What's The Plan?

[osan]

I was confabbing with my little brother the other day - brother of another mother, that is. He is one of the more brilliant men I have known in my lifetime.

We were discussing the hows and whys of the successes of the so-called "left" vis-à-vis the predictable failures of the so-called "right". I made the point that the left is well funded and well-organized, whereas the right appear to be fractured and very ill-organized. He suggested something I'd not thought of: that one reason is that "righties" are the people who actually have jobs and make the world happen, whereas "lefties" are largely bums living off the taxes forcibly extracted from the "righties", and have nothing better to do than plot and scheme and riot like tantrum-pitching infants.

Similarly, and I alluded to this in another post just a couple of days ago, the masters of the Left have foisted and enforced a brutally simplistic behavioral standard upon their useful idiots: Political Correctness. PC is based on the impossibly simple notion that just about anything said outside of a vanishingly thin corral, is offensive and hurtful to members of a somewhat tacitly defined set of professional victim groups. Basically, anyone who is not white, most often white and male. Thereby, using the dreaded N-word is always a no-no, unless you are an N, in which case you can utter to your heart's content. Nothing is to be said against the chromosexuals, especially the F-word, unless you are an F, in which case you can utter to your heart's content. And so it goes down the dreary list or dreary victims.

Think of that strategy - it is nearly perfect in the spirit of 1984's NewSpeak. The rules are few, painfully simplistic, and enforced with single-minded brutality. Proof may be found in many examples such as that of Milo Yiannopoulos. He is an F, but speaks heresy about not only Fs, but Ns and Ls and Ss, and so on. He doesn't berate them in sé, but only points out the inconsistencies of their positions, the infantility of their whining, and so forth. Look how the lefties have reacted - they would literally murder him if they felt they could get away with it. Thank God they are cowards and have not the nerve to risk the risks of such ventures. But they WOULD if they did, and that is the key point here. The left will eat their own for deviating even the smallest epsilon from the orthodoxy of the progressive altar and we see it often enough to know it is so.

The combination of simplistic conceptual architecture, simplistic rules of behavior and thought, as well as brutally violent enforcement, built upon a foundation of appeal to the most base instincts of the human animal has proven to be a political grand-slam formula for getting people on board and active in the endeavor of destroying the status quo. And the "right" hasn't a clue how to stop it, much less proceed in a gainful manner to overtake and defeat it.

But the real point of this post is somewhat orthogonal to all this. My intent here is to point out that little bro and I clearly identified what is perhaps THE central threat that faces not only the "left", but the "right" every bit as much: the absence of long-term plans, moving forward from the day the "revolution" achieves its victory.

It is an ancient pattern that has undone virtually every revolution for which human records stand. Just look at what happened in the wakes of the most notable revolutions of the twentieth century. Russia devolved into Stalinism. China into Maoism. Cuba into Castro's tyranny. Cambodia into the Killing Fields, and so on down a depressingly long list of really horrible results that yielded slaughter in the hundreds of millions of undeserving souls.

In every case, the only thing apparently in the minds of the actors was the destruction of what IS. There was little to no thought given to what WILL BE once the perceived tyrant was beheaded. And that same problem exists today for both left and right. The progressives, I surmise, have NO CLUE what they they are going to actually DO to make the worker's paradise for which they think they strive. That will, so very predictably, end in disaster as have all similar efforts in the past.

Good. Let them be consumed in blood and disease. I hold no love for such people, but only my cold indifference.

But the same threat hangs over the heads of those who say they want liberty in their time. No plan. Bad move. Terminally bad. No plan = guaRONtee of yet another despot ascending the throne.

So, what is the plan? That is NOT a rhetorical question.

[otherone]

So, what is the plan? That is NOT a rhetorical question.

There can be no plan until supernaturalism is rejected and the sovereignty of the individual is recognized in defiance of the imagined community. Otherwise, as my sig implies, we trade one tyrant for another. Ayn Rand understood that it is the morality of altruism that needs to be abandoned. This is why she is vilified by both conservatives and progressives. Sacrificing oneself on the alter of artificial constructs, whether state or deity, leads to horrors.

[osan]

There can be no plan until supernaturalism is rejected and the sovereignty of the individual is recognized in defiance of the imagined community. Otherwise, as my sig implies, we trade one tyrant for another. Ayn Rand understood that it is the morality of altruism that needs to be abandoned. This is why she is vilified by both conservatives and progressives. Sacrificing oneself on the alter of artificial constructs, whether state or deity, leads to horrors.

We do not have to wait for others in order to form a plan for the way forward.

I will suggest that such a plan is readily conceivable. Implementation... that's the trick, but there is no implementation without the plan, so begin at the beginning.

Firstly, what is the ultimate goal. I will hazard a guess and say "freedom".

Assuming this, what is the definition of "freedom"? That is the next step.

Just as I have done a million times in my career where called upon to do process reengineering, a vital next step is to map out the current reality: things as they are today, both good as well as bad. Having mapped the current state, we are now free to engage in architecting the future states, plural because it is most likely that an undertaking as radical as this will require intermediary steps. Going from the current state to nirvana overnight is not really possible. People would freak out. Therefore, relatively small, transparent, properly reasoned steps toward freedom.

I would strongly suggest that one of the intermediate steps, if not the first, be the goal of restoring "proper" Constitutional administration of Law. That would possibly be comprised of several sub-steps such as the elimination of all statutory enactments that do not rise to the standard of Law. "Law" and its standard would have to be defined with the best scientific rigor, as would "crime" and other terms fundamental to a clear, complete, and correct understanding of the principles of Proper Human Relations.

Once those principles are discovered, the terms properly defined, and the standards devised, checked, and rechecked for completeness, correctness, and clarity, all statutes are put to the acid test. I predict 99.999% of all statutes would fail to make the standard, leaving a mere handful of actual Laws on the books. All statutes addressing prostitution, drug possession and use, and bearing of arms for example, would fall by the wayside. Concomitantly, actual laws replete with well-measured PUNISHMENTS for committing actual crimes must be in place prior to breaking out the saws.

