Muh Democracy

[Occam's Banana]

Yet another piece of evidence (if any more is needed) that mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...52055242518531

[CCTelander]

One man, one vote, right?

Or, to paraphrase Archimedes, only let me vote hard enough and I can change the world!

[Occam's Banana]

[...] mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...91780214493184

[Occam's Banana]

There is no government that can possibly be "representative" of a third of a billion people.

A back-room oligarchy is about the best one can hope for under such circumstances.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...75627639857159

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...53537007460356

[Occam's Banana]

There is no government that can possibly be "representative" of a third of a billion people.

A back-room oligarchy is about the best one can hope for under such circumstances.

Might as well make it official:



(And it's not like that's not what happens already.)

[Occam's Banana]

[...] mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/stat...30746748416003

[TheTexan]

One man, one vote, right?

Or, to paraphrase Archimedes, only let me vote hard enough and I can change the world!

With a large enough lever...

[ClaytonB]

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/stat...30746748416003

Republican Swamp battles a Second Donald Trump Presidential Run:

[Occam's Banana]

There is no government that can possibly be "representative" of a third of a billion people.

A back-room oligarchy is about the best one can hope for under such circumstances.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...98918112223232

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/stat...30746748416003

Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the links to see if any Tweets had disappeared. None of Justin’s tweets have disappeared, but the tweet quoted by Vivafrei is gone.

Wondering why some tweets disappear, some don't, and who actually deletes them and why...

[Occam's Banana]

Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the links to see if any Tweets had disappeared. None of Justin’s tweets have disappeared, but the tweet quoted by Vivafrei is gone.

Wondering why some tweets disappear, some don't, and who actually deletes them and why...

The Breaking911 account regularly deletes its older tweets. Disclose.tv does the same thing. I don't know why.

Their routine deletion of their own tweets was one of the things that got me started using images of tweets instead of embedding them. That, and the fact that when an account gets suspended, all the tweets from that account get nuked. (For example, all of James Lindsay's tweets went bye-bye when he got banned, and any links to or embeds of them are now dead.)

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/s...94866437308417

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...05840247431173

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...92475307032578

//

[oyarde]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...53537007460356

He forgot to mention nobody will have read that bill.

[TheTexan]

Yet another piece of evidence (if any more is needed) that mass, continent-wide democracy at the scale of a third of a billion people is a grotesque farce that "represents" nothing except the will of whichever politicians and bureaucrats happen to compose the establishment at any given time:

Which should be self evident, especially at this point, yet people persist continuously in trying to "win" national elections.

(facepalm.gif)

The only way to win, is to separate.

[TheTexan]

Which should be self evident, especially at this point, yet people persist continuously in trying to "win" national elections.

(facepalm.gif)

The only way to win, is to separate.

And I'm gonna call out Massie, Rand Paul, Amash, and to a certain extent even Ron on this.

They should be preaching secession constantly but they don't.

I'm glad that Rand is calling out Fauci and Massie is calling out the ATF and so on but all of that doesn't even matter at the end of the day.

Secession should be basically the only priority at this point.

[Occam's Banana]

Which should be self evident, especially at this point, yet people persist continuously in trying to "win" national elections.

(facepalm.gif)

The only way to win, is to separate.

And I'm gonna call out Massie, Rand Paul, Amash, and to a certain extent even Ron on this.

They should be preaching secession constantly but they don't.

I'm glad that Rand is calling out Fauci and Massie is calling out the ATF and so on but all of that doesn't even matter at the end of the day.

Secession should be basically the only priority at this point.

100% agreed.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...98918112223232

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...45565744808286


https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/sta...06615092715658
to: https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/sta...17499672097143
[archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...092715658.html]
{@BasedMikeLee | 14 September 2023}

1.The law firm of Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy, & Jeffries (“The Firm”) has learned that members of Congress (and voters) don’t like “omnibus” spending bills—that is, legislative proposals that fund all of the functions of the federal government in a single, consolidated bill.

2.This presents a challenge for The Firm, which has for years used omnibus spending bills to manipulate the legislative process. Before we address The Firm’s latest challenge and how it’s responding, let’s first review a few of the basic dynamics at play here.

3. An omnibus spending bill is typically written by The Firm in secret, with assistance from a few “appropriators” (members of the House and Senate spending or “appropriations” committees), hand-picked by The Firm.

4.Once written, an omnibus will first be seen by the public—and even by nearly every member of Congress—only days or hours before a scheduled shutdown.

