Yes! The “right” to vote must be contingent upon some degree of an individual’s understanding of history, philosophy, market economics, civics etc. All those things no longer taught in “school”. That an ignoramus’ vote counts the same as mine - and I’ve had a thirst for knowledge for as long as I can remember - disenfranchises me.
14 hrs ago·edited 13 hrs agoLiked by Christopher Cook
Great point AT. That is the main problem with the small but very important majority vote of a jury of your peers in a court of "justice." How are the jurors selected? Presently the make up of most juries today is actually pretty messed up and jury selection is a joke. What you would want is some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, discerning, rational people who are actually "peers" of the person accused and who are successful and well thought of by their community who know them and their reputation of honesty. That is not what happens. On a large scale this mass immigration is national "jury selection" at work.
13 hrs ago·edited 7 hrs agoLiked by Christopher Cook
Yeah, that's why it has been so important for the power lovers to have so degraded all forms of education and information, poison air water and food and baby vaxs to manufacture the ignoramuses they need to out vote the few who were intelligent enough after all that to still see what is happening. Now they can just provide transportation, housing and goodies to third world largely uneducated or miseducated
immigrants who have no problems with moral and ethical considerations when they vote as long as there are "benefits" paid for by those lovely sheep living in the home of the brave.
But even a smart person’s vote is still oppressing me, because their vote will cause me to be subjected to things to which I did not consent. ALL VOTES ARE VIOLENCE.
I don't know if I'd go that far Christopher. There is a time and a place for all things as it says in Ecclesiastes. It is not so much the vote that is the problem, as it is the assumption that the outcome of a vote can be enforced by violence and coercion. This is particularly egregious if it is a vote to violate something that all men and women have in common. One of these is just wanting to be left alone as long as one is willing to grant those same rights that are the heritage of all men and women to others. That certainly includes all honestly obtained or self created goods and values (the sacred right to property) being protected from theft by anyone or any organization. The so-called "government" is not exempt from this by some sort of magic any more than any other organization. A vote can provide some indication of where discussion is needed to come to a consensus and what is right discovered free of ignorant thinking that can't be verified by facts. A council of wise elders could be voted on by a community with the task of coming to a hundred percent consensus on who would be an unbiased, objective and wise judge, or pick an intelligent and discerning jury, but not a king or authority figure with coercive powers. A good jury should be in session until there is one hundred percent agreement on conviction or acquittal, not a majority.
Yes, that is an important clarification—one with which I agree. What I should say is ALL VOTES THAT CAN RESULT IN NONCONSENSUAL IMPOSITIONS OF AUTHORITY AND INITIATIONS OF COERCIVE FORCE ARE VIOLENCE.
But all that in-between stuff just makes it less pithy, and I am trying to drive home a point that folks are having difficulty grasping. (Understandably, given two centuries of fetishization of democracy and five millennia of fetishization of the state.)
Right, "pithy" does have some shock value, but I am a Virgo, we love the details (that's where the devil is, right?) I don't want anyone to have any wiggle room to disagree made from a desire to find a niggle to justify their programming.
No one should have to pay tax. I'm sure most here agree with me that taxation is theft. Nearly every vote that matters will be made by each voter with regard to something that he thinks will be good for him, but I get the point Bettina. A person should have a stake in what's under consideration, and at least be self supporting. If you can't make successful decisions in life at least enough to enable you to pay your own way, why should you be entitled to make decisions for others?! Makes no sense at all.
But your stake in the future may be different from mine. You may want different things. So you and some group of people vote for something, and it is not something I want, and thus your vision is forced upon me.
ALL voting is moral crime. ALL voting is violence.
Even when it is done by smart people or taxpayers or a thousand Gandhis or Einsteins or Mother Teresas.
6 hrs ago·edited 6 hrs agoLiked by Christopher Cook
Maybe if all people were perfect it would work, but of course it would be totally unnecessary then, because any one perfect person would see what is the perfect decision. It's "evil," if you want to call willful stupidity, lying to self and others, ignorance of consequences, evil, because democracy assumes that the votes of an evil or partly evil person is the same and equal in value to that of a wise and righteous person, and all of us humans have some "evil" within us now don't we? A wise and righteous person is self reliant and has no need or desire to control others and how they live as long as they leave him or her alone. I don't think Ghandi wanted to tell others how to live and just did what he thought was his right to do...like making his own salt.
