Big Picture Assessment time.. reconsidering the democratic process

[Snowball]

So why do we need D.C? My point was, consolidating the states doesn't seem to make them safe from globalists, so why put up with these leeches at all?

You've earned a removal from my ignore with this.

We'll see how long it lasts.

[Snowball]

Is democracy really worth preserving, or is it objectively working against what you really believe in?

I don't believe in methods. I believe in results. When I look at American history, I see bad results since the frontier disappeared.
The frontier made everything easier. It's what made America fresh, new, exciting and, most importantly - affordable.

When one makes a process sacrosanct, such as democracy, or capitalism, one becomes the slave of that process, wherever it takes you.

We are slaves of processes today. These processes are centuries old, but they were new when they replaced the former processes.

Old processes reach a point after which their diminishing returns make them vulnerable to change. So, the controllers of these processes seek to make adjustments meant to keep them in power.

The elites who rose to the top at the end-stages of democracy and capitalism maintain their political control with democracy. They learned how to shape it in their hands. They maintain their day-to-day power with high finance and unearned income. I don't see many people understanding these things in our society. The systems do not appear subject to change. We're going to have to accept it and learn to live within them. Civil disobedience doesn't appear to have enough support to reach the tipping point, and armed resistance would only be crushed easily. For years, I've seen no hope but from outside the country... and everything I've witnessed only continues to exacerbate that reality.

[Occam's Banana]

Twitter thread by Tom Elliot (@tomselliott): https://twitter.com/tomselliott/stat...29559326212096
Threadreader page: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...326212096.html

---

THREAD: People trying to make sense of Tues' elections need to start thinking bigger. Yes Trump weighed down the GOP & yes Republicans failed to offer anything to excite voters enough to generate the predicted red wave, but the actual problem is more fundamental: Democracy sucks.

If you want someone to blame for the current regime solidifying its grip on power, blame voters. Unfortunately the average voter cares more about what government can do for him than how to best preserve liberty in America.

Democrats, after all, did everything possible to deserve being removed from office.

They masked your kids, shut down schools, robbed you of bodily autonomy, bailed out the rich at the expense of the poor, turned the FBI against parents, opened the border to anyone who might eventually vote Democrat, printed trillions & created a historic inflation crisis, all while orchestrating a vast censorship campaign to try keeping you in the dark.

But none of it mattered, because ultimately there will always be a majority who cares more about how they can personally benefit than anything like the greater good.

Talking points notwithstanding, democracy is incompatible with freedom. So long as a majority can vote for themselves goodies from a minority, that minority is no longer free and equal, but rather subservient to this more populace class of voters.

This isn't new. Our founders endeavored to protect Americans from democracy as they knew from history that a "tyranny of the majority" is tyranny just the same.

During this founding era, the Scottish writer Alexander Tyler observed of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,(which is) always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

You can see where we're at in this chronology.

The Founders tried preventing us from this fate, restricting Congress from doling out cash for votes by specifically delineating its powers.

Unfortunately since the Reconstruction Era, progressives have broken down these constitutional bulwarks protecting our republican form of govt. The 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th & 26t Amendments all broaden voting "rights" at the expense of decentralized power via federalism.

Writing in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville echoed Tyler, warning:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

When the mainstream media waxes rhapsodic on the glories of democracy, know you're being hoodwinked.

True, you can sometimes vote yourself a fat payout, but this only creates pain later. The American Rescue Act sent Americans $1,400 "stimmy" checks; these spending bills created inflation now costing the average American household $7,400/year, according to the Heritage Foundation.

Imagine starting an organization dedicated to helping homeless people. Perhaps you and around 50 other generous benefactors pool enough funds to open a shelter that houses and assists 1,000 homeless.

To ensure the long-term viability of this work, the benefactors create a budget ensuring their limited resources aren't overextended early on. Makes sense, right?

Well, what if, in a spirit of goodwill, these benefactors decide the recipients of their charity should be given a say in how the organization allocates funding.