5. The timing and sequence of a typical omnibus, carefully orchestrated by The Firm, all but ensures that it will pass without substantive changes once it becomes public, and that very few elected, federal lawmakers will have meaningful input in this highly secretive process.

6. At the same time, the fast (almost mindless) flurry of legislative action at the end of this legislative charade gives it the false appearance of democratic legitimacy.

7. Sometimes that appearance is enhanced by The Firm deciding to let members vote on a small handful of amendments, but The Firm persuades enough members into opposing amendments that make substantial changes to the original, sacred text drafted by The Firm.

8. What’s stunning here is that loyalties within The Firm seem to run deeper than those within each party. In light of that phenomenon, some observers have described the force uniting support for The Firm’s omnibus bills as “the Uniparty.” While members of both parties are adversely affected by The Firm’s manipulative tactics, there is far more resentment toward The Firm among Republicans, who see two constants in The Firm’s impact: (1) government spending inexorably grows, and (2) the spending bills advanced by The Firm tend to unite Democrats while sharply dividing Republicans, producing a net gain for Democrats. While exceptions can occasionally be found, Republican appropriators are notorious for wanting to spend—far more than they want to advance Republican policy priorities, deeply endearing them to The Firm.

9. Sure, all members of Congress get to vote on the bill’s ultimate passage. But passage is all but assured. The Firm tells members that they MUST pass it—even though they haven’t seen it, read it, or had time to debate or amend it—because if they don’t, there will be a government shutdown.

10. The Firm also makes clear that members voting against the omnibus will be blamed—by The Firm itself—for the shutdown and its ugly consequences.

11. Thus, although voters in every state elect people to Congress to represent them in all federal legislative endeavors, The Firm can (and often does) render their individual involvement in the spending process far less meaningful than it should be.

12. This sort of thing makes The Firm far more powerful, with more power flowing to The Firm every time this cycle is completed. It’s great for The Firm and the lobbyists and special interests able to capture The Firm’s attention (through home-state connections, political donations, or otherwise).

13. But it’s terrible for the American people, who are stuck with the horrible consequences of this shameful dance, including rampant inflation and our $33 trillion national debt.

14. In a sense, the problem is not necessarily the omnibus itself. In theory, Congress could pass a comprehensive spending bill in a way that didn’t exclude most of its members—and most Americans—from the process of drafting, debating, amending, and passing that bill.

15. Thus, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the omnibus itself; the true evil lies in the process by which the omnibus is secretly drafted, hastily debated, and then passed under extortion from The Firm.

16. Many Americans have, over time, developed a basic understanding of omnibus spending bills—at least enough to be suspicious of them. Having heard enough complaints from their constituents, many members of Congress have understandably begun expressing reluctance toward any omnibus.

17. The Firm has become aware of that growing reluctance, which is a serious threat to The Firm, given how well the omnibus has served The Firm as it perpetually tries to make itself more powerful at the expense of the American people.

18. Clearly alarmed by that threat, some members of The Firm have started to say things like “we will not support omnibus.”

19. By saying that, they make themselves sound heroic, responsive to voters and rank-and-file members, and committed to serious reform of the spending process.

20. That illusion disappears when, on closer inspection, it becomes evident that The Firm’s new strategy is to promise to pass two or three smaller omnibus measures (sometimes called “minibus” bills) by essentially the same, rigged process long associated with the omnibus.

21. Those leery of The Firm’s manipulation tactics understand that (a) the absence of a single omnibus bill, and the use of two or more “minibus” bills instead of a single omnibus, doesn’t mean the process will be fair or materially different than that associated with an omnibus, and (b) it’s very likely that Congress will find itself stuck with a single omnibus, in spite of The Firm’s recent insistence to the contrary.

22. Given that Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives, rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers generally believe that the Senate should address spending bills only after they have been passed by the Republican-controlled House, as that approach is more likely to protect Republican priorities.

23. Congress is supposed to pass twelve spending bills each year, each associated with different functions of the federal government. So far this year, the House has passed only one spending bill—the one known by the abbreviation “MilConVA,” which contains funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration.

24.This week, the Senate moved to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA appropriations bill.

25. Not content to let the Senate deal with only one spending bill at a time, The Firm wanted to create a minibus out of the MilConVA bill by adding two additional bills drafted by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee—specifically those containing funding for (1) agriculture, and (2) transportation, housing, and urban development.