At that point, other possible intermediary steps might include dissolution of police forces, FBI, CIA, and so forth, though this with great potential hazard, for the vacuum could not stand long. Filling it properly, such that the properly identified functions of governANCE would be fulfilled in good faith to the respective principles, is key to preventing new tyrants from doing so, which will happen in the event people fail to do the right things.

All manner of things would have to be addressed, such as the basics of court procedure, keeping the good and leaving the bad on the cutting floor. I believe that right and wrong as determined by Law must become the standard of judgment, vis-à-vis adherence to the mere mechanics of arbitrary and most often capricious statutory verbiage.

Imagine a land where the true spirit of the Constitution were in full bloom, the people murderously jealous of their freedoms. It is unlikely, but by no means impossible - but the accomplishment would be Herculean in the truest sense.

At that point, you either hold and Art. V Convention (AVC) or use whatever other instruments are at your disposal to repaid the damage done to the Constitution through the amendments added since the BoR was ratified. I would delete everything from Am. XI to the end. There is nothing beyond Am. X that is needed and much that has proven profoundly damaging.

Having achieved that proper state of governance as per the spirit of the Constitution, you then proceed to dismantle the weaknesses such as the unbridled power to tax. Reduce the powers of the federal government to absolutely nothing beyond providing for the common defense and courts. I would disembowel SCOTUS insofar as their ability to "interpret" Law. If a Law needs interpretation beyond that of the meanings of the words, i.e., the manner in which they are strung together requires "special skill", then I submit is it improperly constructed, is therefore not actual Law, and holds zero authority over any man.

I'd call this basic and definitely simplistic beginning of a framework a huge undertaking in itself. But if our posterity were to accomplish the objective, I would say that they were in a very good position to then take on the rest of the task of moving us ever farther from even the least hints of tyranny, all governing force applied only to those who have committed true and actual crimes and having been duly and rightfully convicted of such.

Get us THERE, and then we can talk about the rest.

[presence]

Sacrificing oneself
on the alter of artificial constructs,
whether state or deity,
leads to horrors.

nice

[A Son of Liberty]

As usual I could not agree with you more...

That said, the distance between "here" and "there" is so vast and so imposing that the very foundations of physics would be challenged to bridge it, let alone the depth of human philosophy in this age.

What seems like such a simple step to us here is literally incomprehensible to most of the rest of humanity. Put more simply, we might recommend holding back the ocean with a broom, to borrow a phrase, and expect as much success.

What gives me hope for tomorrow is the existence of folks such as you, in unexpected places like West Virginia (if I recall correctly), where no one is supposed to have a bit of intelligence... folks like you give me hope that when The Unraveling occurs, there will be voices of reason in the truest sense in places where people will survive.

[r3volution 3.0]

If you do not know to which port you are sailing, no wind is favorable.

[timosman]

If you do not know to which port you are sailing, no wind is favorable.

If you do not know what you are talking about no words will make you sound smart.

[osan]

As usual I could not agree with you more...

That said, the distance between "here" and "there" is so vast and so imposing that the very foundations of physics would be challenged to bridge it, let alone the depth of human philosophy in this age.

I would amend this slightly to "foundations of thought", for thought is all that stands between us and proper freedom. It may seem mere in the minds of many, but it is anything but.

What seems like such a simple step to us here is literally incomprehensible to most of the rest of humanity. Put more simply, we might recommend holding back the ocean with a broom, to borrow a phrase, and expect as much success.

You are sadly correct. However, the choice stands before us: fight or lay down. I believe that as things currently stand, we hold a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing in any meaningful manner. That said, I say press on, because we really have nothing to lose, save our lives. Those will be gone soon enough, every one of them. I see no reason to get on my knees to any man. To hell with that.

What gives me hope for tomorrow is the existence of folks such as you, in unexpected places like West Virginia (if I recall correctly), where no one is supposed to have a bit of intelligence... folks like you give me hope that when The Unraveling occurs, there will be voices of reason in the truest sense in places where people will survive.

Let us hope so. But there'd still better be a plan.

[timosman]

A small step could be repelling of the trolls instead of pretending they do not exist.

[osan]

A small step could be repelling of the trolls instead of pretending they do not exist.

Repel? You will never do that. Discredit them by serving as a proper example of the Superior Man, the Freeman. This is the best we can do at this time.

If the day comes for violence, then we will do what needs doing, but let us not become the things we claim to hate in the act. This is the great threat that stands before all good men and most fall to it, however unintended.

Leading by example is the best way, however, I am no longer certain that even that is enough. Pearls before swine avails one naught but waste, and I am of the suspicion that the mean man of today does not rise to the status of "swine". If this is correct, then leading by example may not be sufficient to the cause at hand.`

[oyarde]

My plan is in place. I created a small paradise here where I can do what I like and a defense system with the capability of keeping everyone out if it becomes that time in my lifetime .

[osan]

My plan is in place. I created a small paradise here where I can do what I like and a defense system with the capability of keeping everyone out if it becomes that time in my lifetime .

Not talking of personal plans, but that of a so-called "movement". I submit that there IS no plan. Therefore, if and when "we" ever win the day, the next day will see nothing better than the same old tyrannies descend upon us because that is all that humans of the Empire Ilk have ever done since the first days.

Furthermore, how does one preserve the freedom of a people in an unfree world where the successes of your freedoms, as manifested in material prosperity, will become the rose the rest of the world seeks to pluck? Defense against superorganisms most likely requires one to become superorganized. It's a $#@!ty reality, but reality doesn't much care what you or I think about it. No truly free nation would stand for long without the ability to project the now-proverbial MAD threat to its covetous neighbors. The temptation would be too great for the likes of a China or Russia not to try an cash-in on a freebie - to loot a land for which they held nothing but hatred because of the prosperities for which freedom provides all opportunity. Frightened people, unwilling to venture forth into freedom hate the free because they serve as the reminder of the Weakman's despicably wretched state of mere existence. The rest of the world would not stand for it, which is why the freemen must, as a practical measure, come together in military might, not to invade and conquer as we've been attempting for 20 years, but to let the world know that there will be no plucking of this rose. Grow your own, $#@!s, and become properly civil as are we. Otherwise, have a nice life in your misery, but keep your hands to yourselves.