As the recipients are now voting on how much of other people's money they'll be receiving, you can see how quickly this would become unsustainable.

Today's inflation crisis directly results from the problems inherent in democracy. Various constituent groups with big sway in DC — teachers unions, Silicon Valley, “green” tech, etc. — have used their vassals in Congress to procure themselves huge payouts from the public trough.

Low-income workers, seniors living off a pension, savers — basically anyone living responsibly — are left holding the bag.

Government creates problems, then cast themselves as heroes when they propose "solutions." The purpose is to foster a culture of dependency. Elections are the sideshow that prevent any kind of actual accountability as ultimately government wins every election.

The American empire will continue its steady collapse unless and until we reverse course, retreating from democracy & returning toward a decentralized republic.

For example: doing away with dropboxes, universal mail-in balloting, and other recent sketchy contrivances; restricting voting to actual taxpayers, multiplying the number of states; awarding state-wide offices to those winning a majority of towns & municipalities (not voters); and most especially, ending Congress' ability to print money.

Based on Tuesday's results, I have no confidence any of this will ever happen. It seems more likely our civilization will need to completely collapse before progressives entertain the possibility that government creates more problems than it solves.

And even then they will still invariably scapegoat corporations.

What we can do now is at least recognize the problem, more actively share better ideas, and start shifting the Overton window beyond our current index card of allowable opinion (to borrow from @ThomasEWoods).

Our founders understood how to solve these problems: freedom & decentralization. These ideas still work. The sooner we can bring them back to life, the better our chances at protecting future generations. /rant

[Snowball]

Our founders understood how to solve these problems: freedom & decentralization. These ideas still work. The sooner we can bring them back to life, the better our chances at protecting future generations. /rant

We cannot and should not pay undue respect to many of the Founders that do not deserve it.
Our history doesn't even really compare favorably to the British colonies that stayed in the Commonwealth.

[acptulsa]

We cannot and should not pay undue respect to many of the Founders that do not deserve it.
Our history doesn't even really compare favorably to the British colonies that stayed in the Commonwealth.

You'd rather be in Australia or Canada right now, getting force-jabbed?

[ClaytonB]

You'd rather be in Australia or Canada right now, getting force-jabbed?

I have to say that I did not fully appreciate the difference between the US and the rest of the world until this globalist takeover attempt. Not saying that any of the tyranny we have tolerated here is OK to even one iota but the fact is that, as bad as things are here, the rest of the world is incomparably worse off. Only last month, New Zealand is finally dropping "most" Doomsday virus restrictions and mandates. Even the deepest blue areas of the US weren't able to keep the charade up anywhere near that long. And even in these tyrannical hellholes, it's not like it was popular resistance that drove the change, it's just that it stopped being useful for the government. That tells you how much power they have... really, they have absolute power. In America, the globalists have tried to get absolute power, and they have some semblance of it, but there's still an important difference between "huge amounts of power" and "absolute power". Now, more than ever, we must stand up to the tyrants. The clown-emperor has no clothes...

[Cleaner44]

In a glass half full observation, at least now there are more Americans than ever that recognize that we don't actually self rule.

Fact: we don't have a government of the people, by the people or for the people.

Now the question is how to deal with this fact.

[TheTexan]

Now the question is how to deal with this fact.

I think we're gonna need some rope.

[Snowball]

You'd rather be in Australia or Canada right now, getting force-jabbed?

Sounds like you have to look up the info because there were no federal mandates in either
But why derail the thread? My comment concerning the history of the US would defacto be compared to the history of, say, fine, CAN and AUS. Do you ever wonder why Canadians stopped emigrating here, 100 years ago (a brief period, also), or Australians never came here at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-...ates_in_Canada
https://www.health.gov.au/initiative...y-in-australia

[Cleaner44]

I think we're gonna need some rope.

A really big rope...

[acptulsa]

Sounds like you have to look up the info because there were no federal mandates in either

Who's talking about the so-called "vaccine"?