26. Conservative Republicans in the House and Senate found this move alarming, as it would strengthen The Firm at the expense of Republican priorities, and contribute to the eventual likelihood of an end-of-year omnibus geared primarily toward advancing Democratic priorities.

27. The Firm faced a hurdle: combining the three bills together in the Senate would require the consent of every senator.

28. While many Senate Republicans harbored these concerns, most identified conditions that, if satisfied, would persuade them to consent. Most of the conditions involved some combination of (1) technical and procedural assurances pertaining to how the combined bill would be considered, and (2) an agreement to vote on specific proposed amendments advancing Republican priorities.

29. One Republican senator in particular, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, remained concerned that any agreement would benefit The Firm and far more than it would advance Republican priorities. On that basis, he objected.

30. The Firm wasn’t happy. Making its displeasure known, The Firm and its cheerleaders tried to blame @RonJohnsonWI for the Senate’s inability to restore what’s known as “regular order,” that is, the process by which each of the twelve appropriations bills is supposed to advance independently, and in a way that honors each member’s procedural rights by allowing an “open amendment process.”

31. Here’s the irony: what The Firm was proposing was NOT “regular order.” Far from it, it was a slightly different flavor of The Firm’s tried-and-true manipulation formula.

32. Because @SenRonJohnson courageously objected, shortly after the Senate voted to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA bill, the Senate may now proceed to “regular order” consideration of that bill—unencumbered by The Firm’s manipulative plan to subject the Senate to an unending series of omnibus (or omnibus-like) bills that The Firm can ram through both chambers with minimal interference from rank-and-file members.

33. @SenRonJohnson deserves credit for standing on principle, and should be thanked for his dedication.

34. Together, we can fix this process, which has created so many problems for the American people. But to do that, we have to push back against The Firm.

35. If this message resonates with you, please retweet and otherwise share it with anyone who might listen, and ask your members of Congress to stand up to The Firm.

[Snowball]

And I'm gonna call out Massie, Rand Paul, Amash, and to a certain extent even Ron on this.

They should be preaching secession constantly but they don't.

I'm glad that Rand is calling out Fauci and Massie is calling out the ATF and so on but all of that doesn't even matter at the end of the day.

Secession should be basically the only priority at this point.

Secession has to come from the states.
It is only the Right of the States, in their own assemblies and their own governorships, according to their own constitutions and constituents.
The only thing for Federal representative to do is leave, not make the case for, or work for secession.

[TheTexan]

Secession has to come from the states.
It is only the Right of the States, in their own assemblies and their own governorships, according to their own constitutions and constituents.
The only thing for Federal representative to do is leave, not make the case for, or work for secession.

There's no reason they can't or shouldn't lend their voices in support of secession. (And they absolutely should)

And federal representatives absolutely would have a role during a secession. They would help in negotiating terms of the exit.

[PAF]

There's no reason they can't or shouldn't lend their voices in support of secession. (And they absolutely should)

And federal representatives absolutely would have a role during a secession. They would help in negotiating terms of the exit.

I'm a little stuck...

1. What, exactly, is the reason for secession?

2. And if it does succeed, how does one, like me for instance, secede from the secessionists?

Because afaic, I have absolutely no use for repug-licans, anymore than I do demon-crats.

Joker: "This town needs an enema." The whole world needs an enema.

[TheTexan]

I'm a little stuck...

1. What, exactly, is the reason for secession?

Many reasons.

1) Every successful secession makes future secessions easier and more likely
2) Secession would inherently mean a smaller and less powerful government by virtue of less resources and influence that can be used to control you
3) The smaller a government, the better it can represent its constituents
4) The more sovereign governments there are (in our region, or in the world), the greater the ability to experiment and diversify
5) It's a better option than civil war

2. And if it does succeed, how does one, like me for instance, secede from the secessionists?

If you want to some day secede, then society must re-learn the ethics of secession itself. Every secession in that regard is an education in morality. As society becomes more accustomed to secession, smaller political units can secede. Beginning with states, then counties, then towns, then individuals.

Because afaic, I have absolutely no use for repug-licans, anymore than I do demon-crats.

The benefits of secession are gained regardless of the one party system.

Joker: "This town needs an enema." The whole world needs an enema.

What this world needs is an education in morality. And every secession is exactly that, on top of the myriad of other benefits it provides.

[PAF]

Many reasons.

