Muh Democracy

[PAF]

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.

I've lived life many decades. Every 4 years, it gets worse. Consistently.

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

For a short time it [political atmosphere] was depressing to me as well. But once I embraced the lifestyle that I've adopted, I am actually further ahead than at any time in my life, happier, and freer to do what what I want.

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.

I am not sure why they are hard to follow, I thought that I provided accurate, real-life examples. But, if you wish to end here... it's all cool

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/s...72033650667795
to: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/s...73530153078975
[thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...650667795.html]
{Auron MacIntyre | 26 September 2023}

Conservatives love to say “We’re not a democracy we’re a constitutional republic” but of course that’s not really true and it gets less true by the day.

When the will of the people is your legitimating mechanism mass democratization will slowly consume everything.

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...35929798492239
& https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...36213555777954

The dialectical energy always moves in the direction of removing restrictions and expanding benefits.

There’s always a political incentive to expand the franchise and remove barriers to the popular will.

Conservatives think that allowing illegal immigrants to vote or removing the electoral college are ridiculous proposals, but they have no real argument against them because they’ve already bought into the logic of mass democracy.

The US has vastly expanded the franchise, removed the fundamental differentiation from their two legislative houses by mandating the direct election of senators, and altered the election of presidential candidates through the primary process.

The electoral college will inevitably fall because it can’t withstand the universal acid of popular will, which conservatives have completely bought in to.

Illegals will inevitably receive amnesty and the franchise will be extended to them because conservatives have already bought into the idea that hat mass participation in government is the essence of America, it would contradict their own ideology to deny it.

Democracy will inevitably consume itself because it has to.

Once you embrace the tenets of mass democracy there’s no real argument against letting it destroy any limiting institutions.

https://www.thedarkenlightenment.com...-by-nick-land/

Conservatives are in bad spot because their goals and their ideology do not align, and they have been told that looking outside that ideology a betrayal of their values.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

[ClaytonB]

//

I agree with the criticism of conservatives, but I think it's a premature declaration of our defeat.

Two-thirds majority in polls does not equal a Constitutional amendment passing. First of all, the amendment process is double-locked, you have to have two-thirds just to propose the amendment, and three-fourths of States in order to ratify it. That's a high bar to jump, even for a mob-democracy. In addition, a lot of politico-economic forces that normally remain dormant/indifferent during these kinds of political arguments would be awakened by a Presidential popular-vote amendment proposal. We might start out with two-thirds (enough to propose the amendment) and then hit unforeseen headwinds, rather than gaining the hoped-for tail-winds. And yes, there are areas where it is appropriate to rely on "the process", and I think this is one of them. The mass of the public will always have a negative perception of the EC but then, where will they get the political focus required to overcome it? You'd need a rockstar populist to undo it, but you need to get rid of it first to put a rockstar populist in POTUS. So it's a catch-22 for its opponents. It's not bomb-proof, but it's not fragile, either.

I realize there's an element of Hopium in this strategy, but the point is that we shouldn't let the Left tell us what to be scared about and that's exactly what Luntz is doing here, he's letting the Left tell us what we should be scared about. There's not enough time for there to be a change to the Constitution between now and 2024, and so that means that this line of attack is moot for the upcoming Presidential election.

tl;dr -- this is a long-term threat, we know what they want, and they have most of the pieces in place to get what they want, but the short-term focus on 2024 takes priority, and we can rely on "the process" to protect the EC for the duration.

[TheTexan]

Two-thirds majority in polls does not equal a Constitutional amendment passing. First of all, the amendment process is double-locked, you have to have two-thirds just to propose the amendment, and three-fourths of States in order to ratify it. That's a high bar to jump, even for a mob-democracy.

The Constitution has been amended hundreds of times already. They just did it without the paperwork.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...35929798492239
& https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/statu...36213555777954

THREAD: Majority of Americans disfavor the Electoral College

[Occam's Banana]

I realize there's an element of Hopium in this strategy, but the point is that we shouldn't let the Left tell us what to be scared about and that's exactly what Luntz is doing here, he's letting the Left tell us what we should be scared about. There's not enough time for there to be a change to the Constitution between now and 2024, and so that means that this line of attack is moot for the upcoming Presidential election.

Luntz didn't do any such thing here. He just neutrally repeated some of the results of the survey in his referenced tweets.

All the commentary is by Auron MacIntyre - and he isn't doing any such thing, either.

He's talking about (1) the (long term) inevitability of the doom of the Electoral College - and of any other such limiting mechanism - under conditions of mass democracy, and (2) the vulnerability of conservatives due to their lack of appreciation for and understanding of the nature and causes of that inevitable doom.

That is why he referenced the 17th Amendment (which was ratified over a century ago) as a part of the inexorable process of mass democracy eventually dissolving any limitations attempted to be imposed upon it. It's also why he said nothing about "the upcoming Presidential election" - such "short term" matters are completely irrelevant to the point he is making.

It's a premature declaration of our defeat.

MacIntyre didn't declare "our defeat" (prematurely or otherwise). Just the opposite, in fact. He is trying to warn about one of the chief reasons for which any such defeat might occur. He (correctly) pointed out that mass democracy is one of progressives' best and most corrosive weapons, and that conservatives should stop endorsing it and start opposing it - including the notion that it can somehow be limited by things like the direct election of senators, or by electoral colleges, or whatnot. Each and all of those constraints can and will be overcome (if they haven't been already), because, as he put it, mass democracy is a "universal acid" that ultimately respects no limits.

Relying upon the "popular will" as expressed through mass democracy (or any other means) to honor and preserve such restraints is a terrible and foolish mistake - so conservatives (and libertarians) should stop supporting "muh democracy" and start opposing it.

[Anti Federalist]

Separate or Die.

[Snowball]

Separate or Die.

Russia.

[Anti Federalist]

Russia.

Hungary

[ClaytonB]

Relying upon the "popular will" as expressed through mass democracy (or any other means) to honor and preserve such restraints is a terrible and foolish mistake - so conservatives (and libertarians) should stop supporting "muh democracy" and start opposing it.

I said I agree with this criticism. We do need to stop doing that. But I think the EC is more stable than the worry-warts think it is. Maybe I'll be proved wrong, I have been many times before. I just think we need something more substantial than "stop being pro-democracy". The deeper issue, here, is that the Left has hijacked the language, and the moral high-ground. They have hijacked the language by taking over the word "liberal" itself, and by redefining "democracy" to be a synonym for "freedom", which it is not. As far as I can see, the damage is done... the previous generations of conservatives ceded that ground, and we're not getting it back. We need to think about how to repair that damage some other way than just saying, "I don't support democracy" which, in 2023-speak, translates to "I don't support freedom."

Rothbard points out in one of his articles (I can't remember which one off the top of my head) that conservatives have done a lot of damage by trying to argue that the reason we should want government to be organized according to conservative principles is because it works better. But in so doing, we have ceded the moral high-ground. We have implicitly conceded that if socialism could work, then it would be preferable because more fair, or whatever. The fact is that socialism is undesirable because it is immoral (and it also doesn't work). So, we should absolutely not cede that ground, and we should be crystal-clear that the reason we oppose socialism is because it's wrong in the same sense that stealing or killing is wrong. (Note that mass democracy is inherently socialistic since everyone has a share in my property by proportion to their voting-power.)

But those two paragraphs won't fit in a 160-character Tweet, so we'll have to wait for another generation or so when people recover the capacity to think thoughts that require more than 160 characters to be expressed...

[Occam's Banana]

I think the EC is more stable than the worry-warts think it is

I'm sure there were many who didn't think direct election of senators was immanent, either - until it was.

In any case, MacIntyre's point is not that the Electoral College is in immediate jeopardy.

I just think we need something more substantial than "stop being pro-democracy".

MacIntyre never said "something more substantial" wasn't needed.

His point is that conservatives are never going to get that "something more substantial" if they don't start explicitly eschewing pro-democracy apologetics. Mass popular democracy should be regarded with skeptical contempt, rather than with respectful admiration. Otherwise, progressives will just continue beating them over the head with it - while conservatives just continue "driving the speed limit" posted for them by progressives' semantic shenanigans.

[ClaytonB]

His point is that conservatives are never going to get that "something more substantial" if they don't start explicitly eschewing pro-democracy apologetics. Mass popular democracy should be regarded with skeptical contempt, rather than with respectful admiration. Otherwise, progressives will just continue beating them over the head with it - while conservatives just continue "driving the speed limit" posted for them by progressives' semantic shenanigans.

Agreed on that...

Derailment Tax: The Index Card of Allowable Opinion, Tom Woods

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/NotGovernor/stat...37579588296789

[Anti Globalist]

Daily reminder that the Founders hated democracy and is never mentioned once in the Constitution.

