It matters not what you call a government. They are all rotten to the core. You could never find any insane asylum with as many cuckoos and invalids as you find in government. For so many, government is their alter ego...the super power they never could otherwise have. The power to inflict damage and pain to a population and never have to be accountable.
You and Sky get it. But I also have to convince patriotic conservatives who are still stuck believing that we would be okay if we could just restore the Founders "original vision."
I understand, but it's a deep identity that has to be replaced. 9/11 is what tore the mask off for me. Most people have to see it for themselves, and that is what is beginning to happen with the pandemic depopulation agenda.
The problem is, they want to hold onto that patriotic identity and the hope of not having to risk it all. But I say they are far more patriotic on their own two legs like warriors and world builders than as lapdogs for the elite. I love how you burn for the truth Christopher 🧡
When I lived in a blue state, you wouldn’t believe the taxes they made me pay on my house. I’m in red state now and pay half of the taxes but it’s still too much. In many countries, if you buy a house, you don’t keep paying and paying forever
One point only because I think it important to know the battlefield: When elites, or oligarchs in practice, use the word democracy, they have moved the definition. Democracy the people speak of = the will of the people even though it's a lie. Democracy as understood by the elites = the will of the institutions. It's a recent switch but it's important to know how others are defining.
But even if it were truly the earlier definition of the will of the people, there is a problem with that notion. This unit of "the people" does not actually exist. It is all just individual people. There is no collective will, and the idea that there is is part of the problem. The Founders certainly got much closer to the mark than the Marxists or the French Revolutionaries, but they all still make the same categorical error: that "the people" exists as a thing. This notion crushes the individual human person.
Exactly. That's the point I will try to make in my forthcoming article, part III of my Trap series. There are no political solutions to problems that must be tackled one person at a time, an enormous task especially now that a lot of people have lost their moral compass and common sense - I think Covid has amply demonstated that.
Well, my point is (or will be, in my conclusion) that people have happily bought into the concept that politics is something you do by voting, and voting only. But of course, that's a bit too convenient. Everything we do, all the time, has repercussions on society as a whole. If anything, the most dangerous effect of democracy is that it makes people morally lazy. My article entitled "Thursday" is meant to illustrate this : https://therealskidmark.substack.com/p/thursday
Yeah, I know, it looks like a cheap way to plug my Stack...
No worries—we all have to plug our stacks one way or the other!
I am still on the road, but quick thought—what you said about democracy making people morally lazy…Hoppe leans into that big time in his book “Democracy: The God That Failed.” I bet you would like it. (I plug it a lot because it was a pivotal one for me.)
The irony is that the mob rule and others you have teetering off the edge of the spectrum on the Anarchy side are manifestations of the other three forms of rulerships. "No rulers" also means "no wannabe rulers."
Yes, the real political spectrum (totalitarian governance at the leftward extreme and anarchism at the rightward) does quietly bend around in a sort of ellipse, such that the absence of governance can devolve into oppression. That is just a risk we have to take, just as all our other forms can and do slouch into totalitarianism. It's always a risk!
Our founders tried to address tyranny of the majority through the Constitution which we know has failed, and the “Anti-Federalists” predicted that the tyranny of the minority could become the problem – that of the wealthy oligarchy and now the fact is that the oligarchy controls the money supply (Federal Reserve Act).
Alexander Tytler (late 18th century) described the last cycle of a democracy before bondage as dependency on the government. That idea mirrors what Alexis de Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
Humans are flawed, therefore, there can be no ideal system. And, human nature is self-serving, always, and therein lies the problem, especially as we grow further away from the spiritual Laws of the Universe. Humans are self-serving since that’s ego related for survival, so, good luck with ANY form of government/lack of government. Those who advocate for government and no government are using the same argument – that men are no angels.
And what about the fact that we are not created equally (but only in the eyes of our Creator) so, even if you have an ideal society of no government, what about all those people who have no clue other than to think “within the box.” They need guidance and protection, or they will be food for slaughter for those who take advantage without any laws/recourse for people to act civilly. So how would no government help them?
I think I wrote in detail about this, but I am not remembering which piece at the moment. But the gist is this:
I am not claiming the a condition of market anarchism would be utopia. Just that it would be better, and would not suffer from the same fundamental moral impermissibility. As to the problem of the human heart, my contention is this:
a condition of market anarchism + the human heart = bad
a condition in which some humans have inescapable involuntary control over other humans + the human heart = worse.
See what I mean? Market anarchism does not eliminate human flaws. It simply removes a vector for some flawed humans to gain total control over the rest.
As to your second point, market anarchism does not replace government with nothing. Private agencies already seek to fulfill virtually every niche and human need. Private agencies can do the same with those few remaining things that governments do. The people to whom you refer would not be left out in the cold. They would get what they need from different sources. And it would be better, since the market is always better than government at doing everything.
"Market failure' is a term that statists, government officials, and intellectuals in service to government officials use to justify their ongoing gravy train.
Chris, I believe you’ve done a good job of highlighting that we’ve been stuck in the idea of a democracy mode for long time. When we began to experience the truth, we wanted to stand up and shout out and to begin repairing the wrong. If I understand correctly, you’re explaining that of all of the ways we hire our employees to inhabit the three branches et al, we are in fact, a nation with elements of democracy, ergo America is a democracy. That is, the House was to be the only form of pure democracy while the others hired on were through a represented (through someone else) democracy.