1) Every successful secession makes future secessions easier and more likely
2) Secession would inherently mean a smaller and less powerful government by virtue of less resources and influence that can be used to control you
3) The smaller a government, the better it can represent its constituents
4) The more sovereign governments there are (in our region, or in the world), the greater the ability to experiment and diversify
5) It's a better option than civil war




If you want to some day secede, then society must re-learn the ethics of secession itself. Every secession in that regard is an education in morality. As society becomes more accustomed to secession, smaller political units can secede. Beginning with states, then counties, then towns, then individuals.



The benefits of secession are gained regardless of the one party system.



What this world needs is an education in morality. And every secession is exactly that, on top of the myriad of other benefits it provides.

All good answers.

But, if secession were to happen, let's say the lefty's are off on their own, and the righty's are too. I would have a choice of 1. living among lefty's, and continue to pay into Section 8 and other welfare programs, and 2. living among righty's, who were responsible for most of the rights violations during my lifetime, ie: Crony Corporatism Welfare, Patriot Act, TSA, OWS, etc.

As much as libertarians are frowned upon, I doubt the repugs are going to have a sudden change of heart. I doubt the dems are going to either.

Not that your way, or secession is wrong, I like my way better: everyday I look for ways to Defund the State, whether it is by not obtaining gun, burning, building, and other permits, buying goods without paying taxes, etc., which everybody should be doing in the first place. If people were serious about it [secession], they would already be doing those things now. IOW, I'm not waiting around for "others", or permission, I do it on my own and on a day to day basis.

[TheTexan]

But, if secession were to happen, let's say the lefty's are off on their own, and the righty's are too. I would have a choice of 1. living among lefty's, and continue to pay into Section 8 and other welfare programs, and 2. living among righty's, who were responsible for most of the rights violations during my lifetime, ie: Crony Corporatism Welfare, Patriot Act, TSA, OWS, etc.

Keep in mind, the uniparty is the direct result of the lack of secession. The left and right are almost the same because, ever since Lincoln, there has not been the freedom to differentiate.

Not that your way, or secession is wrong, I like my way better: everyday I look for ways to Defund the State, whether it is by not obtaining gun, burning, building, and other permits, buying goods without paying taxes, etc., which everybody should be doing in the first place. If people were serious about it [secession], they would already be doing those things now. IOW, I'm not waiting around for "others", or permission, I do it on my own and on a day to day basis.

And your way is fine too. And it doesn't have to be one or the other. Can certainly do both.

[PAF]

Keep in mind, the uniparty is the direct result of the lack of secession. The left and right are almost the same because, ever since Lincoln, there has not been the freedom to differentiate.

Throughout history, there has always been special interest, and there always will be.

On one side, you have the "do-gooder's", who believe that redistribution of wealth, even when forced upon others, is the right thing to do. On the other side, you have the corporate complexes, which will take advantage, even to the point of making back room deals with bureaucrats, but which also employ people who need jobs. I doubt the employee at Boeing or HealthCompanyX is going to protest his/her way out of a job.

I just don't see how secession is going to solve those problems.

And your way is fine too. And it doesn't have to be one or the other. Can certainly do both.

Still, no form of government, even if secession, is going to save anybody. It is up to the individual to decide for him/her self how they choose to live, and at what level of freedom is acceptable under risk/reward. When they say 3%, there are folks like me in the .5-1%, and if it only takes a small minority, say 6-8% to make a difference, it is only a matter of time before rinse and repeat.

I've come to the conclusion that my lifestyle is best for me, so I guess I'm trying to understand what it is, exactly, that the secessionists are trying to accomplish? Less social welfare with an increase of security? More social welfare with a decrease of security? I am not sure how this will be accomplished when people need/want their jobs, because that simply is the driving force.

[TheTexan]

Throughout history, there has always been special interest, and there always will be.

On one side, you have the "do-gooder's", who believe that redistribution of wealth, even when forced upon others, is the right thing to do. On the other side, you have the corporate complexes, which will take advantage, even to the point of making back room deals with bureaucrats, but which also employ people who need jobs. I doubt the employee at Boeing or HealthCompanyX is going to protest his/her way out of a job.

I just don't see how secession is going to solve those problems.

There are those who take advantage, and those who are being taken advantage of. It's a lot harder to take advantage of people, however, if they maintain the right to take their ball and go home.

And it absolutely is a right that must be maintained. It must be maintained with vigilance against those who quite literally want to enslave you.

what it is, exactly, that the secessionists are trying to accomplish?

In the long term? Ethical progress towards a society that follows the NAP, which I believe is fundamentally and principally tied to secession.