[WarriorLiberty]

Daily reminder that the Founders hated democracy and is never mentioned once in the Constitution.

The Greek philosophers weren't fan of "Democracy" either.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...06107487133701

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...58164002681173

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...37915191042049


https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...36548349693953


"Being represented by a person one disgarees with is a contradiction in terms." -- Michael Malice

"There is no reason whatsoever to be represented by someone you are opposed to. Elections are inherently illegitimate." -- Michael Malice

[Occam's Banana]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...aten-democracy
[archive link: https://archive.is/xg3jK]

[Occam's Banana]

[Aratus]

https://twitter.com/NotGovernor/stat...37579588296789

true. in terms of money raising i sense WHY the powers that be like the tax.
somebody very working class or lower middle class thinks all estates are very
big and the rich can afford to pay the tax. sometimes the estates we are talking
about are very very very small. a death tax hits THE HEIRS of an estate. Not all
of us have houses as grand as the HIGH WHIGs of the early 1700s in the U.K
who booted their own serf/peasants off their ESTATE and into the cities, who then
replaced people with sheep....literally. Some of today's U.K TORIES have big estates.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...33530247286838

[CCTelander]

This definitely goes here. May even deserve its own thread. I'll leave that up to his Lordship Banana.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDCa91sOzJA

[Valli6]

It should be spelled "d-u-m-b-o-c-r-a-c-y".

[Occam's Banana]

It should be spelled "d-u-m-b-o-c-r-a-c-y".

"duh-mock-crazy"

[Occam's Banana]

This definitely goes here.

Yes. Yes, it does.

May even deserve its own thread. I'll leave that up to his Lordship Banana.

So let it be done:

THREAD: No One Wants Democracy

[Occam's Banana]

"forcefully support"

Is that the $#@!lib version of "voting hard"?

Or could it mean something else?

(Also, "'our democracy' is always code for 'our hegemony'." -- Michael Malice)

https://twitter.com/robreiner/status...63550746607863

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: Social Media should not be blamed for the consequences of Democracy

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/sta...42399240999322

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/sta...64577969750069

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/sta...80993815523601
{Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee | 01 February 2024}

Earlier today, a reporter standing outside the Senate chamber told me that, after four months of secrecy, The Firm^TM plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package—possibly as soon as tomorrow.

Wasting no time, she then asked, “if you get the bill by tomorrow, will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?”

The words “hell no” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry, Mom).

The reporter immediately understood that my frustration was not directed at her.

Rather, it was directed at the Law Firm of Schumer & McConnell (“The Firm^TM”), which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating—in which The Firm^TM

(1) spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy,

(2) aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad), but only on its broadest, least-controversial objectives,

(3) lets members see bill text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by The Firm^TM itself, always with a contrived sense of urgency, and then

(4) forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline, denying senators any real opportunity to read, digest, and debate the measure on its merits, much less introduce, consider, and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it.

Whenever The Firm^TM engages in this practice, it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate.

By so doing, The Firm^TM effectively disenfranchises hundreds of millions of Americans—at least for purposes relevant to the legislation at hand—and that’s tragic.

It’s also unAmerican, uncivil, uncollegial, and really uncool.

So why does The Firm^TM do it?

Every time The Firm^TM utilizes this approach and the bill passes—and it nearly always does—The Firm^TM becomes more powerful.

The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that The Firm^TM has become very adept at (a) enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media, (b) exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison, and (c) rewarding those who consistently vote with The Firm^TM with various privileges that The Firm^TM is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments, help with campaign fundraising, and a whole host of other widely coveted things that The Firm^TM is free to distribute in any manner it pleases).

It’s through this process that The Firm^TM passes most major spending legislation.

It’s through this process that The Firm^TM likely intends to pass the still-secret, $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package, which The Firm^TM has spent four months negotiating, with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence, word, period, and comma.

I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill, although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details The Firm^TM has been willing to share.

But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive, permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week.

Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill, discuss it with constituents, debate it, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments.

There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week.

Depending on how long it is and the complexity of its provisions, the minimum period of time we should devote to this bill after it’s released should be measured in weeks or months, not days or hours.

Please share this if you agree.

[Occam's Banana]

"'Our democracy' is always code for 'our hegemony'." -- Michael Malice

https://twitter.com/Montana_LP/statu...88252100366369