Your best yet. This one might be the biggest jail-break for the mind....I definitely see so many "freeom fighters" falling for the same old tricks....vote harder...THIS TIME it will make a difference....blah blah blah.....you brought the fire for this one, love it! Agreed!
You can't reform tyrants, they are made because we keep them in power. They come to believe they have a God ordained duty to rule, and are chosen of the masses. I keep thinking about Saruman, how he needed to be stripped of his "authority" and godlike status. This is what all the people are going to have to do. Or our world will become a digital gulag.
As this made me think about Lysander Spooner again, let me share another quote of him: "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
16 hrs ago·edited 16 hrs agoLiked by Christopher Cook
All insanity starts in the mind. Even the insanity of creating governments. The ultimate insanity is believing in them, cherishing them and blindly following them. We now see where 200 years of doing so has led us. The "more perfect union" failed to escape anti-humanism as all governments throughout history have sought to destroy those from whence it's power came. The citizens who trusted them. The citizens who fought for them. The citizens who died for them.
Thus, the citizen is brain dead as he comes back for more and more punishment.
For me, the problem comes from Representative government, it require trust and it has been completely whiter away. Also, it just rewards sociopathic behaviour (Brian Klaas has an entire book on it: "Corruptible"). But it all started with our inability to take on everyones inputs and restraint the reach of agreements and legislation to specific INDIVIDUALS. I think the printing press created an enviroment that led to the French Revolution but now the Internet + AI is creating the fertile soil for a new form of goverment. Trustless protocols and Trustsful communities (socionts, less than 250 people, as Alexander Bard define it) working with each other
A program that think on all this issues is Plurality.net with Glen Weyl and Audrey Tang.
I'm doing a fork of their project and I plan to alter the way we do politics... without internediaries, always having "consent" as the top priority. Policentrism + Direct Digital "Democracy" is the way to merger the old with the new
Sure. My own country, Peru, is a perfect example. The level of crisis I see alongside the completly destruction of reputation of politicians and the politicial system is stagering (6 presidents in 6 years. Unconstitutional being pass. Laws that "changed" the Constitution, and many more)
"Dumb criminals break the Law. Smart criminals make Laws" - Sherlock Holmes.
Just for starters. Direct Digital Democracy means we have replace the Congress and now an AI is becoming YOUR intermediary to provide you with information personalized to you. (Check out Pia Mancini's TED talk from 9 years ago, "How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era").
Locality also has to become king again (local information). Such a big country as Peru needs different legislation specific for every single location. Meaning, most decisions that get taken are only those locally relevant for your tribe, town, city at maximum. (Many of this ideas come from the book "The Social Singularity" by Max Borders btw)
Also, Voting is broken. 1 person 1 vote is absurd. More things to vote for, more options and a form to show a degree of personal importance is key. Cuadratic Voting comes in handy for this. Check out Glen Weyl work on that.
Additionaly to this, Alexander Bard has this idea of Sensocracy. Having sensors everywhere that record and keep a real "pulse" in human society. I tend to draw inspiration from that but I think we need to be the "sensors" that voluntarily bring the
Also, the way in which the law works has to be reform too... how? I'm doing some research into that. But Justinian law is just too restrictive and has been gamed, common law seems better but I think we need an upgrade.
I certainly agree—common law is much better than Justinian law. For sure!
But here is my issue: NO rights should be up for a vote. If a vote produces a result that imposes ANY nonconsensual imposition of authority or initiation of coercive force, it is a crime against the individual. Even if the vote is 999 to 1.
Pity us in the UK. We haven't even got to your starting point of a written constitution and a bill of rights. We still have an executive that exercises most of it power without any oversight at all under cover of the 'Royal Prerogative' - essentially the power to do whatever monarchs could do pre-1689 ie a lot! And we have an actual (not my) King who is a member of the WEF and spouts its propaganda relentlessly.