[pcosmar]

Do you ever wonder why Canadians stopped emigrating here, 100 years ago

I'll ask my Mom. maybe some cousins too.

[Occam's Banana]

We cannot and should not pay undue respect to many of the Founders that do not deserve it.

I do not disagree.

Jefferson was a brilliant and eloquent defender of human liberty. He was also a slave owner.

"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good." -- Stannis Baratheon

At least Jefferson had the sense and wisdom to be ashamed of it, and to "tremble for [his] country".

Our history doesn't even really compare favorably to the British colonies that stayed in the Commonwealth.

They did abolish the abomination of human chattel slavery in the West (and elsewhere) - and they didn't have to fight a bloody Civil War (and simultaneously destroy their founding principles in the process) in order to do it.

So there's that, at least.

[pcosmar]

So there's that, at least.

It is a smelly red Herring.

But Bankers and the Industrial age simultaneously ended/transformed Slavery. The "War of Northern Aggression was just that..Slavery would have ended due to the invention of a Black man, and other mechanization.. Slavery was already a huge business expense.

It was ending on it's own.

like oil Waste should

[Ender]

I do not disagree.

Jefferson was a brilliant and eloquent defender of human liberty. He was also a slave owner.

"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good." -- Stannis Baratheon

At least Jefferson had the sense and wisdom to be ashamed of it, and to "tremble for [his] country".



They did abolish the abomination of human chattel slavery in the West (and elsewhere) - and they didn't have to fight a bloody Civil War (and simultaneously destroy their founding principles in the process) in order to do it.

So there's that, at least.

Jefferson actually wrote, as part of the Declaration, a phrase to abolish slavery, but it was not accepted.

And, the "Civil" war was never about slavery- it was about money. That piece of $#@!ty history made everyone a slave.

[pcosmar]

Do you ever wonder why Canadians stopped emigrating here,

Do you think "Cajuns" are the only Acadians?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadians

I have more relations in this country than even I know of.
Peter Trombly,,had kids. so did some Brothers.

[Occam's Banana]

Jefferson actually wrote, as part of the Declaration, a phrase to abolish slavery, but it was not accepted.

And yet, he himself continued to own slaves, and to profit from their enslavement.

And, the "Civil" war was never about slavery- it was about money. That piece of $#@!ty history made everyone a slave.

I did not say the Civil War was about slavery.

It wasn't. It was about forcibly preventing secession.

But the abolishment of slavery was nevertheless a consequence of the Civil War, which - as I did say - had to be fought before that abolishment occurred.

[pcosmar]

Hey, Clay. Why is the sky gray?

The sky is Blue. Because God loves the Infantry.

turned Blue before I was 18,, He still loves me.

[Ender]

And yet, he himself continued to own slaves, and to profit from their enslavement.

A bit of real Jefferson history:

The usual claim about Jefferson and slavery, meanwhile, is that while he may have talked a good game about human liberty, he scarcely lifted a finger against slavery, its very antithesis. Gutzman is having none of it. He notes that after Richard Bland was savaged for proposing the abolition of slavery before the Virginia General Assembly, Jefferson came to the conclusion that Virginians were not prepared to put an end to the institution.

Until that time, Jefferson would have to do what he could against it short of an all-out assault that would surely fail. Thus as president, Jefferson kept slavery out of the Northwest Territory, and abolished the slave trade at the first moment (the year 1808) that the Constitution authorized him to. Gutzman’s sympathetic discussion of these and other anti-slavery initiatives by Jefferson, not to mention a detailed look at Jefferson’s overall outlook on slavery and how best to undermine it, amounts to a persuasive corrective to recent historians who castigate Jefferson for his alleged inaction.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/...-nobody-knows/

All his active life as an adult in politics Thomas Jefferson, in multiple attempts at various times, tried to end slavery. Here are three specific examples.

As a young member of the Virginia House of Burgesses he introduced a bill to this effect but it was not acted upon.