From the evolved, and probably progressive perspective, your position is America is a democracy. And you allude to the point that this is not what the Founders wanted; not a pure democracy because they knew the history of the quick and violent suicide that befell them.
I would suggest that we are, instead, a federalist (states), constitutional (fixed design), republic (sovereignty of the minority), limited democracy (51% vote). Its basis are the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (natural creation & Judeo-Christian virtues). These all rest on the shoulders of We the People. That means our foundational form of government is not “who gets to rule” but “who decides.”
We the People today are the same ones who agreed or ratified the design of our Nation, the Constitution. The people of the newly formed United States agreed to a design that required them, and us, to give up a small portion of our liberty to employees who would, with our consent, manage OUR civil society within the constraints of the Freedom Charters (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights – and subsequent amendments.)
So, the cry of we’re a republic, not a democracy is still a valid realignment of our thinking. Maybe if enough of us do that, it will result in a more attentive and activist citizen, legislatures and congresses peopled with folks who make decisions from their character rather than political motives. That America ‘be a nation of laws and not of men’ and that we all understand that ‘our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people’ as stated by John Adams.
We need more Americans to recognize that the opposition is screaming for us to save our democracy when we should understand the differences in order to fight effectively not solely on emotion but with intelligence too. We need Re-Founders who understand who we really are and who we're not.
Our sentiments are similar, but I am not really saying most of those things.
I am saying that America is a democracy in the top-level sense of a system that uses voting and isn't a monarchy, oligarchy, or anarchy. I am definitely not coming from a progressive perspective. If you refer to the chart, you will see what I mean. There are a lot of different kinds of democracies. This is one kind. It's not pure; it is indirect. Patriotic conservatives get wrapped up in the way the Founders were using the term. They were using it very narrowly to mean one specific kind of democracy (pure/direct/arithmocracy). I am using it broadly, as a top-level category that includes that kind, and this kind, and a bunch of other kinds.
I am not speaking with any reverence for the phrase "we the people." The Founders meant well, and they meant it in more classical-liberal terms, but at the end of the day, it is a collectivist term, like Rousseau and Robespierre's "le pueple" or Marx's proletariat. We need to get away from it. The collectivism of the notion of "we the people" actually violates natural law; it does not uphold it. It crushes the individual human person with the lie that voting constitutes consent. It does not.
As I have said many times, the Founders did the best they could given their moment in time. But that wasn't the end of the journey. We have to take the baton from them and run the next lap. Forward, not back. I know that's tough for us, given a lifetime of reverence for our origins, hope that solutions like there, and defense of our principles from the onslaught of the left. But still, we must run forward now.
Look, the word "democracy" has been immensely distorted because both sides of the Cold War used it for propaganda. People were brainwashed for decades with "propaganda-democracy". Democracy is whatever nice thing the Soviets did not have etc.
It is sometimes used in the sense of something like human rights. In that sense, closer to a republic.
It is often used in the sense of pluralism, different opinions and power being shared. So basically if twenty aristocrats with different opinions would decide everything, that would be pluralism and therefore would be called democracy.
Seriously, democracy is a propaganda-word and better not use it at all. We can use other words: human rights, personal liberty, pluralism of opinion, free and fair elections, and so on.
It doesn't help when basically anything is called a democracy, even a country that has suspended elections and has outlawed religions and even spoken languages, such as Ukraine.
The term has lost all meaning. Not that it's meaning was all that great to begin with, as you so aptly pointed out.
First, no America today is not a democracy our votes, any votes no longer count, the vote counters do.
Second, I read your above take Christopher, as a strong argument for the original Constitutional Republic and that such provides route (When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ...) to anarcho-capitalism that does not exist under our present totalitarian governance.
I can understand that the governments we have are not the answer. Also, that America's founders did not leave us with the answer. What I do not yet understand is, What then?
The Apostle Paul's answer in Romans 13, as I understand it, doesn't ring true. The government of Rome, which he lived under, was one of the worst examples of government. I cannot see it as established by God for the good of its citizens as Paul seems to have said. Nor did the Apostles' leadership of the church inspire me to think that Christians make better leaders than pagans. Not only denominations fail miserably, but individual churches fail. And, for the most part, individual Christians do, as well.
From what I've observed by self-examination and of others, no one is able to govern themselves nor, especially, others. Anarchy, however one defines it, is not the answer either. The best that we can do is, in the end, marginally better that the worst we can do. We can want to do better. We can even actually make ourselves better than our worst. But regardless how much we want to do better, and regardless how hard we try to better ourselves, we inadvertently or not harm ourselves and others. We do not have to be rotten to fail to be good.
"21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me," said Paul in Romans 7,
"22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
Under the law of God, Paul knew himself well enough to know that he was wretched. How then shall we live? Frances Schaeffer didn't have the answer any more than did Paul. Did Jesus have the answer? He and all of his disciples ended up dead because of what they believed. What chance do I have of knowing how to live?
I tend to agree. Maybe Paul was trying to appease the Romans??
Yes, man is flawed. But as I just wrote to another, these are my choices:
a condition in which people are flawed, and some of them have inescapable involuntary authority over the rest, or a condition in which people are flawed, but no one has that authority, I will take the latter all day.
Especially since there are other ways to maintain order besides such involuntary authority.
Overall I agree. I am not defending the "conservatives " you mention, nor am I saying what the founders presented was our solution. However:
"By obsessing over the distinction the American Founders made between one type of democracy and democracy writ large, we risk missing the point."