10 hrs ago·edited 10 hrs agoLiked by Christopher Cook
Yes, that's extremely weired. The people in UK life in a full blown monarchy. The politians, parliament, etc. is a show by definition. If the Windsor's have any other idea, they just do it.
The only thing with more human rights was the Magna Carta
Fun fact is that the Windsors come from the Hanover Dynasty called Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. They just took the name of their castle to change the name in 1918.
Also very weired is the City of London Corporation. A souvereign country inside the UK since 1200. When the King wants to enter it he needs to ask for permission.
We all, in the "west" had been blunt what's really going on.
Yes, the written constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights, in our case) helps. But we’re just a different branch of the same lousy tree. Not quite as far out in the limb as y’all, but we’re headed there too.
What about empire, man? I mean, like my football team I want my empire to win! Are we just going to let other empires win? No way! Sure, we may get called for some fouls and all but we need keep pounding away to victory! How will I find meaning in my life without football and empire?
13 hrs ago·edited 13 hrs agoLiked by Christopher Cook
Another key topic - Voting
Voting or Consensing
Voting is crap as 51 can rule over 49, with 50% abstention we end up with 26 ruling over 74
There is no rule of minimum voters nor a rule that rules out coalitions. Four parties that scratch together 51% initiate a government. I could laugh if it wouldn't that bitter.
We have so, so, so, so smart people and judges, philosophers, etc. AND those didn't realize that
I would say: "Come on people, they can't be so stupid. That was bei pure intend!"
Consensing gives everybody a scale of 0-10, works much better than voting
Even if systemic consenting is an improvement, it still forces things on people who don’t want them. Why do that at all? Market anarchism (anarchocapitalism) avoid the problem entirely.
Any, like anarchism translate into deutsch as, e.g. anarchismus. That is Anarchis-ist-mus or in english "Anarch is must". All "ism", deutsch "ist muss", "is must", in english are Idea-Logics, therefore artificial and beyond natural behavior.
Any "ism" is an indicator of a higher force idea and manipulation.
Thinking bottom up is key, not top down! That's my opinion.
Anarchocapitalism, is also a "ism". Nothing to say against is long it doesn't hurt anybody. In a true community model an anarchocapitalism won't be possible. At least as there would be no trillionars, like the UK Windsors or billionaires like Musk, Gate, etc. . Boys that are good or bad for communities.
Maybe some are thrilled by Musk BUT it is impossible that one human alone run Tesla, X, SpaceX, Neuralink, etc. . That's a network or supernatural which is beyond our thinking.
14 hrs ago·edited 14 hrs agoLiked by Christopher Cook
We have demonstrated that it is fundamentally morally impermissible. Not merely “flawed,” but impermissible. If you believe in the concept of individual natural rights at all, then you must recognize this.
» I see democracy as governance, only. So it isn’t the highest instance. The highest intance is moral. That should be the first clause of a community contract (Constitution called, today, that nobody signed, thus invalid)
That should be the end of it, but just to be sure, we have continued the flogging…
We have discussed the tragic reality that democracy contains the seeds of its own demise. That it inevitably degrades the character of a civilization and its people. That it enables some to use and abuse others. That it gives voters control over your life, and let’s face it…a lot of voters just aren’t particularly good people.
» I see it from the other end missing moral kill democrazy. All possible bei intend, keeping backdoors open. I see the highest court as a main killer that can eliminate ANY human rights. We saw that when Corinna startet in 2020. Human rights were just whiped out in the sake of „public health“
Of course, even if they were all magically wonderful people, it is STILL completely unacceptable that anyone gets to impose things upon you against your will. At this point, that ought to be clear.
» That’s because the consitution and government have no limit what their role is, a backdoor by intend. Both have nothing to do with private or business life. If there would be a clear boundary it wouldn’t be possible to impose anything against your will.
The main cause of the democray problem is also that everything is set upside down. IF there is a constitution the house of democrazy is crap already. The constitution is a superpower over the whole community that it shouldn’t be. Root are the souvereign communities that give some tasks to a umbrella organisation as a service. Thus a State „government“ is a service provider, only. Constitutions are at community level, only.