As a member of the Second Continental Congress and of the committee chosen to draft the Declaration of Independence, he was the principal author of the document. In the original draft he condemned King George III and slavery in the harshest terms possible:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Two things to particularly observe: Notice how MEN was capitalized. Earlier in the document Jefferson spoke of how “all men were created equal.” He capitalized the term MEN to specially emphasize that the persons he was discussing were not “property” but human beings with inalienable human rights that had been seized into bondage. Jefferson appropriated language from English philosopher John Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Civil Government, who was extremely influential to the Founders, and widely read. Locke talked about how men had natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Jefferson deliberately changed “property” to “the pursuit of happiness” so there would be no mistaking or justifying the concept of “property” to mean a right to hold slaves as “property.” Colonists from the South, particularly South Carolina, insisted the passage be removed. Notice the term Jefferson used to describe slavery — “execrable commerce” — referring to human bodily waste. We all know the disgusting slang term for this process.

Lastly Jefferson drafted the Ordinance of 1784 which would have restricted slavery in all territories in the west both north and south. It called for the land north of the Ohio River, west of the Appalachian Mountains, and east of the Mississippi River to be divided into ten separate states. The states would first be territories. They would remain territories until they had attained the same population as the least populous state in America. At that point, the territories would become states, and they would have the same rights as the original thirteen states. The Ordinance of 1784 also guaranteed self-government to the residents of the territories. The move not to delete the clause regarding slavery failed by one vote in Congress because one man was absent supposedly due to illness.

Jefferson later remarked — “The voice of a single individual would have prevented this abominable crime; heaven will not always be silent; the friends to the rights of human nature will in the end prevail.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...n-and-slavery/

[Occam's Banana]

A bit of real Jefferson history: [...]

I am well aware of those things - but I am puzzled as to why you think they rebut or refute anything I have said:

Jefferson was a brilliant and eloquent defender of human liberty. He was also a slave owner.

"A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good." -- Stannis Baratheon

At least Jefferson had the sense and wisdom to be ashamed of it, and to "tremble for [his] country".

And yet, [Jefferson] continued to own slaves, and to profit from their enslavement.

Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves (using them for things such as collateral on loans to maintain his expensive lifestyle, as well as for the usual purpose of manual labor), and he only ever freed a handful of them.

As I said before, he was "a brilliant and eloquent defender of human liberty".

He clearly abhorred the institution of human chattel slavery.

And yet, when it came to the disposition of those slaves over which he himself had full control, his abhorrence was not sufficient to overcome his material self-interest.

IOW: Thomas Jefferson was a human being, not some flawless paragon. There are many things for which he deserves to be admired and praised - and some for which he deserves to be deplored and criticized. Again, the good does not wash out the bad, and the bad does not wash out the good. I don't understand why any of this should be controversial.

[Snowball]

Do you ever wonder why Canadians stopped emigrating here, 100 years ago (a brief period, also), or Australians never came here at all?

Do you think "Cajuns" are the only Acadians?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadians

I have more relations in this country than even I know of.
Peter Trombly,,had kids. so did some Brothers.

Your response to me is not correlated to my comment at all. Do I think Canadians are the only Acadians? No. I have no idea why you would even ask me such a ridiculous question.

[Snowball]

It is a smelly red Herring.

But Bankers and the Industrial age simultaneously ended/transformed Slavery. The "War of Northern Aggression was just that..Slavery would have ended due to the invention of a Black man, and other mechanization.. Slavery was already a huge business expense.

It was ending on it's own.

like oil Waste should

You can't be referring to Eli Whitney, who was white. What negro invention are you referring to?

[pcosmar]

You can't be referring to Eli Whitney, who was white.

Eli invented the Cotton Gin to end Slavery..

Elijah McCoy invented Machine Oiling,, Mostly used on trains. but other machines as well..

[Brian4Liberty]

Is democracy really worth preserving, or is it objectively working against what you really believe in?