Not obsessing, but the distinction is important. What most often happens is the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. It is accurate to say what we have now is not what our founders envisioned. If that is not delineated appropriately, while not really appropriate, most often all of their ideas are thrown out including that of "limited government " ,which often gets the blame for our problems. (By design)
This is used to discredit the enlightened aspects of the American experiment of limited government when it reality we have not had such a government for at least 200 years. This springboards into narratives of needing "more government " to fix and regulate these things more.
So while they may get stuck on wanting to call it a "republic " and not a democracy...I think it is important to see the point that many (at least ones I have interactions with) are trying to make. Not because a reversion to those ways is the solution, but that within those ways are foundations from which we can build and evolve something better... and we do not want to throw those enlightened ideas out. Particularly those of natural law and individual sovereignty.
With all of that being said, we do not currently have a democracy as used in commom parlance.. Of course the public face of it is, but it is a "managed democracy ", which is a more accurate term for our modern iteration. Managed democracies neutralize the citizenry on behalf of an oligarchy by placating them with the illusion of choice.
"Particularly those of natural law and individual sovereignty."
Yes, those are essential, and I do believe that (most of) the Founders cherished those principles to one degree or another.
But I think we need to face up to the fact that the system the gave us—even in 1789, even when it was functioning at peak Founderishness—did not actuate those principles. It violated them from the start. Their hearts were in the right place, and they could not do any better given the context. Nonetheless, even their best version was a violation.
Given that, what does it serve us now to cling to it? Cling to the principles, yes. But the system, not so much.
Perhaps we could ask this in more practical terms—what from the system ought to be preserved?
I do not take it as clinging to it, just taking a few steps back and evolving from that point instead of the current trajectory. Using it as a philosophical pivot point instead of our modern iteration. I was going to expand further but the comment by Brady articulated it for me.
Ah, I get you. Go back to the Spirit of '76, in a sense. I understand.
My concern, I think, is that if we do that, a lot of people will climb back into the warm cocoon of believing that if we recreate a "purer" version of the System of '89, all will be solved.
It is taking all my might to get people to understand the fundamental problem with that notion. Psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, what you say makes sense. But that is the risk of that approach, as I see it.
Yes, we are on the same wavelength. (spirit of 76) . I also have the same concern that people will climb back into that warm "cocoon"... because for a time I did. Being sort of a Jeffersonian, I thought we could use the Convention of States to produce a reversion. (I know we have talked about that before) While I have moved past such notions, it seems to me that in order to circumvent the risks of repeating past mistakes, we must first return to where we got off track (I consider it as a unifying philosophical rally point) but from there use all that happened after as a bulwark against repeating it. (ex.. here is why the state does not work - not because individualistic notions are invalid) Additionally, if we do not have a common starting point (in general) most people will fall back into the thought architecture of the Hegelian dialectic which dominates all of modern political theory. I would rather, and I think it would be easier, to try to build towards a form of anarchy from the starting point of Jefferson than from Hegel. However, there are people out there who can go straight to it through Spooner lol. (For me it was Jefferson's 19 year generation)
You are doing an outstanding job in your writing and perhaps your version of approach is superior. Just seems to me we need our Rome, our origin story, as all initiatives of human action need to manifest. The spirit of 76 was co-opted and recuperated, I say we take it back and then go from there. Or at the least, don't throw it all out.
“build towards a form of anarchy from the starting point of Jefferson than from Hegel.”
—Agreed. Then again, it strikes me as nearly impossible to get there through Hegel no matter what! I have no idea what that would even potentially look like. 🤣
“However, there are people out there who can go straight to it through Spooner lol.”
—I guess that would describe me :)
“For me it was Jefferson's 19 year generation”
—Well, we’re overdue more than 10 times over! So yeah, I would agree with that.
“You are doing an outstanding job in your writing and perhaps your version of approach is superior.”
—Thank you. I am listening to all thoughts and factoring them in.
“Just seems to me we need our Rome, our origin story, as all initiatives of human action need to manifest. The spirit of 76 was co-opted and recuperated, I say we take it back and then go from there. Or at the least, don't throw it all out.”
—Certainly don’t throw all of it, or anything, away. There is much to learn from the past. I am giving all of this thought.
In addition to the cocoon issue, another occurs to me. I just got called a “charlatan” and a “buffoon” by one of these patriotic conservatives. I spent my adult life as a patriotic conservative. If you go issue by issue, setting aside the anarchism stuff, I am sure this guy and I agree on most everything. (Leftism, trans indoctrination of children, wokeism, etc.) But I dared say a word against the Founders. Against the “vision.” The patriotic American zeitgeist. He does not know a thing about me, but he treated me as the enemy because I dared question an aspect of that zeitgeist. It’s ugly, and it makes me think that a clean break isn’t necessarily a bad idea. I understand what you are saying; it makes a lot of sense. And such an approach might help attract conservatives. But it carries both the cocooning issue, and a lot of other ugly baggage. Maybe that is just not something we want. I really don’t know….
Roughly 18th century philosophical discussions, Locke, Paine.. the anti-federalists papers. If we must use a Document I think the Declaration of Independence (including what Jefferson wrote about slavery that was cut out) would be a fair starting point.
"Agreed. Then again, it strikes me as nearly impossible to get there through Hegel no matter what! I have no idea what that would even potentially look like."
It is a utopia that will never exist. It seems to me that Hegel's ideal in its purest sense was his constitutional monarchy, which would essentially be stateless. It is different from Locke's ideal as it is based off of Hegel's metaphysical hermetic ideals of the human species. Hegel was trying to build a world brain and have humans be "actualized". Locke wanted to set the individual free
—I guess that would describe me :)
Spooner was big for me too. He pushed me over the edge from falling back into a full Lockeanism mindset. (although I disagree with him on innate ideas- their existence is now axiomatic)
—Well, we’re overdue more than 10 times over! So yeah, I would agree with that.
Yes for sure!
—Certainly don’t throw all of it, or anything, away. There is much to learn from the past. I am giving all of this thought.
This is good. We should never arrive at "the end of history" in my opinion.
"But I dared say a word against the Founders. Against the “vision.” The patriotic American zeitgeist. He does not know a thing about me, but he treated me as the enemy because I dared question an aspect of that zeitgeist."
Just think of how much propaganda and conditioning had to go into forming this persons paradigm. I was once them. I misunderstood the world in which we lived, thinking that to some degree we must be existing in the nation of our founders. Right?? Right?? Every 4th of July we celebrate the home of the free .. We say the words patriotism, liberty, freedom... but they are hollow shells with their meanings inverted. I remember loving Ronald Regan, he had great libertarian "rhetoric". To say the founders were wrong is to destroy their (mine at one time) worldview, or to attack it. So they become defensive as I once did.
You get lumped into the left.. or you are a "buffoon". This is because parts of the "left" also says the founders were wrong, but it is for a completely different reason. For folks like us... we did not think they were necessarily philosophically wrong, just that the application was incorrect. It didn't work. The "left" charges they were philosophically wrong . (because it is too individualistic to them being mired in Hegelian political theory) So all opposition to the "founders" gets tossed into that leftist pile... making you (now me) an enemy.
It seems to me, as I have explained elsewhere, this was by design. If a person believes we are in a semi-functioning democracy that is more or less what or founders desired... except for those pesky democrats.. they will desire to "fix" the system. Our ideas will seem foolish to them. (Same as they would sound foolish to the "left" just for different reasons) In reality, all of this is a recuperation cascade by the dialectic to get people to continue participating in the operation of the machine. We have been conditioned into a nostalgic mythology of an America that does not exist. Neither the "left" or the "right" want to acknowledge that we abandoned the (76 spirit) and its associated individualistic philosophies because they have been socially engineered to not recognize it. Some frankly no longer desire it beyond being performative about it. I suspect deeply, the reason is because that revelation, if ever understood... especially by "patriotic conservatives" ,there would be a potential to reach a critical mass threat to the status quo. This is why you only hear about the federalist papers...
Yet, people prefer a comfortable lie to a terrible truth.
It comes with baggage, but I am concerned that if we do not revert back to those natural law pillars we will end up in a new engineered dialectic taking us right back into the path of a collective organism. But of course, I really do not know either.
Indeed, demo(n)cracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, and a "republic" is a few People listening to the bulk of the People and the doing what They want (or what moneyed sponsors/bribers want).
Re: solutocracy. What if a group of people wish to use some sort of money as a means of exchange? Oughtn't they be free to do so, so long as they do not impose their ways upon people who wish to exchange solely for social credit?
Well, surely People can choose that, but I ponder why anyOne would. With free energy flowing the point to accounting for Our energy becomes like accounting for grains of sand…
100% of the cost of EVERYTHING is energy - the resources sit here freely but it takes energy to put them into useful configuration.
And really, the point of the solutocracy article was to offer a different approach to solving for problems that handing power to Some.
Only the Ones affected by a problem will discuss Ethical solutions, and if there are no problems to solve for, then… No problem.
I don't want any of it! We the people need to shake off these murderous thieving parasites, and use our own social power to choose our own destinies. Not just being grist for the mill of the black nobility and their puppets.
It matters not what you call a government. They are all rotten to the core. You could never find any insane asylum with as many cuckoos and invalids as you find in government. For so many, government is their alter ego...the super power they never could otherwise have. The power to inflict damage and pain to a population and never have to be accountable.
You and Sky get it. But I also have to convince patriotic conservatives who are still stuck believing that we would be okay if we could just restore the Founders "original vision."
I understand, but it's a deep identity that has to be replaced. 9/11 is what tore the mask off for me. Most people have to see it for themselves, and that is what is beginning to happen with the pandemic depopulation agenda.
The problem is, they want to hold onto that patriotic identity and the hope of not having to risk it all. But I say they are far more patriotic on their own two legs like warriors and world builders than as lapdogs for the elite. I love how you burn for the truth Christopher 🧡
I love the same in you, Sky.
And I think many conservatives are waking up to this. I have been seeing progress!
Did you all see the 911 picture that George Bush Junior painted? of him, knocking down the two towers in his office? Absolutely horrifying.!!
Coercive civil authority is inherently, intrinsically evil. #CCAIIIE
When I lived in a blue state, you wouldn’t believe the taxes they made me pay on my house. I’m in red state now and pay half of the taxes but it’s still too much. In many countries, if you buy a house, you don’t keep paying and paying forever
I agree 💯%
One point only because I think it important to know the battlefield: When elites, or oligarchs in practice, use the word democracy, they have moved the definition. Democracy the people speak of = the will of the people even though it's a lie. Democracy as understood by the elites = the will of the institutions. It's a recent switch but it's important to know how others are defining.
Agreed!
But even if it were truly the earlier definition of the will of the people, there is a problem with that notion. This unit of "the people" does not actually exist. It is all just individual people. There is no collective will, and the idea that there is is part of the problem. The Founders certainly got much closer to the mark than the Marxists or the French Revolutionaries, but they all still make the same categorical error: that "the people" exists as a thing. This notion crushes the individual human person.
Yes. I understood the point you were making and I agree. :)
Groovy :-) Forgive me please if I ever repeat myself or miss something. I am moving very quickly.
No worries.
By the way, where does your avatar come from? I have always thought it is super cool.
And, no, I don't look as beautiful as that picture. It just grabs my features, not my age. Haha!
It's a picture of me but put through a dream ai filter.
Exactly. That's the point I will try to make in my forthcoming article, part III of my Trap series. There are no political solutions to problems that must be tackled one person at a time, an enormous task especially now that a lot of people have lost their moral compass and common sense - I think Covid has amply demonstated that.
I have to leave for an appointment shortly. Can you summarize the point of the series? (I understand that can be hard…)
Well, my point is (or will be, in my conclusion) that people have happily bought into the concept that politics is something you do by voting, and voting only. But of course, that's a bit too convenient. Everything we do, all the time, has repercussions on society as a whole. If anything, the most dangerous effect of democracy is that it makes people morally lazy. My article entitled "Thursday" is meant to illustrate this : https://therealskidmark.substack.com/p/thursday
Yeah, I know, it looks like a cheap way to plug my Stack...
No worries—we all have to plug our stacks one way or the other!
I am still on the road, but quick thought—what you said about democracy making people morally lazy…Hoppe leans into that big time in his book “Democracy: The God That Failed.” I bet you would like it. (I plug it a lot because it was a pivotal one for me.)
Thanks for the tip, I'll look into it.
Have a nice trip.
The irony is that the mob rule and others you have teetering off the edge of the spectrum on the Anarchy side are manifestations of the other three forms of rulerships. "No rulers" also means "no wannabe rulers."
The linear spectrum bends around on itself.
Yes, the real political spectrum (totalitarian governance at the leftward extreme and anarchism at the rightward) does quietly bend around in a sort of ellipse, such that the absence of governance can devolve into oppression. That is just a risk we have to take, just as all our other forms can and do slouch into totalitarianism. It's always a risk!
It's why I don't like political spectrums. Sobran's matrix wins 😎
Our founders tried to address tyranny of the majority through the Constitution which we know has failed, and the “Anti-Federalists” predicted that the tyranny of the minority could become the problem – that of the wealthy oligarchy and now the fact is that the oligarchy controls the money supply (Federal Reserve Act).
Alexander Tytler (late 18th century) described the last cycle of a democracy before bondage as dependency on the government. That idea mirrors what Alexis de Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
Humans are flawed, therefore, there can be no ideal system. And, human nature is self-serving, always, and therein lies the problem, especially as we grow further away from the spiritual Laws of the Universe. Humans are self-serving since that’s ego related for survival, so, good luck with ANY form of government/lack of government. Those who advocate for government and no government are using the same argument – that men are no angels.
And what about the fact that we are not created equally (but only in the eyes of our Creator) so, even if you have an ideal society of no government, what about all those people who have no clue other than to think “within the box.” They need guidance and protection, or they will be food for slaughter for those who take advantage without any laws/recourse for people to act civilly. So how would no government help them?
To your first point…
I think I wrote in detail about this, but I am not remembering which piece at the moment. But the gist is this:
I am not claiming the a condition of market anarchism would be utopia. Just that it would be better, and would not suffer from the same fundamental moral impermissibility. As to the problem of the human heart, my contention is this:
a condition of market anarchism + the human heart = bad
a condition in which some humans have inescapable involuntary control over other humans + the human heart = worse.
See what I mean? Market anarchism does not eliminate human flaws. It simply removes a vector for some flawed humans to gain total control over the rest.
As to your second point, market anarchism does not replace government with nothing. Private agencies already seek to fulfill virtually every niche and human need. Private agencies can do the same with those few remaining things that governments do. The people to whom you refer would not be left out in the cold. They would get what they need from different sources. And it would be better, since the market is always better than government at doing everything.
"Market failure' is a term that statists, government officials, and intellectuals in service to government officials use to justify their ongoing gravy train.
Can't disagree with that except it seems like the human heart needs to chill out. And, what about a justice system?
Chill out, yes!
Re: justice system—do you have time to read chapter 12 here?
https://ia601508.us.archive.org/14/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf
Thanks!
Thank you for all our great discussions!
Chris - this is one of the best, clearest articles. I wish everyone on the planet could understand this. Thank you and hope you’re well.
Thank you, George. It's good to hear from you!
Chris, I believe you’ve done a good job of highlighting that we’ve been stuck in the idea of a democracy mode for long time. When we began to experience the truth, we wanted to stand up and shout out and to begin repairing the wrong. If I understand correctly, you’re explaining that of all of the ways we hire our employees to inhabit the three branches et al, we are in fact, a nation with elements of democracy, ergo America is a democracy. That is, the House was to be the only form of pure democracy while the others hired on were through a represented (through someone else) democracy.
From the evolved, and probably progressive perspective, your position is America is a democracy. And you allude to the point that this is not what the Founders wanted; not a pure democracy because they knew the history of the quick and violent suicide that befell them.
I would suggest that we are, instead, a federalist (states), constitutional (fixed design), republic (sovereignty of the minority), limited democracy (51% vote). Its basis are the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (natural creation & Judeo-Christian virtues). These all rest on the shoulders of We the People. That means our foundational form of government is not “who gets to rule” but “who decides.”
We the People today are the same ones who agreed or ratified the design of our Nation, the Constitution. The people of the newly formed United States agreed to a design that required them, and us, to give up a small portion of our liberty to employees who would, with our consent, manage OUR civil society within the constraints of the Freedom Charters (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights – and subsequent amendments.)
So, the cry of we’re a republic, not a democracy is still a valid realignment of our thinking. Maybe if enough of us do that, it will result in a more attentive and activist citizen, legislatures and congresses peopled with folks who make decisions from their character rather than political motives. That America ‘be a nation of laws and not of men’ and that we all understand that ‘our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people’ as stated by John Adams.
We need more Americans to recognize that the opposition is screaming for us to save our democracy when we should understand the differences in order to fight effectively not solely on emotion but with intelligence too. We need Re-Founders who understand who we really are and who we're not.
Mike Kapic
Our sentiments are similar, but I am not really saying most of those things.
I am saying that America is a democracy in the top-level sense of a system that uses voting and isn't a monarchy, oligarchy, or anarchy. I am definitely not coming from a progressive perspective. If you refer to the chart, you will see what I mean. There are a lot of different kinds of democracies. This is one kind. It's not pure; it is indirect. Patriotic conservatives get wrapped up in the way the Founders were using the term. They were using it very narrowly to mean one specific kind of democracy (pure/direct/arithmocracy). I am using it broadly, as a top-level category that includes that kind, and this kind, and a bunch of other kinds.
I am not speaking with any reverence for the phrase "we the people." The Founders meant well, and they meant it in more classical-liberal terms, but at the end of the day, it is a collectivist term, like Rousseau and Robespierre's "le pueple" or Marx's proletariat. We need to get away from it. The collectivism of the notion of "we the people" actually violates natural law; it does not uphold it. It crushes the individual human person with the lie that voting constitutes consent. It does not.
As I have said many times, the Founders did the best they could given their moment in time. But that wasn't the end of the journey. We have to take the baton from them and run the next lap. Forward, not back. I know that's tough for us, given a lifetime of reverence for our origins, hope that solutions like there, and defense of our principles from the onslaught of the left. But still, we must run forward now.
I’m pretty much starting to get the whole anarchy thing. Get off my lawn.
Once we see it, really see it, it cannot be unseen!
Look, the word "democracy" has been immensely distorted because both sides of the Cold War used it for propaganda. People were brainwashed for decades with "propaganda-democracy". Democracy is whatever nice thing the Soviets did not have etc.
It is sometimes used in the sense of something like human rights. In that sense, closer to a republic.
It is often used in the sense of pluralism, different opinions and power being shared. So basically if twenty aristocrats with different opinions would decide everything, that would be pluralism and therefore would be called democracy.
Seriously, democracy is a propaganda-word and better not use it at all. We can use other words: human rights, personal liberty, pluralism of opinion, free and fair elections, and so on.
"Democracy is whatever nice thing the Soviets did not have etc"
—Ha! Yes.
Well said all around!
(Except I don't want elections of any kind, because they are part of a nonconsensual system that produces nonconsensual results.)
It doesn't help when basically anything is called a democracy, even a country that has suspended elections and has outlawed religions and even spoken languages, such as Ukraine.
The term has lost all meaning. Not that it's meaning was all that great to begin with, as you so aptly pointed out.
Yeah, that's a very good point. The word is just about as useless as "racist" is now.
Democracy is a pretty word for Mob rule Boo !! 👎👎
💯
First, no America today is not a democracy our votes, any votes no longer count, the vote counters do.
Second, I read your above take Christopher, as a strong argument for the original Constitutional Republic and that such provides route (When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ...) to anarcho-capitalism that does not exist under our present totalitarian governance.
Those words are in the Declaration. I have no problem with the Declaration. It’s the Constitution where things go south.
But yep, it is our natural right to alter and abolish.
But since the Civil War and Texas v. White, they tell us that we may not, and that they will murder us if we try.
I can understand that the governments we have are not the answer. Also, that America's founders did not leave us with the answer. What I do not yet understand is, What then?
The Apostle Paul's answer in Romans 13, as I understand it, doesn't ring true. The government of Rome, which he lived under, was one of the worst examples of government. I cannot see it as established by God for the good of its citizens as Paul seems to have said. Nor did the Apostles' leadership of the church inspire me to think that Christians make better leaders than pagans. Not only denominations fail miserably, but individual churches fail. And, for the most part, individual Christians do, as well.
From what I've observed by self-examination and of others, no one is able to govern themselves nor, especially, others. Anarchy, however one defines it, is not the answer either. The best that we can do is, in the end, marginally better that the worst we can do. We can want to do better. We can even actually make ourselves better than our worst. But regardless how much we want to do better, and regardless how hard we try to better ourselves, we inadvertently or not harm ourselves and others. We do not have to be rotten to fail to be good.
"21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me," said Paul in Romans 7,
"22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
Under the law of God, Paul knew himself well enough to know that he was wretched. How then shall we live? Frances Schaeffer didn't have the answer any more than did Paul. Did Jesus have the answer? He and all of his disciples ended up dead because of what they believed. What chance do I have of knowing how to live?
I wrote about Romans 13 https://christophercook.substack.com/p/still-follow-romans-13
I tend to agree. Maybe Paul was trying to appease the Romans??
Yes, man is flawed. But as I just wrote to another, these are my choices:
a condition in which people are flawed, and some of them have inescapable involuntary authority over the rest, or a condition in which people are flawed, but no one has that authority, I will take the latter all day.
