new forms – it is their responsibility, and seeing at your arguments I am quite depressed. If the FFs had given us a panacea we would all have been parasites. Just because we are unable to handle democracy properly, as the title of Mr. Spencer’s blog says “Is Democracy the Nemesis also of Americans?” should we declare FFs to be naïve?
Why did Europe give up monarchies and follow American leadership if as you say they were far more benevolent than today’s democracies?
Spencer says, whatever freedom they have in as backward a country as India, is because of classical English philosophy which climaxed as “the greatest political document in mankind’s history”, the original constitution of the US. That constitution is the reason why many in America are still enjoying paradise as compared to the rest of the world DESPITE MASSIVE EROSION. That erosion, and residual greatness, shows how great the original document was, maybe with a few shortcomings.
If you are really insisting on a monarch then I salute you sir!!!
By the way – Spencer also has saluted Obama and his cohorts from both the parties for having achieved whatever they have – I urge everybody who sees this post, to see his “Challenges to the POTUS and to Individualist Americans” – doing it from India while suffering huge persecution from all sides, something great!!! I agree with other posters: Somebody on the forum should bring his website to the notice of Ron and Rand – it’ll heavily strengthen their fight against today’s big government.
https://americanemesis.wordpress.com/challenges-to-the-potus/
Note: If you have a long response to this then we should start a new OP about Republic vs Democracy vs Monarchy because we have quite digressed from the OP’s topic.

 

[otherone]

R3v's argument is from practicality, not ideology.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The difference between what power American govt had during its founding, has today, and what the Soviets had between 1917 to 1990 is so huge...

We're talking about different things.

Some governments pursue more totalitarian policies than others - of course, I understand that.

What I'm saying is that all government have the ability to pursue whatever policies they like - that's what it means to say that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, or a monopoly of ultimate decision-making power. The US in 1800 pursued libertarian policies, the USSR in 1930 totalitarian policies. But the US in 1800 could have pursued totalitarian policies, and the USSR in 1930 could have pursued libertarian policies, had they chosen to do so. The difference was not a magic piece of paper restraining the US government, it was the motives of the rulers in each country. That's my point: you can't prevent the state from pursuing the policies it wants, you can only try to change the rulers' incentives so that they want to pursue libertarian policies. Hence, monarchy, in which the ruler has the best possible motivation to pursue libertarian policies (i.e. self-interest).

in a rational, free society the citizens restrict the government to the minimal!!!

Maybe so, but that's not what happens in a democracy (or a republic).

This rational, free society sounds like a mythical place.

But I will restrict myself to your one single idea: handing over all power to an all-knowing monarch.

Considering the massive increase in diverse technologies, the hundreds of issues that are going on and on in parliaments, on discussion forums, political parties, media and everywhere -- to think of such a know-all king who will single-handedly implement his benevolent policies without so many government servants, bureaucrats, police – or maybe a large army of robots who have no vested interests (imagine CIA without vested interests), but are programmed to know what’s in the king’s mind on every issue and behave accordingly to govern vast countries like US, EU, China, India – I don’t think MS, Google etc are capable of such programming, and they should also be given into the hands of that king, which is where CIA, FBI etc are headed.

This is an important issue, I'm glad you raised it.

All organizations (be they private enterprises or states) suffer from diseconomies of scale once they get too large. The owners of a business have a profit motive and consequently an incentive to make the business run as efficiently as possible. Once the business gets beyond a certain size, it becomes impossible to the owners to personally manage all aspects of it, so they have to delegate authority to others - but these managers don't have the same incentives as the owners, they don't care about the profitability of the business, as they get paid the same regardless. Large corporations deal with this problem all the time. One solution is to pay managers in stock, or implement other profit sharing schemes, as this gives the managers a vested interest in the profitability of the company. But for a really large company, this doesn't work very well either, as the employee only recoups a small amount of the additional profit he generates for the company (e.g. if you can increase profits by $1000 by working harder, but you only own 1/1000th of the company, you only get $1 for your effort, a mere 1/1000th of its value - this is disincentivizing for the same reason as high income taxes). Another possible solution is franchising. Day to day operations are handled by local managers, who own the part of the business they're managing, retaining only loose links to the central corporation. These local owner-managers have the same good incentives to manage the part of the business under their control as the owners of the central corporation have to manage the corporation overall. Thus the corporations can be well managed, even though it's too large for the owners to personally manage.