I don't believe in methods. I believe in results. When I look at American history, I see bad results since the frontier disappeared.
The frontier made everything easier. It's what made America fresh, new, exciting and, most importantly - affordable.

When one makes a process sacrosanct, such as democracy, or capitalism, one becomes the slave of that process, wherever it takes you.

We are slaves of processes today. These processes are centuries old, but they were new when they replaced the former processes.

Old processes reach a point after which their diminishing returns make them vulnerable to change. So, the controllers of these processes seek to make adjustments meant to keep them in power.

The elites who rose to the top at the end-stages of democracy and capitalism maintain their political control with democracy. They learned how to shape it in their hands. They maintain their day-to-day power with high finance and unearned income. I don't see many people understanding these things in our society. The systems do not appear subject to change. We're going to have to accept it and learn to live within them. Civil disobedience doesn't appear to have enough support to reach the tipping point, and armed resistance would only be crushed easily. For years, I've seen no hope but from outside the country... and everything I've witnessed only continues to exacerbate that reality.

All systems and processes are eventually corrupted by a power elite. Even dictators have their court (enablers). Some animals always want to be more equal.

[Madison320]

Nope- the united States of America was originally supposed to be a republic.

Democracy is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

A republic is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.

I've always felt the difference was overrated.

Either way people tend to vote for the politician that promises the most free stuff. That's why we have 31 trillion in debt.

I like the idea of limiting the vote in some way so that people can't vote to steal.

[Madison320]

I did not suggest that the Founders did not envision "statesmen" being chosen by state assemblies for the Senate. That is largely the case.
What I said was, that voting for someone to vote for a senator is reductively the same design. See, the Founders did not provide us with the correct system, if they really wanted "statesmen", being not politically-motivated busybodies to be senators, then they provided us with a defective protocol, by mandating that our elected representatives in turn choose the senators.

This is the historical truth. What happened was that the parties assumed so much power, that state assemblies were choosing party hacks for senate. Corruption took place. The 17th Amendment was an effort to reduce the party corruption. If we repealed it today, nothing would change for the better. Do you really think that today's Democrats and Republicans should be trusted carte blanche to appoint their own senators?

I'm with you on this. I think the indirect method is a little better, but not much. With the direct method people vote for the senator who will get them the most free stuff. With the indirect method people will vote for representatives who will vote for senators who will get the most free stuff. A little more of a buffer, but not a game changer in my opinion.

[Snowball]

All systems and processes are eventually corrupted by a power elite. Even dictators have their court (enablers). Some animals always want to be more equal.

Equality is not natural. Hierarchy must - and always does - exist operationally. We had a long time in Western history where dogma and trust prevailed to protect us from the rot we endure now. That is why liberty and equality have -- problems. It's how we got here because freedom can never be absolute for everyone. Screaming fire in a crowded theatre is not free speech, neither is pornography free speech.

[acptulsa]

That is why liberty and equality have -- problems. It's how we got here because freedom can never be absolute for everyone.

There is something about freedom which is absolute for everyone.

"Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty. Now the greatest aid that I know of that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of 'liberty'. What might be one class' liberty might be another class' poison. I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to. Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work. So the question arises, 'How much liberty can I get away with?'

"Well, you can get no more liberty than you give. That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own."--Will Rogers

Now, Hillary Clinton never gave anyone an ounce of freedom, and feels at liberty to commit murder. But how long would she last if she ever stopped maintaining her hold over her minions?

[ClaytonB]

There is something about freedom which is absolute for everyone.

I mean, if Snowball wants to qualify his own freedom, we can take him at his word and sew his lips shut...

/obvious_sarcasm

[Snowball]

There is something about freedom which is absolute for everyone.

most certainly not. Freedom is not mere license. Where is my freedom to live in surroundings I wish when my wishes are contradicted by others, more powerful others interpretions of this freedom? It is not an absolute. Who are you, Aleister Crowley?