[oyarde]

Not talking of personal plans, but that of a so-called "movement". I submit that there IS no plan. Therefore, if and when "we" ever win the day, the next day will see nothing better than the same old tyrannies descend upon us because that is all that humans of the Empire Ilk have ever done since the first days.

Furthermore, how does one preserve the freedom of a people in an unfree world where the successes of your freedoms, as manifested in material prosperity, will become the rose the rest of the world seeks to pluck? Defense against superorganisms most likely requires one to become superorganized. It's a $#@!ty reality, but reality doesn't much care what you or I think about it. No truly free nation would stand for long without the ability to project the now-proverbial MAD threat to its covetous neighbors. The temptation would be too great for the likes of a China or Russia not to try an cash-in on a freebie - to loot a land for which they held nothing but hatred because of the prosperities for which freedom provides all opportunity. Frightened people, unwilling to venture forth into freedom hate the free because they serve as the reminder of the Weakman's despicably wretched state of mere existence. The rest of the world would not stand for it, which is why the freemen must, as a practical measure, come together in military might, not to invade and conquer as we've been attempting for 20 years, but to let the world know that there will be no plucking of this rose. Grow your own, $#@!s, and become properly civil as are we. Otherwise, have a nice life in your misery, but keep your hands to yourselves.

As far as I can tell the movement has lost steam .

[osan]

As far as I can tell the movement has lost steam .

I guess Trump's been more successful than anyone dared imagine.

[Swordsmyth]

I guess Trump's been more successful than anyone dared imagine.

It's not just Trump, Ron's retirement took a lot of air out of the movement, he deserves his retirement but for too many people it was the RON Paul movement, Rand just hasn't been able to inspire people the way Ron did even though he has had more of an impact on legislation, we need a "leader" type for the sheep to follow, preferably one that is even more inspirational than Ron was.

[oyarde]

Not talking of personal plans, but that of a so-called "movement". I submit that there IS no plan. Therefore, if and when "we" ever win the day, the next day will see nothing better than the same old tyrannies descend upon us because that is all that humans of the Empire Ilk have ever done since the first days.

Furthermore, how does one preserve the freedom of a people in an unfree world where the successes of your freedoms, as manifested in material prosperity, will become the rose the rest of the world seeks to pluck? Defense against superorganisms most likely requires one to become superorganized. It's a $#@!ty reality, but reality doesn't much care what you or I think about it. No truly free nation would stand for long without the ability to project the now-proverbial MAD threat to its covetous neighbors. The temptation would be too great for the likes of a China or Russia not to try an cash-in on a freebie - to loot a land for which they held nothing but hatred because of the prosperities for which freedom provides all opportunity. Frightened people, unwilling to venture forth into freedom hate the free because they serve as the reminder of the Weakman's despicably wretched state of mere existence. The rest of the world would not stand for it, which is why the freemen must, as a practical measure, come together in military might, not to invade and conquer as we've been attempting for 20 years, but to let the world know that there will be no plucking of this rose. Grow your own, $#@!s, and become properly civil as are we. Otherwise, have a nice life in your misery, but keep your hands to yourselves.

I guess it is only fair to say that overall I have no faith in humanity and spend most of my thoughts towards taking care of my own . At this point I see the movement as in stagnation . I still chip in a small donation here and there but I do not expect much . It likely will take the reset to move things .

[jllundqu]

It's a paradox, to be sure.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Nietzsche was correct in that the problem lies with humanity itself. Perhaps we were a mistake... or perhaps we were never meant to propagate the species beyond a few hundred thousands from the African Savannahs. But here we are, 9 Billion and counting... each and every one of us with the same basic programming.

One thing is clear: humans were not meant to rule over other humans. THAT is (should) be our fight... recognizing the cyclical nature of things (the universe itself) means it is a battle that will never end. There is no "what do we do after?" Endeavour for human freedom, period. What comes after is beyond our control and thus beyond any 'planning'.

[osan]

Well that's just lovely.

No plan. No ambition. No clue.

Hence, "bowel movement".

Well, we have years of food stored, automatic weapons and ammo enough to start a small war. Just going to have to go about my own business and leave the rest to their devices.

Humans.

[Madison320]

So, what is the plan? That is NOT a rhetorical question.

I've thought for a long time that there needs to be some type of restriction on voting privileges. Maybe only allow people to voter who pay more taxes than they receive in benefits. The downside to this is that it probably requires an income tax so that you can keep track of taxpayers. Maybe a better idea would be to remove voting privileges from any type of direct government benefit. It would have to be something that is voluntary, for example welfare is voluntary. If you want your vote back you can just turn down your welfare. It can't be something like federal highways or the military. In other words the government can't say since we are providing you with a military you can't vote. You have no choice in the matter.

I believe the downfall of democracies is when the majority realizes they can vote to take free stuff from the minority.

Also I agree that there needs to be a plan, as in some sort of structural change, not just talk. "We need to convince ... blah blah blah"

Another idea would be a really simple constitution that bans certain aspects of government that we know get out of hand.

The government shall not:

1. Provide education.
2. Borrow money.
3. Establish a currency.


Something like that. The problem is that over time, if you allow everyone to vote, eventually it'll be ignored by people voting for free stuff. But it would take awhile.

[osan]

I've thought for a long time that there needs to be some type of restriction on voting privileges. Maybe only allow people to voter who pay more taxes than they receive in benefits.

And those with money will buy their desires. Not sure how well that would work out for the rest, but you never know.

The downside to this is that it probably requires an income tax so that you can keep track of taxpayers.

I think my idea is a plan as to structure. Thus far, the wake of every recorded revolution has resulted in equal or worse tyranny. If that is not to be avoided, then there is no point in rebelling. We should simply shut the hell up and be good little Merecogs.

I have come to the strong suspicion that freedom and high population densities that couple to huge volumes of bodies are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, it would appear that there is a stark dichotomy before us: cull the population by about ninety-five percent or shut up and live with tyrants without complaint.