In terms of my lifespan, there are two things I would hope to accomplish:
1) If Texas were to secede, there would be marginal increases in freedom and quality of life (not huge increases, but still enough to be worth it.)
2) A FSP-like project to secede even further, and create a liberty minded country and/or autonomous region*

(*I think this is a good idea regardless, but the odds of it being successful increase significantly after other secession(s) have taken place)

[PAF]

There are those who take advantage, and those who are being taken advantage of. It's a lot harder to take advantage of people, however, if they maintain the right to take their ball and go home.

I fly frequently. I don't see how I can take my ball and go home, short of sacrificing my freedom to travel. Is the idea that TSA will be somehow be abolished after secession?

And it absolutely is a right that must be maintained. It must be maintained with vigilance against those who quite literally want to enslave you.

I will provide two examples:

1. I literally met a group of bat-crazy women who wants tax-payer funds to rescue and take care of animals, and actually provide government provided health insurance for them.

2. Republicans that I know in my area are livid about Massie who spoke against e-Verify. They truly believe that all Americans should be tagged and ID'd because invaders - how else would they differentiate "them" from "us".

Under secession, which way should I lean in order to "maintained with vigilance against those who quite literally want to enslave you"?

In the long term? Ethical progress towards a society that follows the NAP, which I believe is fundamentally and principally tied to secession.

Tied to secession? Most people that I know (on both sides) think the NAP is fantasyland and believe that I'm one of those nut-case libertarians.

In terms of my lifespan, there are two things I would hope to accomplish:
1) If Texas were to secede, there would be marginal increases in freedom and quality of life (not huge increases, but still enough to be worth it.)
2) A FSP-like project to secede even further, and create a liberty minded country and/or autonomous region*

(*I think this is a good idea regardless, but the odds of it being successful increase significantly after other secession(s) have taken place)

A worthy goal. Perhaps, perhaps not. FSP is made up of voluntarists who knew going in what it is about. Forcing it upon others, I doubt very much that it would fly. In fact, many republicans who would just love to see secession happen still don't care at all for libertarians, and certainly would never consider moving to Manchester to join the FSP.

Now that I'm thinking about this, perhaps that is why Ron Paul, Tom Massie, etc., have never brought up secession; they know that it comes down to the individual, and no government, large or small, can forcibly change peoples minds.

I'm not trying to dis secession, if it happens, it happens. But I still don't see how Mr. Capital R Republican who is against abortion, pro-gun, and lower taxes, is going to allow me to travel freely without any form of "Sir, I need to see your papers please - or else.". In fact, many republicans that I know think that we need a "flat tax", not "no tax". Which is even more dangerous "everybody pays their fair share".

[TheTexan]

I fly frequently. I don't see how I can take my ball and go home, short of sacrificing my freedom to travel. Is the idea that TSA will be somehow be abolished after secession?



I will provide two examples:

1. I literally met a group of bat-crazy women who wants tax-payer funds to rescue and take care of animals, and actually provide government provided health insurance for them.

2. Republicans that I know in my area are livid about Massie who spoke against e-Verify. They truly believe that all Americans should be tagged and ID'd because invaders - how else would they differentiate "them" from "us".

Under secession, which way should I lean in order to "maintained with vigilance against those who quite literally want to enslave you"?



Tied to secession? Most people that I know (on both sides) think the NAP is fantasyland and believe that I'm one of those nut-case libertarians.



A worthy goal. Perhaps, perhaps not. FSP is made up of voluntarists who knew going in what it is about. Forcing it upon others, I doubt very much that it would fly. In fact, many republicans who would just love to see secession happen still don't care at all for libertarians, and certainly would never consider moving to Manchester to join the FSP.

Now that I'm thinking about this, perhaps that is why Ron Paul, Tom Massie, etc., have never brought up secession; they know that it comes down to the individual, and no government, large or small, can forcibly change peoples minds.

I'm not trying to dis secession, if it happens, it happens. But I still don't see how Mr. Capital R Republican who is against abortion, pro-gun, and lower taxes, is going to allow me to travel freely without any form of "Sir, I need to see your papers please - or else.". In fact, many republicans that I know think that we need a "flat tax", not "no tax". Which is even more dangerous "everybody pays their fair share".

It sounds like you've just given up on any thoughts of freedom being increased beyond what you can achieve via your own personal disobedience/situation.

It's a pragmatic way to live, but it's also quite depressing.

With that said, your logic/rebuttals are incredibly hard to follow so I'll just end this here as I feel like we're talking in circles.