This analysis of corporate governance points the way to the solution to the problem you identified in monarchical government. There's some population size beyond which it becomes impossible for the king to personally manage the state, so he has to delegate authority. But if these people are salaried employees, they have no incentive to run the state efficiently. So I would propose a variation on franchising, as discussed above. I'll create a new thread to elaborate on this.

Just because we are unable to handle democracy properly...

There is no way to handle it properly.

There aren't enough of "us" (libertarians) to overcome its inherent socialistic tendencies, nor will there ever be.

That doesn't mean we can't try to win some elections and push the needle a bit towards liberty, but this is always going to be 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

should we declare FFs to be naïve?

Perhaps naive isn't the best word, as it implies that they overlooked available information, when actually, the problem is that the information needed to understand the problem did not yet exist in the 18th century. Economics was in its infancy. There was no empirical evidence of how democracy works (as we now have), beyond fragmentary records from classical antiquity. Blaming them for not understand the argument I'm making would be like blaming St. Augustine for not having read Human Action; it's not fair. So I'm not blaming them for being mistaken, but they were mistaken nonetheless.

Why did Europe give up monarchies and follow American leadership if as you say they were far more benevolent than today’s democracies

They believed that democracy would be superior, evidently.

 

[bandwidth]

Net Net for R3V – there are many fallacies in your arguments but I don’t believe there is any point in the discussion; You can go round and round twisting arguments, but net-net your yearning is for a know-all monarch like Plato’s philosopher-king, another Dark Ages etc. This time there is huge empirical evidence against him (and there is also a lot against democracy since Greek times and degeneration of Roman Republic into Bread and Circus democracy), but this is what you want instead of separation of powers, checks and balances etc. As an inference, and your arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, you still imply that the Founders were naïve – those people had produced the greatest political document in mankind’s history – maybe some minor revisions, or securing it against erosion etc remained for future generations because the fight between good and evil is eternal, but still it was a huge achievement.
And R3V, you declare “there is no way to handle it (democracy) properly?? There aren't enough of "us" (libertarians) to overcome its inherent socialistic tendencies, nor will there ever be.” How do you know it unless you are the “know-all monarch”? If the solution is innovative, unknown to anybody else, it doesn’t mean you should declare its impossibility – a man has come out with so far unknown details about democracy, and about how to secure a Republic, sincere people need to study them. But while he is heroically fighting single-handedly the murderers-cum-rulers of backward societies we are engaged in futile arguments!
Another man Democles has thankfully offered his site to us – I urge everybody to read all details on that website. The very first section of it: https://americanemesis.wordpress.com/challenges-to-the-potus/ which as the name indicates, challenges the POTUS and individualist Americans so powerfully that it will surely attract you to the remaining blog.
I AM MORE BOTHERED BY ANOTHER FACT – MANY LIBERTARIANS ARE GETTING INCLINED TOWARDS DICTATORSHIP, REALLY BELIEVEING THAT THE DICTATOR WILL DO WHAT THEY WANT AND NOT WHAT HE / HIS CRONIES WANT, AND THEN, AS THE SITUATION DEVELOPS, FOR MURDERERS TO GRAB POWER AND LOOT.
I would have liked many other peoples’ views on this, but only “otherone” says R3V’s argument is not based on logic, but on practicality.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Net Net for R3V – there are many fallacies in your arguments but I don’t believe there is any point in the discussion

Well, then let me end it:

1. You and democles are the same person, who is also the author of the blog you're hawking.

2. You're incapable of understanding the kind of criticism I'm raising; this is why you repeat slogans rather than respond to arguments.

Adios

 

[bandwidth]

Well, then let me end it:
1. You and democles are the same person, who is also the author of the blog you're hawking.
2. You're incapable of understanding the kind of criticism I'm raising; this is why you repeat slogans rather than respond to arguments.
Adios

R3V, I hope that you are sincere in your “Adios”. You continue believing in your thoughts and I will believe that many libertarians are shifting towards monarchy, a dangerous trait.

Whether your allegation against me is true or false, I hope you will accept that a man has right to spread his thoughts by any legal means possible to him, including what you are alleging me / us of. Means your know-all monarch will not impose his thoughts on me / us. Two people can also jointly “hawk” the same thought(s). Others are free to judge the entire case as they find fit, and now that you have accused me as above, they are free to agree with you or disagree. In case they agree with you still some may find the exercise worthy because it gives good ideas, others may simply neglect. Whether the ideas being “hawked” are good, bad or unimportant, is the important point – its unimportant if one employs a minor tactic provided one does not infringe on others’ rights. At least so far we are all of us free here in America – CIA has not turned into complete dictators.

Since your arguments are far above me, I hope you will leave me alone.

Adios

Freedom-lovers: I do believe that Spencer has tremendous ideas that can contribute immensely to restore original America – the rest upto you; nothing is hidden but rather being spread in front of you.

 

[erowe1]

I don't understand how the thread title relates to the OP.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I'm always interested to hear another's ideas but so far I do understand how the author's idea varies from any other constitutionalist on this board. Could you contast the author's views to those of Ron Paul's? What consideration has Ron missed and how would it help in restoring liberty to America?

 

[bandwidth]

I'm always interested to hear another's ideas but so far I do understand how the author's idea varies from any other constitutionalist on this board. Could you contast the author's views to those of Ron Paul's? What consideration has Ron missed and how would it help in restoring liberty to America?

P3ter: The issue being complex and the ideas being novel, I am making a long reply.
Most Americans are holding diverse opinions about these issues (All men were created equal, whether America is Republic or Democracy, whether majority is arbiter of truth etc). But the mainstreams can easily be discerned as follows: Post the New Deal, the Dems have totally inverted the Founders’ view of men’s equality as equality in front of law and therefore inequality of returns – their whole ever-increasing doles-program including medicare, education (i.e. far beyond food-stamps, housing etc) is based on that inversion, and with that inversion they have secured a loyal vote-block which may not be as big as Mitt Romney’s estimate of 47%, but is big enough to make them invincible. (A good estimate is about 35%). At the same time it has also reduced the workers / producers to slaves of parasites – as explained by Spencer on his blog, it is based on simple trade between Dems and parasites: “You give me your votes, I will give you producers’ money – they have to keep working, we will lord over them.” I cannot bring Spencer’s entire write-up here, but you will be aghast to see his analysis of a typical Democratic president Lyndon Johnson (all others being similar from FDR to Clintons), the deception they have perpetrated is so very cheap, but it is based on lack of analysis by Dems’ opponents; see about LBJ here -- https://americanemesis.wordpress.co...typical-democrat-president-post-new-deal-lbj/ A short version of meaning of LBJ’s actions is also offered in this section, for those who want to save time, but I recommend reading the entire write-up.

Some Conservatives, Libertarians like Ron Paul, Objectivism and many others are holding correct opinions about these issues including opposition to democracy – but have they explained the issues in detail, brought out the fallacies, the evil misuse etc? The first ones to correctly use the ideas were the Founders, and their thoughts prevailed even beyond 1900, but they too did not go into explicit detailed analysis – the whole show of the Dems is based on this lack of detailed analysis. Till a correct analysis is presented, individualist Americans, who are all opposed to the welfare state, will never join hands, they will always remain divided, like these 5-10 factions of Tea Parties, of Libertarians, Conz-Christians, even of so small a movement as Objectivism – all of them are individualists, but all of them oppose each other strongly, making the Dems invincible.
(Supposing any of the above had presented a detailed analysis, so much erosion of America would not have happened!)
They are all opposed to democracy since Founders’ times – no, the opposition is as far back as Plato 2400 years back!! But has anybody given a detailed analysis or made mere assertions? See Spencer’s analysis, sections like Vote-Bank Politics and above all the section titled “Democracy as fertile ground for moral degeneration” which beautifully explains that democracy has to inevitably reduce America to a third world country. He is right in claiming that his is never-before analysis of democracy!
The GOP-Conzs are totally inept to counter the Dems about their evil interpretation of men’s equality, so they have shifted to war-mongering – their intellectuality has gone so low in competing with the Dems for votes that they beat their chest for spreading democracy on earth. In reality they are using this boast merely to justify war-mongering (full proofs are available how they play toy wars, resuscitated and energized China while calling Communism as greatest evil, they have never concluded any war post WWII but merely left weapons with terrorists and moved on so that toy-wars would continue forever, the falsities attached with Iraq and other wars, etc) – but still, even if they were honest about it, yet the Founders were strong opponents of both, democracy as well as war-mongering, and they considered the military to be one of the biggest dangers to the citizens, so it was even substantially disbanded after the Revolution – today it is the biggest expense and the biggest force against the states opposing the Federal govt!!
Christianity is of no use in these issues because it ultimately propounds charity as the highest ethical ideal – that is what the Dems are doing, they are helping the poor; which true Christian can oppose that??? The hitch is that the Founders were Christians but during their time a person using the government for charity would have got shot!! By charity they meant private charity (which again they did not bring out properly but did practice), no misuse of government funds so that politicians make money, yet become saints by throwing alms to the poor, but at producers’ cost. What the Dems are doing Spencer has explained in the above LBJ section as:
Quote this phenomenon (charity via government) can be practiced only by saying “Unselfishness? Non-egoism? Of course great ideals, but to be observed by others (read producers) so that I can get away with my irrationalities, I will gain sainthood, earn commission, grab power” etc. “Go America go – work hard for your fellow brothers, sacrifice for the down-trodden, wipe their eyes, drink their tears, lick their wounds – work hard and sacrifice. I too will be looking after the welfare of maids in hotels and of actresses.”
The above is the exact meaning of “Achieving Sainthood, commission and power by Charity, but at the cost of others”; explanation why this will lead to civil war is given ahead in sub-article Erosion of Reason as Root of Civil War. Unquote
Of-course this is just a small quote, you have to read the entire blog to see its beauty. No restoration of Founders’ America will happen without studying it in detail.

 

[otherone]

individualist Americans, who are all opposed to the welfare state, will never join hands

...or sticks, even.

 

[osan]

Universal suffrage is a terrible, terrible idea. Some unfortunate truths:

An 18 year old man does in fact possess the physical prowess necessary to serve as an effective soldier. He almost never, however, possesses the moral and intellectual prowess needed to serve as an informed voter.

Women vote with their hearts, not their heads. Yes there are exceptions. No that doesn't negate the argument.

People with no wealth, who pay no taxes, will only ever vote for more confiscation from those who do have wealth and do pay taxes.

Universal suffrage will always destroy society.

And the grand implication here is....

wait for it...

wait for it...

YES! That VOTING is itself one of the key destructive forces in those societies where it has been made institute! In a land that is founded upon proper principles of human relations and is correctly operated upon those principles, there is no need for mechanisms such as voting and legislation because everything you need to live rightly with your fellows is already in place.