It has become apparent to me that the average human being will not stick to principle in the face of an unpleasant circumstance if an avenue of escape from said circumstance becomes available to him. We accept death because we have no choice, for example. Offer an escape and the average man would sell his own mother into a bordello for the opportunity to continue living, if even just for another day. This is the truth of what we are, right or wrong. Therefore, in the fog of enormous populations, the average man will, as Bastiat once observed, seek to live off the labors of his fellows if it is at all possible. This again is what we are on the mean. Put enough people together such that any given individual is able to get lost in the sea of identities and, if possible, he will live parasitically off of the fruits of other mens' labors. We see this every day of our lives, if we choose to look.

Maybe a better idea would be to remove voting privileges from any type of direct government benefit. It would have to be something that is voluntary, for example welfare is voluntary. If you want your vote back you can just turn down your welfare. It can't be something like federal highways or the military. In other words the government can't say since we are providing you with a military you can't vote. You have no choice in the matter.

These are the brands of details needed, to be sure. But what of the broader vision? We cannot simply say "freedom" and expect it to leap from Jed Clampett's boothole, singing "Mammy", ready to be lived without thought or effort by Johnny Meaner. It must be conceived in toto at the most basic level, and understood as to costs and consequences, as well as the benefits.

A society where population density and volume (expanse) rise above a given, and IMO very low numerical threshold, must have a very adeptly conceived architecture for free living. I have no doubt it can be done, but the will to do it and live by it is the wicket that is ever so sticky. The architecture must be spelled out sufficiently in terms of correctness, completeness, semantic clarity, and so forth because there will always be people who will pervert Law.

Far more importantly, governMENT must be virtually eliminated in favor of governANCE and those functions must devolve upon the shoulders of every single member of the group. You can have police, whether centrally controlled or privately - there is no difference there in terms of potentials for good or evil. What counts is that each man, in exchange for the mutual respect of his rights, must in turn bear the costs and other burdens of remaining free. Such a man is empowered to spread the brains of any man, cop or otherwise, across a wall in the event such a man acts in violation of the rights of another. THAT is he problem we face in these mega-societies: all political power of an immediately practical nature aggregates into the hands of an elite. The virtually instantaneous result is tyranny in some form and degree, or another. Until we stop that from happening, there is absolutely zero hope for proper human freedom.

This is the mistake most people make - they think in the wrong terms. "GovernMENT v. none" is NOT the choice to be made. It is proper "governANCE v. improper".

There is no way to absolutely guaRONtee against tyranny, but there is a way to best ensure against it: the functions of proper governANCE must rest as a mantle upon the shoulders of ever man, woman, and child in the land. Period. Without this, the chances of tyranny arising are greater than with it. It is that simple. And thus far, the Meaner has failed miserably in his attitude regarding this. He may complain about police power, but he does nothing to stop it, the something being to become a governing entity. But no, he doesn't want the responsibility, nor to have to expend the energy required to make sure no man stands above him in authority. Therefore, tyranny. And so it shall stand until such time as that critical mass agglomerates such that the tyrant no longer has enough men with guns to keep them in their former places. That is how the new status quo of freedom and proper self-governance comes to exist and maintain itself. That is the only chance we as human beings, living in a world of high-density/high-volume populations, stands any chance for freedom. The change is simple, yet radical. We stand so close, yet so far from realizing this and I suspect we as a race will turn our backs to it because doing the wrong thing seems so much more easy and convenient.

The government shall not:

1. Provide education.
2. Borrow money.
3. Establish a currency.


Something like that. The problem is that over time, if you allow everyone to vote, eventually it'll be ignored by people voting for free stuff. But it would take awhile.

As an intermediary step, perhaps yes. But we should be looking well beyond that at this point.

In.

My.

Worthless.

Opinion.

[Swordsmyth]

And those with money will buy their desires. Not sure how well that would work out for the rest, but you never know.



I think my idea is a plan as to structure. Thus far, the wake of every recorded revolution has resulted in equal or worse tyranny. If that is not to be avoided, then there is no point in rebelling. We should simply shut the hell up and be good little Merecogs.

I have come to the strong suspicion that freedom and high population densities that couple to huge volumes of bodies are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, it would appear that there is a stark dichotomy before us: cull the population by about ninety-five percent or shut up and live with tyrants without complaint.

It has become apparent to me that the average human being will not stick to principle in the face of an unpleasant circumstance if an avenue of escape from said circumstance becomes available to him. We accept death because we have no choice, for example. Offer an escape and the average man would sell his own mother into a bordello for the opportunity to continue living, if even just for another day. This is the truth of what we are, right or wrong. Therefore, in the fog of enormous populations, the average man will, as Bastiat once observed, seek to live off the labors of his fellows if it is at all possible. This again is what we are on the mean. Put enough people together such that any given individual is able to get lost in the sea of identities and, if possible, he will live parasitically off of the fruits of other mens' labors. We see this every day of our lives, if we choose to look.



These are the brands of details needed, to be sure. But what of the broader vision? We cannot simply say "freedom" and expect it to leap from Jed Clampett's boothole, singing "Mammy", ready to be lived without thought or effort by Johnny Meaner. It must be conceived in toto at the most basic level, and understood as to costs and consequences, as well as the benefits.

A society where population density and volume (expanse) rise above a given, and IMO very low numerical threshold, must have a very adeptly conceived architecture for free living. I have no doubt it can be done, but the will to do it and live by it is the wicket that is ever so sticky. The architecture must be spelled out sufficiently in terms of correctness, completeness, semantic clarity, and so forth because there will always be people who will pervert Law.

Far more importantly, governMENT must be virtually eliminated in favor of governANCE and those functions must devolve upon the shoulders of every single member of the group. You can have police, whether centrally controlled or privately - there is no difference there in terms of potentials for good or evil. What counts is that each man, in exchange for the mutual respect of his rights, must in turn bear the costs and other burdens of remaining free. Such a man is empowered to spread the brains of any man, cop or otherwise, across a wall in the event such a man acts in violation of the rights of another. THAT is he problem we face in these mega-societies: all political power of an immediately practical nature aggregates into the hands of an elite. The virtually instantaneous result is tyranny in some form and degree, or another. Until we stop that from happening, there is absolutely zero hope for proper human freedom.