Especially since there are other ways to maintain order besides such involuntary authority.
Overall I agree. I am not defending the "conservatives " you mention, nor am I saying what the founders presented was our solution. However:
"By obsessing over the distinction the American Founders made between one type of democracy and democracy writ large, we risk missing the point."
Not obsessing, but the distinction is important. What most often happens is the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. It is accurate to say what we have now is not what our founders envisioned. If that is not delineated appropriately, while not really appropriate, most often all of their ideas are thrown out including that of "limited government " ,which often gets the blame for our problems. (By design)
This is used to discredit the enlightened aspects of the American experiment of limited government when it reality we have not had such a government for at least 200 years. This springboards into narratives of needing "more government " to fix and regulate these things more.
So while they may get stuck on wanting to call it a "republic " and not a democracy...I think it is important to see the point that many (at least ones I have interactions with) are trying to make. Not because a reversion to those ways is the solution, but that within those ways are foundations from which we can build and evolve something better... and we do not want to throw those enlightened ideas out. Particularly those of natural law and individual sovereignty.
With all of that being said, we do not currently have a democracy as used in commom parlance.. Of course the public face of it is, but it is a "managed democracy ", which is a more accurate term for our modern iteration. Managed democracies neutralize the citizenry on behalf of an oligarchy by placating them with the illusion of choice.
"Particularly those of natural law and individual sovereignty."
Yes, those are essential, and I do believe that (most of) the Founders cherished those principles to one degree or another.
But I think we need to face up to the fact that the system the gave us—even in 1789, even when it was functioning at peak Founderishness—did not actuate those principles. It violated them from the start. Their hearts were in the right place, and they could not do any better given the context. Nonetheless, even their best version was a violation.
Given that, what does it serve us now to cling to it? Cling to the principles, yes. But the system, not so much.
Perhaps we could ask this in more practical terms—what from the system ought to be preserved?
I do not take it as clinging to it, just taking a few steps back and evolving from that point instead of the current trajectory. Using it as a philosophical pivot point instead of our modern iteration. I was going to expand further but the comment by Brady articulated it for me.
Ah, I get you. Go back to the Spirit of '76, in a sense. I understand.
My concern, I think, is that if we do that, a lot of people will climb back into the warm cocoon of believing that if we recreate a "purer" version of the System of '89, all will be solved.
It is taking all my might to get people to understand the fundamental problem with that notion. Psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, what you say makes sense. But that is the risk of that approach, as I see it.
Yes, we are on the same wavelength. (spirit of 76) . I also have the same concern that people will climb back into that warm "cocoon"... because for a time I did. Being sort of a Jeffersonian, I thought we could use the Convention of States to produce a reversion. (I know we have talked about that before) While I have moved past such notions, it seems to me that in order to circumvent the risks of repeating past mistakes, we must first return to where we got off track (I consider it as a unifying philosophical rally point) but from there use all that happened after as a bulwark against repeating it. (ex.. here is why the state does not work - not because individualistic notions are invalid) Additionally, if we do not have a common starting point (in general) most people will fall back into the thought architecture of the Hegelian dialectic which dominates all of modern political theory. I would rather, and I think it would be easier, to try to build towards a form of anarchy from the starting point of Jefferson than from Hegel. However, there are people out there who can go straight to it through Spooner lol. (For me it was Jefferson's 19 year generation)
You are doing an outstanding job in your writing and perhaps your version of approach is superior. Just seems to me we need our Rome, our origin story, as all initiatives of human action need to manifest. The spirit of 76 was co-opted and recuperated, I say we take it back and then go from there. Or at the least, don't throw it all out.
“we must first return to where we got off track”
—Where would you say that is?
“build towards a form of anarchy from the starting point of Jefferson than from Hegel.”
—Agreed. Then again, it strikes me as nearly impossible to get there through Hegel no matter what! I have no idea what that would even potentially look like. 🤣
“However, there are people out there who can go straight to it through Spooner lol.”
—I guess that would describe me :)
“For me it was Jefferson's 19 year generation”
—Well, we’re overdue more than 10 times over! So yeah, I would agree with that.
“You are doing an outstanding job in your writing and perhaps your version of approach is superior.”
—Thank you. I am listening to all thoughts and factoring them in.
“Just seems to me we need our Rome, our origin story, as all initiatives of human action need to manifest. The spirit of 76 was co-opted and recuperated, I say we take it back and then go from there. Or at the least, don't throw it all out.”
—Certainly don’t throw all of it, or anything, away. There is much to learn from the past. I am giving all of this thought.
In addition to the cocoon issue, another occurs to me. I just got called a “charlatan” and a “buffoon” by one of these patriotic conservatives. I spent my adult life as a patriotic conservative. If you go issue by issue, setting aside the anarchism stuff, I am sure this guy and I agree on most everything. (Leftism, trans indoctrination of children, wokeism, etc.) But I dared say a word against the Founders. Against the “vision.” The patriotic American zeitgeist. He does not know a thing about me, but he treated me as the enemy because I dared question an aspect of that zeitgeist. It’s ugly, and it makes me think that a clean break isn’t necessarily a bad idea. I understand what you are saying; it makes a lot of sense. And such an approach might help attract conservatives. But it carries both the cocooning issue, and a lot of other ugly baggage. Maybe that is just not something we want. I really don’t know….
"—Where would you say that is?"
Roughly 18th century philosophical discussions, Locke, Paine.. the anti-federalists papers. If we must use a Document I think the Declaration of Independence (including what Jefferson wrote about slavery that was cut out) would be a fair starting point.
"Agreed. Then again, it strikes me as nearly impossible to get there through Hegel no matter what! I have no idea what that would even potentially look like."
It is a utopia that will never exist. It seems to me that Hegel's ideal in its purest sense was his constitutional monarchy, which would essentially be stateless. It is different from Locke's ideal as it is based off of Hegel's metaphysical hermetic ideals of the human species. Hegel was trying to build a world brain and have humans be "actualized". Locke wanted to set the individual free
—I guess that would describe me :)
Spooner was big for me too. He pushed me over the edge from falling back into a full Lockeanism mindset. (although I disagree with him on innate ideas- their existence is now axiomatic)
—Well, we’re overdue more than 10 times over! So yeah, I would agree with that.
Yes for sure!
—Certainly don’t throw all of it, or anything, away. There is much to learn from the past. I am giving all of this thought.
This is good. We should never arrive at "the end of history" in my opinion.
"But I dared say a word against the Founders. Against the “vision.” The patriotic American zeitgeist. He does not know a thing about me, but he treated me as the enemy because I dared question an aspect of that zeitgeist."
Just think of how much propaganda and conditioning had to go into forming this persons paradigm. I was once them. I misunderstood the world in which we lived, thinking that to some degree we must be existing in the nation of our founders. Right?? Right?? Every 4th of July we celebrate the home of the free .. We say the words patriotism, liberty, freedom... but they are hollow shells with their meanings inverted. I remember loving Ronald Regan, he had great libertarian "rhetoric". To say the founders were wrong is to destroy their (mine at one time) worldview, or to attack it. So they become defensive as I once did.
You get lumped into the left.. or you are a "buffoon". This is because parts of the "left" also says the founders were wrong, but it is for a completely different reason. For folks like us... we did not think they were necessarily philosophically wrong, just that the application was incorrect. It didn't work. The "left" charges they were philosophically wrong . (because it is too individualistic to them being mired in Hegelian political theory) So all opposition to the "founders" gets tossed into that leftist pile... making you (now me) an enemy.
It seems to me, as I have explained elsewhere, this was by design. If a person believes we are in a semi-functioning democracy that is more or less what or founders desired... except for those pesky democrats.. they will desire to "fix" the system. Our ideas will seem foolish to them. (Same as they would sound foolish to the "left" just for different reasons) In reality, all of this is a recuperation cascade by the dialectic to get people to continue participating in the operation of the machine. We have been conditioned into a nostalgic mythology of an America that does not exist. Neither the "left" or the "right" want to acknowledge that we abandoned the (76 spirit) and its associated individualistic philosophies because they have been socially engineered to not recognize it. Some frankly no longer desire it beyond being performative about it. I suspect deeply, the reason is because that revelation, if ever understood... especially by "patriotic conservatives" ,there would be a potential to reach a critical mass threat to the status quo. This is why you only hear about the federalist papers...
Yet, people prefer a comfortable lie to a terrible truth.
It comes with baggage, but I am concerned that if we do not revert back to those natural law pillars we will end up in a new engineered dialectic taking us right back into the path of a collective organism. But of course, I really do not know either.
This is a battle for sure.
Indeed, demo(n)cracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, and a "republic" is a few People listening to the bulk of the People and the doing what They want (or what moneyed sponsors/bribers want).
I suggest a solutocracy...
Solutocracy – A Way to Govern (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/solutocracy-a-way-to-govern
The stipulation is... We would best be rid of the need to account for Our energy added into a system.
Accounting For the Energy We Add (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/accounting-for-the-energy-we-add
Re: solutocracy. What if a group of people wish to use some sort of money as a means of exchange? Oughtn't they be free to do so, so long as they do not impose their ways upon people who wish to exchange solely for social credit?
Well, surely People can choose that, but I ponder why anyOne would. With free energy flowing the point to accounting for Our energy becomes like accounting for grains of sand…
100% of the cost of EVERYTHING is energy - the resources sit here freely but it takes energy to put them into useful configuration.
And really, the point of the solutocracy article was to offer a different approach to solving for problems that handing power to Some.
Only the Ones affected by a problem will discuss Ethical solutions, and if there are no problems to solve for, then… No problem.
If everyone were as chill as you, the world would be more chill!
🤗 💜 🤗 Well... I aim to make "chill" as Many who might chill if They were not stressed by the insanity We see today!
Abundancism: Things Done for Purpose, Not Profit (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/abundancism-things-done-for-purpose
The Third Option: Anarcho-Abundancism (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-third-option-anarcho-abundancism
One Outcome in Abundance (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/one-outcome-in-abundance
The Betterment Ethic vs. the Slave’s Creed (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-betterment-ethic-vs-the-slaves
Abundance -> Cooperation; Scarcity -> Competition (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/abundance-cooperation-scarcity-competition
Abundancism – It’s Not Working for a Living; It’s Loving the Work You’re Living (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/abundancism-its-not-working-for-a
I hope You have the time to read all that... LOL!
With my writing schedule, probably not!
But hopefully others will see it!
Well, they're not long, and I do suspect You might benefit... However, I will not have any expectations. Love always!
Excellent Synopsis Christopher that helped me differentiate them!
Though I do not consider myself a conservative (or a lefty).
Yeah, it's useful info for all of us to look at!
I don't want any of it! We the people need to shake off these murderous thieving parasites, and use our own social power to choose our own destinies. Not just being grist for the mill of the black nobility and their puppets.