But no, most demand such things in order to be provided with the grossly ill-conceived and masturbatory illusion that they have a voice - POWER - in the grander scheme, all the while failing to recognize that their freedom is their voice and power. And many of those are simple addicted to low-rent, street-whore drama.

This is why I maintain that the people in a free land are wholly and utterly intolerant of that which cannot be tolerated and they precisely know the one from the other. Having a deep knowledge of the correct principles of human relations and the intransigent attitude of intolerance for anything that violates them is absolutely key to freedom. Less egregious instances of such violations are noted and the violator corrected by whatever means is called for. THAT is the universal procedure for dealing with personal fucking-up by one's fellows.

If my fellow strange to me takes a stick of my chewing gum without my permission, do I murder him instantly? No. I alert him his transgression. Perhaps I demand restitution, or just recognition of the boundary he has crossed without authority. If he makes good, then life goes on. If not, we decide whether to escalate on the understanding that it is well within our just prerogative to do so. In principle, this can go all the way to the point of killing him. Yes, it may seem ridiculous to kill for a stick of gum, but if one applies some deeper examination, all of a sudden it may not seem quite so ridiculous, so long as the proper path to that end has been trod.

For example, the continued refusal of the violator to acknowledge his violation is a clear indicator of either his ignorance of propriety, or his contempt for it. In the case of the former, failure to "get it" would indicate the same contempt, all else equal and barring some mental deficiency disallowing him the ability to comprehend the nature of his transgression. The attitude of contempt for the rights of others is what will earn him death, not the taking of a lousy stick of gum.

These are the universal proprieties in which every many should be a PhD-level expert. With them, we all know what to do, how to do it, and when. Without them, we are lost and the world ends up just as we currently find it and shall shortly devolve.

Getting back for a short moment to the assertion that we need nothing of legislation and other such "governmental" instruments, there are those hordes who will go on endlessly about the roads, military, and "progress". For example, they will ask the dullard's question "how will we progress beyond <fill in the blank w/favorite canard> if we don't have government to make it happen?" To that I say two things. Firstly, who says we must "progress"? The absolute need for humanity to "progress" is a largely tacit and now very deeply-seated assumption that has no basis in fact. It is simply taken as some sort of absolute truth.

Let me ask you this: if your choice of lifestyle were to have that which you now possess, which exists in a framework of rank tyranny and was brought into existence by the same means, or one far less materially endowed but where you were free to pursue anything you pleased without interference from others, which would you choose? Progress.... progress at WHAT cost? Your freedom? You happiness? Your rights? You soul? This is why we are NOT free. People on the whole prefer the gilt cage of their pretty slavery to the freedom into which they were each born, yet were taught to throw to the winds in favor of the 30 sheckels offered them by the tyrant.

Secondly, note "MAKE is happen". As we all know, most of what we have achieved in terms of gross material and economic terms has been accomplished through blind and non-equivocating force. At the very bottom of it, this is the ONLY way government accomplishes anything because at that bottom rests the threat of overwhelming and devastating violence.

Once again we arrive at that same central point to which all doors lead: wanting that which cannot ever become real. This is the undoing of men and I see no hope for the vast majority, but only the grave and immediate threat of extinction for the tiny majority who see the truth and understand it; those who want real and actual freedom and are willing to bear the risks and satisfy the demands required of them to be free. We, the people of the minority, are an endangered species over whose head a great Damoclean sword hangs, the security of its moorings ever uncertain at the hands of the corrupt and endlessly avaricious majority who may at any time undo those threads and see us into extinction.

The plight of the minority, those whom our Constitution was meant to protect from the tyranny of the mob, stands tenuously, the future looking murky on the best days and utterly non-existent for them on all others. The free man is anathema to the mob, who hates him above all other things because his mere existence shines a light on their own depthless shame and corruption. This is why I further maintain that violence of some form and degree holds the only hope for the few who rightly call themselves "free"; the corrupt horde will have none of it save by show of force greater than that generated by their graft and malfeasance.