But I am still getting replies to the effect of…
We have to sacrifice some of our rights in order to live together.
» Wow!
The American Founders had the right idea. We just need to go with their original plan.
» The founders may have had the right idea but I come back that a nations consitution is a constitution on the wrong level, has to turned around.
“Gang rape is the will of the majority.”
Sorry, folks, but THAT is what democracy is. Do you understand?
» I don’t think so. People are pulled behind the tree with social security and wealth.
People have the problem that they forget to fast. Most of the problems the government „solved“ for them were invoked by the government itself. The government prints money, everybody has wealth. The government does not tell them that it fuels inflation or needs wars for cheap resources.
The politicians get into a death spiral as the financial system get’s crap. The only way out is to mix democrazy with dictaorship.
The politicians search for 3rd party guilties, build enemy images, split the community that they fight each other to push the root problems out of the screen.
All state powers are now infiltrated by ideological networks. Ideology means "idea logic" and is artificial, not a law of nature like a stone falling on one's foot.
On moral, there is another topic. Who, who, who provides all the free porn? With what intention? Of course we know the results...
Escursion, you can use AEIO to convert a number of words between english and german: Tea, Nose, House, etc. . Old high German and English share more than 50% of words. It seems that more or less of all people shared the same language. Indogermanic goes back 8.000 years that was used from Spain to India! Imagine Inda, some thousends miles away.
If you want to continue to defend democracy, the only place to which to retreat now is to say that some sort of constitutional republic can mitigate this fundamental problem.
Mitigate, yes. Eliminate, no.
» No question the current setup of democrazy ist crap, upside down.
We say Demo-Kratie, meaning Power, Ruler. But Kratie comes from Kratos. In Greek mythology, Kratos is the personification of power and brute force.
But you say Demo-Crazy, isn’t it »Crazy«. The word that had been infused into english is a bitter mockery of the people.
All democratic systems put human rights up for a vote.
» I would say no but that requires what the task of a state is and were it ends. In 2020 high courts whiped away human rights in many countries. In a decentralized system there is no high court that has a huge reach. It’s regionally limited where people can oversee cause and effect by themselves. People were not able to fight back, AS police followed the order. Governments used fear to initiate that. Due to leaked documents we have it black and white. TODAY! Courts are still convicting people based on completely disproven assumptions and allegations. Many people have had to flee abroad. I'm talking about Germany!
There is a key reason why we are all in that dead end situation. Have you read the Black's Law Dictionary? We have a legal mockery! Human rights are for Humans, but we are Persons, legally. So human rights are written but not applicable. All of that comes from the Vatican canon law.
It is time to plant a new tree.
» Looking forward to read how your new tree looks like
There was no such thing as founders. They were the founding fathers. Every single one of them was a man. Enough people are caught cutting the balls off men for the past 50 years. People who lean towards conservative, doing the same thing gives us no hope at all.
The problem isn't democracy or representative government.
The problem is UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE.
The franchise has been expanded over time, and things have gotten worse, because INCENTIVES ARE MISALIGNED (shocking!).
Is it any wonder that some people want no standards imposed on the right to vote (Illegals! Sixteen year-olds! Mental incompetents! Dead people!).
*Only people with a stake in the future should be allowed a say in the future.*
.
.
.
.
(I have a podcast, and I’m gonna shill it until I get 1000 subs: https://marchingthroughtheshadowlands.substack.com/ Sorry, but it ain't gonna shill itself...)
Yes! The “right” to vote must be contingent upon some degree of an individual’s understanding of history, philosophy, market economics, civics etc. All those things no longer taught in “school”. That an ignoramus’ vote counts the same as mine - and I’ve had a thirst for knowledge for as long as I can remember - disenfranchises me.
Great point AT. That is the main problem with the small but very important majority vote of a jury of your peers in a court of "justice." How are the jurors selected? Presently the make up of most juries today is actually pretty messed up and jury selection is a joke. What you would want is some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, discerning, rational people who are actually "peers" of the person accused and who are successful and well thought of by their community who know them and their reputation of honesty. That is not what happens. On a large scale this mass immigration is national "jury selection" at work.