This is the mistake most people make - they think in the wrong terms. "GovernMENT v. none" is NOT the choice to be made. It is proper "governANCE v. improper".

There is no way to absolutely guaRONtee against tyranny, but there is a way to best ensure against it: the functions of proper governANCE must rest as a mantle upon the shoulders of ever man, woman, and child in the land. Period. Without this, the chances of tyranny arising are greater than with it. It is that simple. And thus far, the Meaner has failed miserably in his attitude regarding this. He may complain about police power, but he does nothing to stop it, the something being to become a governing entity. But no, he doesn't want the responsibility, nor to have to expend the energy required to make sure no man stands above him in authority. Therefore, tyranny. And so it shall stand until such time as that critical mass agglomerates such that the tyrant no longer has enough men with guns to keep them in their former places. That is how the new status quo of freedom and proper self-governance comes to exist and maintain itself. That is the only chance we as human beings, living in a world of high-density/high-volume populations, stands any chance for freedom. The change is simple, yet radical. We stand so close, yet so far from realizing this and I suspect we as a race will turn our backs to it because doing the wrong thing seems so much more easy and convenient.





As an intermediary step, perhaps yes. But we should be looking well beyond that at this point.

In.

My.

Worthless.

Opinion.

What you are asking for is an ideal Constitution, I have long intended to try to write one but I haven't had the time.

The Constitution we have is a good starting point but even it needs major improvements, our history is proof of that.

[osan]

What you are asking for is an ideal Constitution, I have long intended to try to write one but I haven't had the time.

I am talking about something that goes well beyond a mere constitution. It is a philosophy designed with intent and an open-minded recognition of the costs and a will to bear them for the sake of the benefits. It is an attitude pursuant to that philosophy - one of unbending intent and the knowledge that YOU are the primary authority in your life with an attendant will to live in accord with that knowledge.

I wrote a constitution about 25 years ago. It is vastly superior to the one we have. It is, nevertheless, useless in the hands of a nation of people such as ours. A constitution means nothing without proper and decent people to make it manifest. A constitution is naught more than a script - a screenplay. If people will play their roles properly, the production will be wonderful. Otherwise, it is a flop. Currently, ours is the latter. I posted mine here some years ago. I am sure you can find it if you are interested.

The Constitution we have is a good starting point but even it needs major improvements, our history is proof of that.

As I wrote above, a return to proper Constitutional governance would be the prudent intermediary goal on the path to the broader objective of true self-governance.

This intermediary objective is nothing short of monumental, for it involves the quantum transformation of men's minds in ways they are not currently prepared to undergo. They are not even close.

[Swordsmyth]

I am talking about something that goes well beyond a mere constitution. It is a philosophy designed with intent and an open-minded recognition of the costs and a will to bear them for the sake of the benefits. It is an attitude pursuant to that philosophy - one of unbending intent and the knowledge that YOU are the primary authority in your life with an attendant will to live in accord with that knowledge.

I wrote a constitution about 25 years ago. It is vastly superior to the one we have. It is, nevertheless, useless in the hands of a nation of people such as ours. A constitution means nothing without proper and decent people to make it manifest. A constitution is naught more than a script - a screenplay. If people will play their roles properly, the production will be wonderful. Otherwise, it is a flop. Currently, ours is the latter. I posted mine here some years ago. I am sure you can find it if you are interested.



As I wrote above, a return to proper Constitutional governance would be the prudent intermediary goal on the path to the broader objective of true self-governance.

This intermediary objective is nothing short of monumental, for it involves the quantum transformation of men's minds in ways they are not currently prepared to undergo. They are not even close.

Then you want a cultural movement akin to a religious revival.
For that you will need inspirational leaders and teachers to get the sheeple to listen, learn and act.
Many have tried (and still are trying) to create such a movement but so far we have not had leaders of the right philosophical bent who are also sufficiently inspirational.

[Swordsmyth]

It is not a question of what I want, but what is objectively required in order to achieve the relevant result.



Teachers, yes. "Leaders"... most likely not. The term is tainted, perhaps beyond any immediate redemption, much as is the case with "anarchy", which is why I coined "autodiathism", from the Greek for "self-determination".

The perennial trouble with leaders is that they invariably become rulers and thereby tyrants. Best not to even allow that much mental leeway, lest people fall once again into the old habits to which they are now so deeply bred.

The task of restoring a population such as ours into a state of proper human relations is just this side of impossible. Look at FSP, for example, a far less ambitious endeavor. Where have they gone? Basically nowhere. I grant that the choice of New Hampshire was idiotic beyond all calculation, given it has always been and remains a haven of leftist-tyrannical stoogery, but even so I would have thought they would have made better progress than is readily evident after +/- twenty years. But I remain skeptical because you never know what may be going on beyond appearances.

I have written before that such changes will take time - most likely lots of it. FSP bears this out, given the next to zero apparent change and the minuscule scale of the endeavor vis-à-vis the fifty states, many of which are vastly larger and more deeply and seemingly hopelessly corrupted with the mental poisons of Empire. I believe in leading by example and FSP appears to have failed in this regard. I see no great flocking of liberty-smitten masses to a bastion of hope, but rather a whole lot of the same old thing.

Liberty has not failed us. We have.

Once again I raise the issue of just how near hopelessness we truly are and remind people to temper their expectations accordingly.

So it would appear that, as I would always recommend, we begin at the beginning: teachers. Who will they be? Who will train them? What shall comprise that training? It can be done only through conspiracy because the meaner has no concept of any of this, save that it frightens and repulses them with great violence and intensity. Clearly, those are not the people to whom to devote one's energies. Consequently, we are presented by observed truth of circumstance a key element of the marketing strategy: attraction over promotion. Promoting liberty is a lost cause at this time. But in leading by example and leaving a trail of bread crumbs to one's door, the adept sits patiently and waits to see who, if anyone, comes a knockin'.