Yeah, that's why it has been so important for the power lovers to have so degraded all forms of education and information, poison air water and food and baby vaxs to manufacture the ignoramuses they need to out vote the few who were intelligent enough after all that to still see what is happening. Now they can just provide transportation, housing and goodies to third world largely uneducated or miseducated
immigrants who have no problems with moral and ethical considerations when they vote as long as there are "benefits" paid for by those lovely sheep living in the home of the brave.
But even a smart person’s vote is still oppressing me, because their vote will cause me to be subjected to things to which I did not consent. ALL VOTES ARE VIOLENCE.
I don't know if I'd go that far Christopher. There is a time and a place for all things as it says in Ecclesiastes. It is not so much the vote that is the problem, as it is the assumption that the outcome of a vote can be enforced by violence and coercion. This is particularly egregious if it is a vote to violate something that all men and women have in common. One of these is just wanting to be left alone as long as one is willing to grant those same rights that are the heritage of all men and women to others. That certainly includes all honestly obtained or self created goods and values (the sacred right to property) being protected from theft by anyone or any organization. The so-called "government" is not exempt from this by some sort of magic any more than any other organization. A vote can provide some indication of where discussion is needed to come to a consensus and what is right discovered free of ignorant thinking that can't be verified by facts. A council of wise elders could be voted on by a community with the task of coming to a hundred percent consensus on who would be an unbiased, objective and wise judge, or pick an intelligent and discerning jury, but not a king or authority figure with coercive powers. A good jury should be in session until there is one hundred percent agreement on conviction or acquittal, not a majority.
Yes, that is an important clarification—one with which I agree. What I should say is ALL VOTES THAT CAN RESULT IN NONCONSENSUAL IMPOSITIONS OF AUTHORITY AND INITIATIONS OF COERCIVE FORCE ARE VIOLENCE.
But all that in-between stuff just makes it less pithy, and I am trying to drive home a point that folks are having difficulty grasping. (Understandably, given two centuries of fetishization of democracy and five millennia of fetishization of the state.)
Right, "pithy" does have some shock value, but I am a Virgo, we love the details (that's where the devil is, right?) I don't want anyone to have any wiggle room to disagree made from a desire to find a niggle to justify their programming.
I hear ya. I think I have provided a fair amount of detail over the last six months, no? 🤣🤣🤣
I think you should at least have to pay tax to have a right to vote. Otherwise you're just voting yourself other peoples' money.
Or, at least not be receiving government handouts. Being opposed to taxation as I am.
Agreed! All taxation is theft is my mantra too.
No one should have to pay tax. I'm sure most here agree with me that taxation is theft. Nearly every vote that matters will be made by each voter with regard to something that he thinks will be good for him, but I get the point Bettina. A person should have a stake in what's under consideration, and at least be self supporting. If you can't make successful decisions in life at least enough to enable you to pay your own way, why should you be entitled to make decisions for others?! Makes no sense at all.
But your stake in the future may be different from mine. You may want different things. So you and some group of people vote for something, and it is not something I want, and thus your vision is forced upon me.
ALL voting is moral crime. ALL voting is violence.
Even when it is done by smart people or taxpayers or a thousand Gandhis or Einsteins or Mother Teresas.
Democracy is evil.
Maybe if all people were perfect it would work, but of course it would be totally unnecessary then, because any one perfect person would see what is the perfect decision. It's "evil," if you want to call willful stupidity, lying to self and others, ignorance of consequences, evil, because democracy assumes that the votes of an evil or partly evil person is the same and equal in value to that of a wise and righteous person, and all of us humans have some "evil" within us now don't we? A wise and righteous person is self reliant and has no need or desire to control others and how they live as long as they leave him or her alone. I don't think Ghandi wanted to tell others how to live and just did what he thought was his right to do...like making his own salt.
Two wolves and a lamb sitting at a table discussing what's for dinner. Can't remember who said that, but a great quote.
Yes it is. And once one grasps it, how can one ever again accept any form of this monstrosity?
Your best yet. This one might be the biggest jail-break for the mind....I definitely see so many "freeom fighters" falling for the same old tricks....vote harder...THIS TIME it will make a difference....blah blah blah.....you brought the fire for this one, love it! Agreed!
Thank you! So why, after that, do I still have people telling me that we just need better voters? 😭
Takes a while to peel the onion
😭😭onions😭😭
🤣🧅
You can't reform tyrants, they are made because we keep them in power. They come to believe they have a God ordained duty to rule, and are chosen of the masses. I keep thinking about Saruman, how he needed to be stripped of his "authority" and godlike status. This is what all the people are going to have to do. Or our world will become a digital gulag.
They come to believe they have a God ordained duty to rule, and are chosen of the masses.
Right, the see themselves as Elites
The Word Elite is a pure mockery.
Let's put El-Ite right
El means god
Ite comes rom latin, means "to follow"
So El-Ite means "Follow God"
Who are those guy's understand them as God
Thanks for the positive mention!
As this made me think about Lysander Spooner again, let me share another quote of him: "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
Was he the first true ancap?
All insanity starts in the mind. Even the insanity of creating governments. The ultimate insanity is believing in them, cherishing them and blindly following them. We now see where 200 years of doing so has led us. The "more perfect union" failed to escape anti-humanism as all governments throughout history have sought to destroy those from whence it's power came. The citizens who trusted them. The citizens who fought for them. The citizens who died for them.
Thus, the citizen is brain dead as he comes back for more and more punishment.
Every day, I observe the phenomenon you describe. Every day.
For me, the problem comes from Representative government, it require trust and it has been completely whiter away. Also, it just rewards sociopathic behaviour (Brian Klaas has an entire book on it: "Corruptible"). But it all started with our inability to take on everyones inputs and restraint the reach of agreements and legislation to specific INDIVIDUALS. I think the printing press created an enviroment that led to the French Revolution but now the Internet + AI is creating the fertile soil for a new form of goverment. Trustless protocols and Trustsful communities (socionts, less than 250 people, as Alexander Bard define it) working with each other
A program that think on all this issues is Plurality.net with Glen Weyl and Audrey Tang.
I'm doing a fork of their project and I plan to alter the way we do politics... without internediaries, always having "consent" as the top priority. Policentrism + Direct Digital "Democracy" is the way to merger the old with the new
Interesting. Can you describe to me an example of a way in which direct digital democracy might be used?
Sure. My own country, Peru, is a perfect example. The level of crisis I see alongside the completly destruction of reputation of politicians and the politicial system is stagering (6 presidents in 6 years. Unconstitutional being pass. Laws that "changed" the Constitution, and many more)
"Dumb criminals break the Law. Smart criminals make Laws" - Sherlock Holmes.
Just for starters. Direct Digital Democracy means we have replace the Congress and now an AI is becoming YOUR intermediary to provide you with information personalized to you. (Check out Pia Mancini's TED talk from 9 years ago, "How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era").
Locality also has to become king again (local information). Such a big country as Peru needs different legislation specific for every single location. Meaning, most decisions that get taken are only those locally relevant for your tribe, town, city at maximum. (Many of this ideas come from the book "The Social Singularity" by Max Borders btw)
Also, Voting is broken. 1 person 1 vote is absurd. More things to vote for, more options and a form to show a degree of personal importance is key. Cuadratic Voting comes in handy for this. Check out Glen Weyl work on that.
Additionaly to this, Alexander Bard has this idea of Sensocracy. Having sensors everywhere that record and keep a real "pulse" in human society. I tend to draw inspiration from that but I think we need to be the "sensors" that voluntarily bring the
Also, the way in which the law works has to be reform too... how? I'm doing some research into that. But Justinian law is just too restrictive and has been gamed, common law seems better but I think we need an upgrade.
I certainly agree—common law is much better than Justinian law. For sure!
But here is my issue: NO rights should be up for a vote. If a vote produces a result that imposes ANY nonconsensual imposition of authority or initiation of coercive force, it is a crime against the individual. Even if the vote is 999 to 1.
“If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul.”
It’s all wickedness.
Pity us in the UK. We haven't even got to your starting point of a written constitution and a bill of rights. We still have an executive that exercises most of it power without any oversight at all under cover of the 'Royal Prerogative' - essentially the power to do whatever monarchs could do pre-1689 ie a lot! And we have an actual (not my) King who is a member of the WEF and spouts its propaganda relentlessly.
Yes, that's extremely weired. The people in UK life in a full blown monarchy. The politians, parliament, etc. is a show by definition. If the Windsor's have any other idea, they just do it.
The only thing with more human rights was the Magna Carta
Fun fact is that the Windsors come from the Hanover Dynasty called Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. They just took the name of their castle to change the name in 1918.
Also very weired is the City of London Corporation. A souvereign country inside the UK since 1200. When the King wants to enter it he needs to ask for permission.
We all, in the "west" had been blunt what's really going on.
Yes, the written constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights, in our case) helps. But we’re just a different branch of the same lousy tree. Not quite as far out in the limb as y’all, but we’re headed there too.
52 Aces reporting again, Christopher. Thank you.
Thanks, DE!
Almost done with this topic; moving on soon!
What about empire, man? I mean, like my football team I want my empire to win! Are we just going to let other empires win? No way! Sure, we may get called for some fouls and all but we need keep pounding away to victory! How will I find meaning in my life without football and empire?
Because eventually, the empire strikes back! 😆
Another key topic - Voting
Voting or Consensing
Voting is crap as 51 can rule over 49, with 50% abstention we end up with 26 ruling over 74
There is no rule of minimum voters nor a rule that rules out coalitions. Four parties that scratch together 51% initiate a government. I could laugh if it wouldn't that bitter.
We have so, so, so, so smart people and judges, philosophers, etc. AND those didn't realize that
I would say: "Come on people, they can't be so stupid. That was bei pure intend!"
Consensing gives everybody a scale of 0-10, works much better than voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_Consensing
Even if systemic consenting is an improvement, it still forces things on people who don’t want them. Why do that at all? Market anarchism (anarchocapitalism) avoid the problem entirely.
Any, like anarchism translate into deutsch as, e.g. anarchismus. That is Anarchis-ist-mus or in english "Anarch is must". All "ism", deutsch "ist muss", "is must", in english are Idea-Logics, therefore artificial and beyond natural behavior.
Any "ism" is an indicator of a higher force idea and manipulation.
Thinking bottom up is key, not top down! That's my opinion.
Anarchocapitalism, is also a "ism". Nothing to say against is long it doesn't hurt anybody. In a true community model an anarchocapitalism won't be possible. At least as there would be no trillionars, like the UK Windsors or billionaires like Musk, Gate, etc. . Boys that are good or bad for communities.
Maybe some are thrilled by Musk BUT it is impossible that one human alone run Tesla, X, SpaceX, Neuralink, etc. . That's a network or supernatural which is beyond our thinking.
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/four-definitions-word-anarchy
Just great!
Fully on the same page
Key is if words speak for itself OR words are loaded with arificial stuff.
In deutsch we have alsways two nouns for any "ism", e.g. Solidar-is-mus or Solidar-i-taet. Strange, isn't it? No that's by intend!
Just take the alphabet as example. How do you spell it? There is only one letter that you spell by name: Espsilon, the greek name for Y.
How put that hint into the alphabet to extend thinking!
Digging deeper you end up that hebrew is similar but the root are Runes, going back more than 8.000 years.
“In deutsch we have alsways two nouns for any "ism", e.g. Solidar-is-mus or Solidar-i-taet. Strange, isn't it? No that's by intend!“
>> What is the intent?
We have demonstrated that it is fundamentally morally impermissible. Not merely “flawed,” but impermissible. If you believe in the concept of individual natural rights at all, then you must recognize this.
» I see democracy as governance, only. So it isn’t the highest instance. The highest intance is moral. That should be the first clause of a community contract (Constitution called, today, that nobody signed, thus invalid)
That should be the end of it, but just to be sure, we have continued the flogging…
We have discussed the tragic reality that democracy contains the seeds of its own demise. That it inevitably degrades the character of a civilization and its people. That it enables some to use and abuse others. That it gives voters control over your life, and let’s face it…a lot of voters just aren’t particularly good people.
» I see it from the other end missing moral kill democrazy. All possible bei intend, keeping backdoors open. I see the highest court as a main killer that can eliminate ANY human rights. We saw that when Corinna startet in 2020. Human rights were just whiped out in the sake of „public health“
Of course, even if they were all magically wonderful people, it is STILL completely unacceptable that anyone gets to impose things upon you against your will. At this point, that ought to be clear.
» That’s because the consitution and government have no limit what their role is, a backdoor by intend. Both have nothing to do with private or business life. If there would be a clear boundary it wouldn’t be possible to impose anything against your will.
The main cause of the democray problem is also that everything is set upside down. IF there is a constitution the house of democrazy is crap already. The constitution is a superpower over the whole community that it shouldn’t be. Root are the souvereign communities that give some tasks to a umbrella organisation as a service. Thus a State „government“ is a service provider, only. Constitutions are at community level, only.
But I am still getting replies to the effect of…
We have to sacrifice some of our rights in order to live together.
» Wow!
The American Founders had the right idea. We just need to go with their original plan.
» The founders may have had the right idea but I come back that a nations consitution is a constitution on the wrong level, has to turned around.
“Gang rape is the will of the majority.”
Sorry, folks, but THAT is what democracy is. Do you understand?
» I don’t think so. People are pulled behind the tree with social security and wealth.
People have the problem that they forget to fast. Most of the problems the government „solved“ for them were invoked by the government itself. The government prints money, everybody has wealth. The government does not tell them that it fuels inflation or needs wars for cheap resources.
The politicians get into a death spiral as the financial system get’s crap. The only way out is to mix democrazy with dictaorship.
The politicians search for 3rd party guilties, build enemy images, split the community that they fight each other to push the root problems out of the screen.
All state powers are now infiltrated by ideological networks. Ideology means "idea logic" and is artificial, not a law of nature like a stone falling on one's foot.
On moral, there is another topic. Who, who, who provides all the free porn? With what intention? Of course we know the results...
Escursion, you can use AEIO to convert a number of words between english and german: Tea, Nose, House, etc. . Old high German and English share more than 50% of words. It seems that more or less of all people shared the same language. Indogermanic goes back 8.000 years that was used from Spain to India! Imagine Inda, some thousends miles away.
If you want to continue to defend democracy, the only place to which to retreat now is to say that some sort of constitutional republic can mitigate this fundamental problem.
Mitigate, yes. Eliminate, no.
» No question the current setup of democrazy ist crap, upside down.
We say Demo-Kratie, meaning Power, Ruler. But Kratie comes from Kratos. In Greek mythology, Kratos is the personification of power and brute force.
But you say Demo-Crazy, isn’t it »Crazy«. The word that had been infused into english is a bitter mockery of the people.
All democratic systems put human rights up for a vote.
» I would say no but that requires what the task of a state is and were it ends. In 2020 high courts whiped away human rights in many countries. In a decentralized system there is no high court that has a huge reach. It’s regionally limited where people can oversee cause and effect by themselves. People were not able to fight back, AS police followed the order. Governments used fear to initiate that. Due to leaked documents we have it black and white. TODAY! Courts are still convicting people based on completely disproven assumptions and allegations. Many people have had to flee abroad. I'm talking about Germany!
There is a key reason why we are all in that dead end situation. Have you read the Black's Law Dictionary? We have a legal mockery! Human rights are for Humans, but we are Persons, legally. So human rights are written but not applicable. All of that comes from the Vatican canon law.
It is time to plant a new tree.
» Looking forward to read how your new tree looks like
I will get to planting it as soon as I am able!
Right on Target and Great Examples Christopher!
🙏
There was no such thing as founders. They were the founding fathers. Every single one of them was a man. Enough people are caught cutting the balls off men for the past 50 years. People who lean towards conservative, doing the same thing gives us no hope at all.
I do not do it for reasons of political correctness, but expedience. One word to type rather than two.