We now have two vital initial steps: establish the orthodoxy of proper human relation, which is precisely that of proper freedom, and engage in a campaign of attraction to see whether we really have a cause worthy of pursuit. Then train those, if any, in that orthodoxy and send them forth to cast the pheromones of liberty hither-thither and repeat the cycle of waiting to see who comes nibbling. It is the precise strategy used to introduce illicit and mostly dangerous drugs into a small town or city. Give it away for free and see who comes back for more.

This is what I mean about developing a plan - a strategy. But what I have described thus far is only a beginning. There is much more to it and without the details, you leave the fate of humanity to the whim and caprice of the devil himself.



I'm not sure this is true. Firstly, the hell with "trying". One either does, or goes home and accepts what is, while forgetting what might be. There is no movement worthy of mention as of this writing. All I see is a raft of people who claim to want to be free, yet manifest no obvious determination to attain it. Talk is cheap. Action is what counts and I see precious little of it. I also see tons of rank stoogery by the very same people who go on about "freedom". America, through the election of Trump over Clinton in spite of the now apparently huge efforts made to ensure the opposite result, has taken a step in a BETTER direction. Once again, I have not written "right". And what do the people even here at RPF do? Bitch and complain and accuse him of being one of Themme with no convincing evidence. Had this been the "left's" situation, they would have rallied around and taken the small victories and reveled in them, only to retrench and prepare for the next small step forward. But no, the hoity toity freedom lover damns to hell anyone having the nerve to be imperfectly human and fail the purity test. That is why we will never win. Until this stupidity is given the deep-six, you can kiss your hopes a fond bye-bye.

I don't trust Trump to the door, and would never suggest it to any of you. But you can learn to recognize steps that improve the general situation, vis-à-vis those that drive us closer to the point of no return, beyond which hope is effectively extinguished in toto. This is national politics, meaning I don't even trust Ron Paul in that context. You need to learn to recognize good when it comes, no matter whence or how seemingly meager. Had Obama done good, I would have recognized it as such. It matters no whit whether it came of an adept operator or by the pure accident of an ignorant bumbler from Kenya who just got lucky.

Key principle of revolution: trust nobody in politics, ever... even if he has a halo and stigmata. This is POLITICS, for God's sake. No man can be trusted there.

Key principle of revolution: become adept in recognizing even the least of gains, put away your personal bull$#@! (EEEWWWW... TRUMP...), and treasure those winnings, regardless of source or circumstance. The starving man who wishes to survive doesn't turn his nose up when a cockroach scurries past. He eats.

As can be readily seen, the road forward is long and in terrible repair. Anyone wanting to see liberty survive, much less flourish, must be prepared for the difficult journey. I don't see too many of those.

You say we have not had the right leaders. Ask yourself why. Is it because they are not there? I doubt it. I believe they are not there because people don't really want them, all their talk to the contrary notwithstanding. I hope I am wrong on that point, but the question of why then remains unanswered.

Look at myownself: I've been writing philosophical essays on freedom and human relations for years. Nobody pays attention. If people would listen, I would risk wasting my time trying to teach them. However, I could spontaneously combust and nobody would notice. I suspect this to be the case with a great many others who would also be willing to serve as beacons. People want freedom, sure... so long as someone else provides it. And there you have it. On the other side, they want "free" and "government" provides it to them, courtesy of the suckers who work for a living. This is why Theye are successful and we suck ditch water. Their task is easy. Ours monumentally difficult. Theye are organized. We are like headless chickens. But the common thread is this: we want someone else to provide for us, like helpless, ill-bred, wanton, tantrum-pitching children. Gimme, gimme, gimme. There when the checks are being handed out and nowhere when a shovel needs to be picked up.

Shoot, I've even done a big part of the heavy lifting for the world - I sat down, took the time, and made the effort to identify and formalize a canon of proper human relations. It is actually in black and white - a paragraphs-long treatise on what it means to live correctly among one's fellows. Yet it sits fallow on a server in the great internet void, wholly ignored while the people who so tridently proclaim their desire and love of liberty sit with their thumbs in their bootus-holes, crying, wailing, and gnashing their teeth at the deplorable state in which America and the world finds itself. Oh, the tyranny!

What is that old Christian adage: God helps those who help themselves?

Screw it. I became officially old on 2/1 - sixty. With any luck I will not last another ten years, and for that prospect I am thankful - not because I don't want to live, but because the world of men has become so hopelessly boring to me. It will be my pleasure to leave the circus to the small and timid, back-handedly sneaky souls who seem to revel in their servitude and the viciousness that is endlessly served unto them as entertainment and so many loaves. I will continue to write as I go along - after all, what else is there to do? As for expectations, there will be tyranny in ever increasing torrents - mark that, barring the good old reset event. At this point my only reason for the least shred of hope lies in such an event and I pray for it. That side of me, the one which has felt the sting of mens' roughshod trespass upon my sovereignty on a daily basis for sixty years, would like to live just long enough to see vast legions wiped from the book of life in forced atonement for their vast sins against themselves, as well as their fellows. The evil of the meaner cannot be overstated.

It is funny when I look back and consider that the only things that have ever brought be to harm have been other human beings. No wild animals, nor natural catastrophes have laid hands upon me. The erosion of my ability to exercise my inherent rights as a free and sovereign man has come solely at the hands of other humans. There is little to recommend us.

Therefore, for the nth time, I reiterate the question: what is the plan? Am I wasting my breath? Is there nobody here interested in the practicalities of reestablishing freedom? Has all the talk here been so much hot air? Seriously - what's the deal? If it's all just talk, we should fess up and proceed with the appropriate expectations. Otherwise, should we not be talking about this with some vigor? Thus far, only twenty five posts in a thread I would have hoped would be hundreds long by now, heading into the thousands. Our sincerity and industry seems to be coming into some question. Heaven knows, someone posts some idiotic one-liner and the thread erupts into dozens of pages of furious exchange. Surely we can spare a little effort on this, can we not?

Mewonders.

ETA: Not "teachers", but "guides".

I wish I had a better answer for you, I do what I can and you have been doing what you can as have others in the movement but those who have the capacity to do more (individually or collectively) have generally failed to do so and the sheeple have failed almost entirely to listen.

At this point I wish for incremental improvement from Trump and others who are better than what we have been getting or even from Rand and the handful of true liberty torchbearers we have but even if that hope is fulfilled it will yield little and take a long time to do so, the only other possible catalysts for improvement are a reset event or a "messiah", someone for the sheeple to follow because of his overwhelming charisma until they become used to walking the path of freedom out of habit and have absorbed the philosophy along with the charm, he would need to be pure enough to satisfy the purists and inspire robust activity on their part and he would need to achieve sufficient power to palpably improve conditions in the country so that we would have more money to spend on the movement and the sheeple would credit liberty for the prosperity.
The reset event seems more likely.

[VIDEODROME]

No thoughts on finding common ground with the Left I suppose? I don't think they're all freeloading scumbags or something.

[Swordsmyth]

No thoughts on finding common ground with the Left I suppose? I don't think they're all freeloading scumbags or something.

We can cooperate when they are on the right side of an issue, that's about one time in a thousand.

[acptulsa]

It's not just Trump, Ron's retirement took a lot of air out of the movement, he deserves his retirement but for too many people it was the RON Paul movement, Rand just hasn't been able to inspire people the way Ron did even though he has had more of an impact on legislation, we need a "leader" type for the sheep to follow, preferably one that is even more inspirational than Ron was.

Ron Paul is no leader, really. Which is fine, because a leader is not what is needed. A leader is needed to build something. Few follow 'leaders' to destroy something. But I think we can all agree that Washington, D.C. is built. It is too built. It is that house that has been added onto, and added onto, and added onto, and the core is rotting and termite-ridden, and the west wing is built on a slab which is sinking into the clay, and the east wing was built in the era when insulation was considered unnecessary, and the north wing is infested by squatters that got title in the homestead act because it was never necessary and none of the rightful owners ever used it, and the south wing has bats in the attic, and nothing needs to be built. Ninety percent of it needs to be destroyed. Now, how does someone fill all the classical characteristics of a 'leader' and inspire people to wield sledgehammers and wrecking balls and dynamite and tear something down?

The best president we had in the last hundred years was nobody's idea of a 'leader' then or now. Calvin Coolidge bore in a good-natured manner the wags and wits claiming he wasn't doing anything, while he cut taxes in a scientific manner meant to propel the economy and stoutly resisted to the detriment of his image and his health a Congress hungry to expand their power--every single day. And the public thanked and honored and praised him for it, and when he retired, his party nominated the most progressive 'natural leader' of an idiot in the whole party, and he got elected and short-circuited the whole freaking thing. A leader? We don't need a leader. That's one if our biggest handicaps. What we need is someone who can convince the sheep he or she is a leader, but is in fact a regressor.

I've thought for a long time that there needs to be some type of restriction on voting privileges.

But that, of course, is a non-starter. And it isn't even necessarily desirable. There are people ho make a lot of money who will happily vote for the government to do stupid stuff, especially when they are government contractors. And there are poor people who would be entrepreneurs if only entrepreneurship were still legal, but nowadays the barriers to entry are too high. No, this is not only too broad a brush to use to paint voters with, sweeping out good voters and sweeping in bad voters, but merely mentioning it makes us unpopular as hell. Bad plan.

I wish I had a better answer for you, I do what I can and you have been doing what you can as have others in the movement but those who have the capacity to do more (individually or collectively) have generally failed to do so and the sheeple have failed almost entirely to listen.

At this point I wish for incremental improvement from Trump and others who are better than what we have been getting or even from Rand and the handful of true liberty torchbearers we have but even if that hope is fulfilled it will yield little and take a long time to do so, the only other possible catalysts for improvement are a reset event or a "messiah", someone for the sheeple to follow because of his overwhelming charisma until they become used to walking the path of freedom out of habit and have absorbed the philosophy along with the charm, he would need to be pure enough to satisfy the purists and inspire robust activity on their part and he would need to achieve sufficient power to palpably improve conditions in the country so that we would have more money to spend on the movement and the sheeple would credit liberty for the prosperity.
The reset event seems more likely.

Puh-lease. If being incrementalized into fascism by Trump is the best we can do, then yeah, the only way we're going to get where the nation needs to be is through blood in the streets. Trump is making quite a show of making baby steps in the right direction in one or two areas, while taking giant strides in the wrong direction everywhere else. Getting all purist snobbish about Rand while this charlatan stole all the discontent in the last election was our major fail. Trump isn't even cutting regulations--he's cutting the growth of regulations. We are still going in exactly the wrong direction on every front, and you trolls are bleating giddily about how big an improvement it is because instead of going straight to Hell at sixty miles per, we're going straight to Hell at forty miles per hour. And even that is a lie. We're still going to Hell at sixty per, and you $#@!s are telling us we are civilization's saviors because Hillary would have us up to ninety-to-nothin' by now. If we allow ourselves to be pacified by that, we deserve our shackles, because we are the biggest suckers on the face of the earth.

This is exactly how partisanship has gotten us to this place, in action, the very textbook in action before your lying eyes. Republicans have not held their party accountable because the other party is worse. We used to eat meat, but the other party went vegetarian, so now we content ourselves with gnawing at the bone like the dogs we are. And the more you trolls tell us we achieved something by slowing the decline a tiny bit, the less meat and marrow is left on our little bone. There's no point in even burying it any more.

$#@! Trump. I'm not sucking on that pacifier like the cucks you partisan so-called conservatives are.

No thoughts on finding common ground with the Left I suppose? I don't think they're all freeloading scumbags or something.

We can cooperate when they are on the right side of an issue, that's about one time in a thousand.

Got news, Einstein. Republicans are on the right side of the issues about one time in a thousand, too.

It seems to be escaping the notice of many of us, but this movement was gutted by Bernie Sanders. People are hungry for some genuine change, not ObamaChange (TM), but the real thing. And they ain't particularly particular about where it comes from. They'll take it from Obama, if he'd only not do to them what Trump is doing to us--keep us hoping for change and give us jack $#@!. They'll take it from Bernie, if only they can make the Democratic party democratic enough to give them the candidate they nominated, instead of superdelegates. They'll take it however they can get it, and if they can't get it, they'll lower their standards and try again. And the only reason we haven't fixed them up is because we refuse to admit they have a right to get the kind of change they want, and give it to them. A few of us tried to, but Ron Paul did not emphasize it, and most of us didn't either. Instead we had Paul preaching theory, and Matt Collins screeching that we dared not even talk to Democrats during the primaries because some partisan Republicans might notice, and we didn't tell the majority the truth that would have won them over.

We sit here in the midst of a partisan divide and conquer campaign knowing it is being manufactured by people who want to keep us divided so they can conquer us, and we are cooperating with that! We let people like Swordsmyth come on this site, a site which, before he ever signed up for it, was full of people who had voted Democrat often because of civil liberties and the Republican ramrodding of the war on drugs and the Patriot Act, and we let them make us afraid to even try to talk to real-world Democrat voters. Oh, sure, we try to type out reasonable arguments on the internet, like we did very effectively in 2008, and that all gets deleted within minutes and our Twit accounts get locked. But in the real world we are afraid to approach anyone for fear of the screeching. But the fact is, they are receptive.

The mistake we make is in execution. People have a right to a government which helps homeless schizophrenics out. People have a right to that. We are wrong to say they are wrong for that. We can argue all day that someone who's merely bipolar can be useful, sure. And we can make the case that the less government we have, the more hungry the thriving private sector will be for labor, and the more willing it will be in a strong economy to make allowances for imperfect humans in a workforce. But when it comes to those schizophrenics, when it comes to the most unfortunate of the unfortunates, instead of telling people, 'We libertarians say $#@! 'em!' maybe we should be saying instead, 'The reason government can no longer care for them and they're littering the streets is because this stuff used to be done at the county level, and now Washington tries to do it. Washington cannot do it. When counties did it, if they failed, voters could actually clean county government out and get people in who can do the job. For whatever reason, history has taught us we cannot clean Washington out for incompetence. So, clearly, we need to tell Washington, cut yourself to the bone and cut our taxes so we can fund our counties and let them do it.'

This does not alienate rank-and-file, real world Democrats. Indeed, it serves as a ray of hope for them. At last, someone has figured out a way to 'put the right people in charge of government', as they say over and over! Send people to Washington with the clear message of, cut it or get sent home, and free up funds for county taxes so county government can do what you want done! And if county government doesn't do it, you can actually reach your county government to choke them and slap them and fire them as needed.

The powers that be use our purity against us. They used our purity to turn real world voters against us, because we didn't scream, 'If you want that done, let your county or your town do it! If you expect Washington to do it and not make a hash of it, you're fools!' Instead, we screamed, 'We don't want it done!' when we'd have been better off admitting that the majority does want it done. And they turned our purity against us by causing us to judge Rand Paul by an unrealistic standard, and we wound up settling for a pacifier to suck on in the form of Donald Trump's dick which isn't even trying to stop going the wrong way and go the right way. Oh, he slowed the decline. We're still going the wrong way, but at forty instead of sixty. Yay. What great revolutionaries we are. We may not have saved the world, but at least we might get to keep our noses above water a few extra weeks. Yeah, let's break our arms patting ourselves on our backs.

The thing we tried just enough to prove it does work, but which we have not held our noses and tackled wholeheartedly, is our only hope. We need to say, if you want it done, fine, but let your county do it. It is not only not Washington's job, but Washington is $#@!ing it up, and Washington has always $#@!ed it up, and Washington will always $#@! it up. Send libertarians to Washington to cut it down to the size of Ottumwah, Iowa, so we can afford to pay our cities and counties to do what we want government to do!

99% of what Washington does that we actually want done, outside of bombing brown babies and freeing up (and subsidizing) Wall Street gambling games, it does not do. It takes our money, skims a fat slice off the top, and gives it back to our counties if and only if our counties jump through Washington's hoops. All this plan means, effectively, is cutting out the middleman. Cut federal taxes so local taxes can be raised, and let local, accountable government do the job instead of letting Washington stick their dirty fingers in the pie. The only reason anyone ever let Washington play in the first place was because we figured Washington would move a little from rich states to poor states. Fact is, one of the many ways Washington screws up is it actually robs the poor states and gives to the rich states. But mostly, it skims enough that nobody gets as much out as we all put in. Get Washington out of it. Get WASHINGTON, not all government, but WASHINGTON out of it.

That is a pitch which will work. And unless and until we sell that pitch, we commit ourselves to that pitch, we admit that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments guarantee that people can have just as much socialism as they want on the local level of government, unless and until we bend just enough to say government is not the enemy, Washington, D.C. is the enemy, we are screwed and useless and going nowhere. That is a pitch that will work. If we're too pure and lily-white to adopt a strategy that will work, then we're paper tigers who are easily defeated, and we're just sitting here screwing ourselves.

Damn. I got as long-winded as osan. Well, I hope I actually said something productive, anyway.

[A Son of Liberty]

I hope I actually said something productive, anyway.

You did, sir.

[Madison320]

But that, of course, is a non-starter. And it isn't even necessarily desirable. There are people ho make a lot of money who will happily vote for the government to do stupid stuff, especially when they are government contractors. And there are poor people who would be entrepreneurs if only entrepreneurship were still legal, but nowadays the barriers to entry are too high. No, this is not only too broad a brush to use to paint voters with, sweeping out good voters and sweeping in bad voters, but merely mentioning it makes us unpopular as hell. Bad plan.

I'm not sure the best way to implement it but one thing I am 100% sure of. If person A is forced at gunpoint to contribute millions of dollars and person B is doing nothing but receiving stolen goods, there's no way in hell they should get equally weighted votes. It's an obvious, fundamental flaw in the system and it was pointed out over and over by the founding fathers and many other great leaders of liberty.

Maybe I didn't read it very carefully but as far as I can tell your solution only involves talking and no actual structural change.

[Raginfridus]

I'm not a coward for staying out of his way: