Design Your Own City State

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^This is the sort of tyrannical mindset I can’t understand. Where does the government get the right to step in and tell a private company how it has to structure and run its own business?[/quote]

Says the guy who have earlier on this sub-forum said he whises that a ultra-nationalistic authoritarian rule are implemented. And who a few posts up argued against universal suffrage. But offcourse it is me who argues for a more egalitarian organisation of the workplace who is tyrannical, you just cant beat conservative( or ultra-nationalistic perhaps ) logic.

Also who said that the production and service units in my hypothetical state where propped up by private individuals.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
What about voting makes people free? If A and B can vote to decide how B’s money is used, how is B free? Universal suffrage means that your Bill of Rights protected rights will quickly disappear(well, maybe not quickly completely disappear, but definitely quickly erode).
[/quote]

The ability to EXPRESS your beliefs is the defining trait of a modern democracy, not that your beliefs MATTER or in any way INFLUENCE society. That would likely lead to mob rule and pure chaos.

Yet another curious evolution in U.S. politics today. People seem to think that democracy means that our voice matters, and since an individual’s vote doesn’t mean a whole lot, and/or that what I want doesn’t happen, means that we don’t live in a democracy.

But that’s just fucking asinine.

My ideal city-state would be the system envisioned by the framers during the Constitutional Convention, with certain concepts of additional power envisioned by Hamilton.

My actual mind on it is very vague and messy. I just really like the theoretic behind the government envisioned by the framers.

Alas, it is fucking impossible to achieve, in the same way a true benevolent despotism would be.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

What about voting makes people free? If A and B can vote to decide how B’s money is used, how is B free? Universal suffrage means that your Bill of Rights protected rights will quickly disappear(well, maybe not quickly completely disappear, but definitely quickly erode).

[/quote]

Everyone knows that representative democracy in the modern nation state is an illusion. That’s why they can never seriously defend it. Just a few catch phrases about “freedom” is all you get. Since the revolutionary era the intelligentsia isolated “old right” - the reactionaries; the monarchists - by associating them with “extremists” - ie, the vanguard Communists and Anarchists; the far left. Fascism and National Socialism were both populist movements and were actually “democratic Caesarism” - they were what the old right; the traditionalists were warning against - a large section of the population sanctioning the authority of a demagogue. Fascism and National Socialism were the antithesis of the old right - nihilist revolutionary forces of masses; when democracy degenerates in ochlocracy and dictatorship.

The great lie of Anglo-American political philosophy is that Western liberal democracy is a stable system; it is inherently unstable. The Romans allowed the popularis to progressively extort the public treasury and the private property of the patricians. Demagogues were elected to the Senate on agrarian reform bills which transferred land from the old, Senatorial families to peasants. The traditional power structure of the Senate progressively lost ground to the Tribunes and the people. As Rome successively conquered the Mediterranean the city was swamped by foreigners. Many had Roman citizenship and the city became a cosmopolitan hub and in the last century of the republic; the revolutionary era, was much like today in many ways. Contemporary writers complain of society becoming irreligious and the higher values of bravery and honour were lost. Thucydides laments the same thing happening to Greece during the Peloponessian War.

Thucydides is regarded as the first “modern” historian in that he was a realist and chronicled events from a rationalist perspective unlike Herodotus whose history was part fable and myth. So with Thucydides you get the beginning of history and already he’s explaining things about the nature of man and the political that will go on to be verified again and again for another two and a half millennium. We know from history that we are most definitely verging on civil war/revolution. We know that “the people” have lost faith in God, they have voted themselves into the public treasury, they have split into special interest factions. We know that these special interest groups have aligned into a faction against traditional men, who they identify as white, male, heterosexual Christian types. We haven’t separated like all the other special interest groups. We’re the target. The “state” is an array of hostile forces targeting us.

Young, disillusioned men who have grown up in the postmodern world of nihilism, having never found tradition, nonetheless are reacting against the threat in various ways. The Men’s Rights Movement is one manifestation of this alienation. Specifically, I mean the rejection of LGBT nihilism and advocating traditional roles for men and women - eg, male/female complimentarianism as opposed to the egalitarianism orthodoxy of feminism. All of these political arguments constitute a collective metaphysical revolt against nihilism and modernity.

It’s very few people who are able to see the whole forest; to step back and see nature of the entire system that is at war with us and that we must wage war against. The enemy is modernity in all its forms. When I say “modernity” I’m not talking about the same thing as a Luddite. I’m not talking about new technology and the soul destroying nature of machinery and industrialisation. Modernity is much more. It’s a metaphysical system of organised nihilism and a million and one different expressions of nihilism spring from the metaphysical mindset of the modern man. Modernity is hell. It’s existence without God. Everything we collectively produce under a nihilist mindset is an affront to God, like the Tower of Babel. Man is in spiritual decay and any political ideology has to proceed from man’s nature and his current state. The metaphysical supervenes on the political.

Appointing yourself King is not necessary as it’s hypothetical and you already have absolute power to design every aspect of the state.

That’s overly pessimistic even for me. There’s good in man. Just not enough for practical purposes.

I think you’re ascribing too much rational self interest to the King. The good King, and there have been many relatively good Kings, is genuinely concerned with the spiritual well being of his subjects. When you have a tradition of this sort of healthy monarchy, you get a “golden age” of cultural and spiritual revival such as the age of the Antonines in Rome. Of course it never lasts. That’s the key principle to understand in political philosophy: the cycle. One of the big lies of the Enlightenment was that we are now on a linear historical trajectory with universal suffrage, egalitarianism and modern technology leading us inexorably towards a utopian society.

[quote]

Christianity would be the land’s religion-I wouldn’t need to worry about freedom of religion, because it would be the only one they’d been exposed to(blank slates). [/quote]

That’s where you get the whole internet thing and the cable TV. Nihilism drilled into the minds of your children; their fragile, impressionable minds exposed to soul destroying metaphysics and organised deviancy. That’s part of the reason my system contains knowledge to a select caste. The priestly caste however are superior; they have wisdom because they believe in divine law; their minds have not been corrupted by modernity and nihilism. The intelligent and knowledgeable are equipped for every day, rationalist thinking but only the spiritually ascended possess a deep wisdom.

Edited to fix quotes

[quote] florelius wrote:

In my ideal city state it is a public-institution.

[/quote]

Well then let’s not try to paint a “democratic” friendly face on your regime. If your regime has just stepped in and stolen some private individual/s property and livelihood and nationalised it then you are a Communist despot - at best, it’s democratic Caesarism. It’s when the institutions of the state are turned against the individual and he is robbed. The nebulous “social contract” - if it ever existed, has just been broken and this business owner is now well within his natural rights to revolt against the tyrannical state.

Of course it is. And it’s a fundamental ideological principle that man has a natural right to his life, liberty and property. It’s a fundamental ethical principle of divine law(thou shalt not steal) and secular law(theft). It’s the fact that people won’t accept these principles that makes them despotic. When we’re talking about an “ideal” city state, most people envisage one in which the state is not a tyrannical entity that steals private property from its own citizens. Your city state sounds more like it belongs in the dystopian category.

Are you serious? The public - or majoritarianism - “decides” on who gets to keep their own property? Tell me you’re not serious?!

Ah, no. We’re talking about natural law. We’re talking about the right to property and you’re proposing a tyrannical Communist regime that breaches fundamental natural law by robbing citizens of their property.

[quote]florelius wrote:

Says the guy who have earlier on this sub-forum said he whises that a ultra-nationalistic authoritarian rule are implemented.

[/quote]

I don’t recall using the word “authoritarian”. In regard to nationalism, there are only two metaphysical alternatives:

  1. The fragmentation of the modern nation state into autonomous regional entities or statelets; ministates; city states etc.

  2. A globalist, world government

Given that 1 is not feasible and 2 is not preferable I’m a nationalist. The prefix “ultra” denotes much enthusiasm for the destiny of my nation.

I’ve argued against it on rational grounds. You have not defended it. You take it as axiomatic and refuse to engage in reasoned debate on the matter.

You have argued for nothingness than Communism; the nationalisation of private industry. I’ve explained why it’s despotic. You need to explain where your government gets the authority to steal property from its own citizens. Although I’ve heard it all before and I don’t see an argument about the benefits of Communism to be worth while. I’m just pointing out to you that what you have proposed is a despotic, tyrannical regime that has no legitimacy whatsoever because it is doing the very thing it was the set up to prevent. Under the e social contract, the state has a duty to protect a citizen’s life, liberty and property. If the state, not only fails to do so, but actually starts stealing property from its citizens then the citizens have a right and a duty to overthrow it. This is what nearly every people under a Communist/socialist regime have been trying to do for the last century: overthrow their tyrannical governments.

I don’t know why you are making this personal. You don’t like my city state; fine, I don’t like your city state.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. You mentioned a private company, then explained how you’d despoticly impose an egalitarian structure on it and then you went full Communist and said you’d nationalise it. That’s my understanding of the exchange.

Edited

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

Says the guy who have earlier on this sub-forum said he whises that a ultra-nationalistic authoritarian rule are implemented.

[/quote]

I don’t recall using the word “authoritarian”. In regard to nationalism, there are only two metaphysical alternatives:

  1. The fragmentation of the modern nation state into autonomous regional entities or statelets; ministates; city states etc.

  2. A globalist, world government

Given that 1 is not feasible and 2 is not preferable I’m a nationalist. The prefix “ultra” denotes much enthusiasm for the destiny of my nation.

I’ve argued against it on rational grounds. You have not defended it. You take it as axiomatic and refuse to engage in reasoned debate on the matter.

You have argued for nothingness than Communism; the nationalisation of private industry. I’ve explained why it’s despotic. You need to explain where your government gets the authority to steal property from its own citizens. Although I’ve heard it all before and I don’t see an argument about the benefits of Communism to be worth while. I’m just pointing out to you that what you have proposed is a despotic, tyrannical regime that has no legitimacy whatsoever because it is doing the very thing it was the set up to prevent. Under the e social contract, the state has a duty to protect a citizen’s life, liberty and property. If the state, not only fails to do so, but actually starts stealing property from its citizens then the citizens have a right and a duty to overthrow it. This is what nearly every people under a Communist/socialist regime have been trying to do for the last century: overthrow their tyrannical governments.

I don’t know why you are making this personal. You don’t like my city state; fine, I don’t like your city state.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. You mentioned a private company, then explained how you’d despoticly impose an egalitarian structure on it and then you went full Communist and said you’d nationalise it. That’s my understanding of the exchange.

Edited[/quote]

Where did I mention a private company?

Again in the hypothical city state the company’s would be propped up by the state, the state is the initiater, owner and employer, but let the employee’s run the companys/workingplaces themself within the parameters of the law and regulations. There are no private companys in the scenario.

Btw I dont take this personal, actually find this thread fun, so thanks for starting it. I do however remember you arguing some time back for a authoritarian state. My memory might be wrong, but regardless your ideal state comes off to us pinky commies as a bit authoritarian. Thats not ment as an insult, just my commentary on your city state.

[quote]florelius wrote:

Where did I mention a private company?

[/quote]

You referred to a “company” and then proceeded to outline how the state would impose a democratic structure on the management. If you are now talking about a nationalised industry then we’re talking about Communism.

By “propped up” you mean subsidised, I don’t understand why that would be preferable in any system. If an industry is creating less value than it uses then it’s not a viable entity whoever runs it. Why on earth would anyone aim for institutions that lose value and need to “propped up?” And the state as “initiator?” I don’t understand what you mean. Whoever owns it is the “initiator”. I think you’re confused about basic economics here.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to describe. Why would the state force a private company to adopt a democratic managerial structure? Apart from the obvious problems of efficiency and the fundamental intrusion of the state overstepping its legitimate function and imposing its will on private citizens - aside from all that, I don’t even understand the proposed benefits. Why would the workers electing their own bosses be preferable?

Make up your mind. You’re changing every couple of sentences. If there are no private companies; no private ownership then it’s Bolshevism and the state controls everything. If you’re going to adopt a political ideology then at least understand the basics of the one you’ve adopted.

You seem like a nice guy florelius but your mindset and way of thinking is pretty unsettling to me. You don’t seem to take in anything I say. It’s one thing to be a Communist but you don’t seem to be able to grasp the fundamental principles of Communism or classical liberalism. The “social contract” theory of political philosophy posits that the entire purpose of men coming together to form a state is for the protection of their life, liberty and property. If the state actually takes one’s property; if the state does the very thing it was supposed to prevent, then the state becomes an illegitimate tyrannical entity.

Now if you’re going to be honest, you need to admit these essential truths:

  1. You reject the social contract duties of the state

  2. You believe the state should impose itself on private individuals - take their property; give it to others

And

  1. You don’t even have any system in place to guide how the state robs the citizenry. You appear to advocate a kind of majoritarian looting of the public treasury.

I guess it depends on what is meant by “authoritarian”. If I used it, it would’ve been in the sense of strict and decisive use of the law. Say, rounding up all the illegal immigrants in the country; putting them on buses or ships and removing them all from the country and cracking down on any radical human “rights” groups and ethnic front groups that try to obstruct the process. That’s the kind of authoritarianism I mean.

Well the state doesn’t rob the citizens or forcefully impose some kind of egalitarian purge of private and state institutions.

[quote]

Thats not ment as an insult, just my commentary on your city state. [/quote]

You have a radically different mindset to mine and it so it’s not really possible for you to understand where I’m coming from. It’s not to do with intelligence. It’s due to the fact that we have radically different mindsets and metaphysical systems.

[quote] florelius’s city state commentary:

A couple of things to think about:

  • florelius’s city state hasn’t been consistently and coherently described. There seems to be confusion over whether the state owns the means of production or whether it just despoticly imposes itself on private industry. Either way, no ruling party was articulated; no oversight or checks and balances and the only power structure described was majoritarianism that appears to apparently trump ethics and natural law by virtue of majority consensus itself. A belief in enlightened majoritarianism or enlightened mob rule is about as crazy as you can get for a political model. Crazier than anarchy.

First thing to understand: Majoritarianism is by definition “mob rule”. So that’s what “direct democracy” or pure democracy is.

Second thing: “mob rule” or “ochlocracy” is a universally bad form of government.

Rome increasingly enfranchised the lower classes(popularis through the political empowerment of the Tribunate. This political enfranchisement constituted an existential threat to the nobility; the Senatorial class. Tribunes would be elected on radical agrarian “reform” bills; essentially, confiscation of patrician land and redistribution to the landless peasants. The Civil War in the last century of the republic which led to its end was brought about by conflict between the Senatorial class(optimates and the peoplepopularis. The tyrants used the legions to back them militarily against the state and ran on populist agrarian “reform” platforms. Like the French Revolution, revolutionary Rome was populated by radical nobles leading bloodthirsty mobs to usurp the state. The Roman demagogues had legions to back them so the Roman revolution was an epic series of Civil Wars played out throughout the entire Empire and involving foreign armies fighting for and against Rome in proxy wars culminating in a full return to monarchy in the political cycle. That’s what revolutionaries don’t seem to understand about revolution. Revolution entails a complete return of the cycle back to dictatorship.

As for how the “dictatorship of the proletariat” works in practice look to how it is enacted. Either a vanguard terrorist outfit like the Bolsheviks or through a Bolshevik backed insurgency; through subversion; through force and terror. The gangsters who run the Communism racket are the untouchable class; they own dachas and drive Mercedes Benz. The rest of society live in misery.

Or in rare exceptions as in the French Revolution, Plato’s “virtuous dictator” assumes control and sets the cycle back to monarchy. Bonaparte attempted to rule in the Enlightenment tradition of the “enlightened absolutist”:

But back to the point, florelius’s city state would follow one of the inevitable patterns I just outlined. Universal enfranchisement coupled with majoritarian idealism is what you have described. And with no checks and balances or oversight to regulate the looting of the treasury. The most brutal and determined cunning demagogues would immediately seize control of the state. There’d be purges, political assassinations and camps, political repression, mass killings, starvation, more civil war etc. In the chaos people would get behind whoever offered stability: either a dictator or a military oligarchy. The socialist regimes that survived mostly became military oligarchies or in the case of China plutocrats.

Sorry for being harsh there florelius but this is serious debate and your political system does not work.

[/quote]

Okay, countingbeans

And NickViar’s city state:

[quote]

I think I’ve made some of the important points above. Globalisation, the internet and consumerist culture are transforming traditional parts of the world. Islamic fundamentalism is a reaction to this culture. They see it as American culture. It is radically transforming their society and they are helpless to stop it. We all are. The idea of a technological singularity bringing about the “end of history” and posing an existential threat to mankind is not so far fetched. Modernity is a force outside of man’s control. It is rushing inexorably “forward” and no one is able to stop it now. We’ve all been swept up into the tide. It will have to play out its course now. Standing against it; counter-revolutionary and reactionary politics can never reverse the direction of the political cycle. At best the old right can slow the Leviathan down a bit, act as a thorn in the side of the demotists and preserving traditional knowledge through The Dark Ages.

And lastly, the poster who mentioned Singapore:

Edited to fix quotes

@florelius

[quote] florelius wrote:

The society defines if it is public or not.

[/quote]

You mentioned majoritarianism and democracy. So essentially, your system is to steal all of the private wealth and means of production by some kind of plebiscite or mass voting. And there’s no oversight by party members or vanguard revolutionaries. The whole process proceeds, without oversight, without any checks and balances, presumably without having to kill all the angry and lately violent people you’ve robbed; the whole system sort of levelling out with everyone having roughly the same amount of wealth and the populace then rules itself under some sort of egalitarian, enlightened mob rule.

Can you see:

A). that your system of having the majority of people vote whether or not to steal from individuals is fundamentally immoral?

And

B). that your system could never work; it is entirely infeasible, for any number of reasons not least of which some people will want more wealth and the system of robbery will be taken over by corrupt individuals?

Leave five socialists in a room together with ten dollars each; come back in a few hours. One or two of them are going to have most the money. That’s what happens when thieves divide up their spoils amongst themselves. With an group of thieves you can guarantee that there’s some dishonest ones amongst them.

Edited

I don’t have the time to give this tread the time it deserves until Monday, but wanted to drop a couple drive by posts.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

What about voting makes people free? [/quote]

Because, at its base fundamental purpose it is consent to being governed. While abstaining from voting is consent to being ruled.

I wouldn’t call for a pure democracy. There would be checks and balances, like in the COTUS, that protect from mob rule, however still allows for rule of law that reflects the morality (or lack there of) of the citizens that occupy the state.

And, I’m not lying when I say the last thing I’d want to be is a dictator or king, etc. FFFFUUUUCCCCCKKKKKK that. Not with a population the size of the USA, or even a small western European nation. While the thrill from the power sounds great, the oppressive responsibility makes it not worth it to me.

I just want to love my wife, hug my kids, shoot my guns, earn my living and fall asleep at night being able to look myself in the eye.

(I understand the irony that it is people that feel like I do, that are better suited for leadership positions in our form of government, and not the power hungry narcissists that currently seek those positions.)

[quote]florelius wrote:
Also a democratic workplace can be representative, wich means they could vote in one of the employee’s to be boss for a year and next year vote for another. Offcourse the boss would not have legislative power, but would rather function as the administrative leader of the unite. All the employee’s would have to come togheter if they wanted to change some aspect of the unit( rules of the workplace etc ) [/quote]

No, it’s an interesting idea. I’m not a fan of anything other than private ownership of capital, however, even in a capitalist society you could have an owner who allows this. (Obviously would be a perversion of your idea, but similar structure.)

The thing is, very few people are actually good at managing others. That’s why most people bitch their boss sucks, because they likely do. And even fewer people are good at understanding the “big picture” and how even the little things effect it. That’s why I think your system would be, overall at least if not massively, inefficient.

[quote]It might not be as effective as an authoritarian workplace, but the same can be argued when it comes to the state aka a dictatorship is maybe more effective than a democratic state.

[/quote]

Yeah, it’s all relative.

The most interesting part in my mind is your set up would basically end the idea of massive conglomerates that employ thousands or more people. Globalization would effectively be shrunk to near nothing, and it would completely shift the global landscape.

There is good and bad in that.

One of the goods I would expect is a fuck ton more companies in each industry. Instead of one Honda, you’d have 50, one in each state, none of whom could keep up with demand, so you’d have 3 in TX, 8 in CA, etc etc etc. The sheer expansion of business, and the resultant explosion in B2B markets that would be necessary to facilitate a market for a couple hundred million sized population could be such a trigger for the velocity of money we’d see economic growth that would make the 1980’s look like chump change, assuming it beats the inherent and oppressive inefficiencies that come in in such a system.

Like I said, let’s try it in Detroit. They can’t get any worse. Plus the lefties will fucking love it.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

What about voting makes people free? [/quote]

Because, at its base fundamental purpose it is consent to being governed. While abstaining from voting is consent to being ruled. [/quote]
-I don’t follow…the only way that a single vote equals consent to being governed is if that single vote decides the election(and that voter was not forced into merely voting for the lesser of two evils).

[quote]
I wouldn’t call for a pure democracy. There would be checks and balances, like in the COTUS, that protect from mob rule, however still allows for rule of law that reflects the morality (or lack there of) of the citizens that occupy the state. [/quote]
-The small pool of eligible voters at one time was the best protection. The checks and balances don’t check and balance much of anything once all issues become subject to a vote.
( Idea of Turning Africa Into China Unraveling | The Daily Bell )

[quote]
And, I’m not lying when I say the last thing I’d want to be is a dictator or king, etc. FFFFUUUUCCCCCKKKKKK that. Not with a population the size of the USA, or even a small western European nation. While the thrill from the power sounds great, the oppressive responsibility makes it not worth it to me. [/quote]
-What oppressive responsibility? You wouldn’t have to be the people’s nanny.

[quote]
I just want to love my wife, hug my kids, shoot my guns, earn my living and fall asleep at night being able to look myself in the eye.[/quote]
-You would be free to govern in a way that permitted you to do just that.

[quote]
(I understand the irony that it is people that feel like I do, that are better suited for leadership positions in our form of government, and not the power hungry narcissists that currently seek those positions.) [/quote]
-The people that currently seek those positions are, basically, blank slates(much like the subjects in this exercise); they are blowing in the winds of public opinion-they have almost no identities. At one point, America’s government was at least somewhat tied to property ownership-it’s now tied to nothing; it just floats in the wind. If a representative government is desired, at least make it representative of those who fund it. Instead of universal suffrage, make suffrage dependent upon ownership-those who net government payment should not be allowed to vote(e.g. welfare recipients, government workers/contractors).

[quote] NickViar wrote:

-I don’t follow…the only way that a single vote equals consent to being governed is if that single vote decides the election(and that voter was not forced into merely voting for the lesser of two evils).

[/quote]

In Athens the people identified with leaders like Pericles. This personal and ancestral connection to the ruler and the total immersion in everyday politics by the people constituted authentic democracy. It functioned because the society was in a metaphysical state of spiritual ascendence. The destruction of traditional; metaphysical truth and the transition to a nihilistic metaphysical state was brought about by the Peloponnesian War. Their authentic democracy then collapsed into demagoguery and dictatorship.

Society today is not capable of the kind of self governance of the first half of the 19th Century in the US. Western society is in a metaphysical state of nihilism that is at war with and is destroying the last remnants of traditionalism and metaphysical truth. The question for the traditional man amidst the ruins of traditional society is how to respond. Julius Evola came to recommend a kind of resigned realism: ride the tiger of modernity and try not to get eaten.

Edit: Most people have no idea what I’m talking about when I speak of modernity and traditionalism. The traditional mindset is a metaphysical state that hasn’t been widespread in Europeans since The Middle Ages. The traditional mindset manifests itself in the form of radically reactionary politics. Probably the best contemporary American example would be Jesse Helms. But the traditional man is always tainted with “brand name conservatism” - those elements of modernity that have crept into traditional metaphysical systems. The American radical sovereign individualism is one such tainting of traditionalism. Sovereign individualism is only realisable in the spiritually ascended society; the society that governs itself because belief in divine law is near universal and a spiritual connection between ruler and rulers is established.

Sovereign individualism represents a dilemma for the traditional man. Freedom from what? We all know the answer to that: freedom from the Leviathan and the illegitimate forces arrayed against us. But the traditional man also asks: freedom to do what? That’s why he instinctively opposes drug legalisation. The freedom to annihilate oneself; to wallow in passive nihilism and hedonism. That is part of the spiritual force of modernity that is arrayed against traditionalism. Individual political freedom is contingent upon spiritual ascendency.

The conflation of drug laws with alcohol prohibition is specious. Alcohol in its antiquity has found a legitimate place in traditional systems of the European people. The forces of Prohibitionism were the forces of modernity(the matriarchal feminine forces of decline and death) attacking the traditional manifestation of the cult of Dyonysius and Baachus. Alcohol has a place in the traditional metaphysical systems of European man. The moralist crusade against alcohol was a feminine, irrational, matriarchal force against men’s meeting places and the traditional patriarchal social systems; the masculine solar cult of hero worship, personal glory, rationalism, virility, strength and conviction to objective, metaphysical truth. These are all masculine forces and constituted the metaphysical mindset of man in the ancient world and in the Middle Ages. The feminine forces of the cult of Isis are manifest in the irrational feminist ideologies within the French Revolution, the women’s suffrage movement of the late 19th/early 20th Centuries - this also manifested itself in an alliance with Quakers and puritanical Calvinists against the masculine forces of the cult of Bacchus. Today feminism, allied to the sodomy and gender nihilism cults are arrayed against traditionalist masculine forces and patriarchal metaphysical systems and socio-political power structures. These feminine forces are also entwined with the abortion on demand or cult of Baal - ritualised infanticide.

Edited

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-I don’t follow…the only way that a single vote equals consent to being governed is if that single vote decides the election(and that voter was not forced into merely voting for the lesser of two evils).[/quote]

Do you really not understand the election process, or are you trying to seem obtuse for the sake of argument?

SCOTUS overturning Clinton’s DOMA is a perfect and current example of how wrong you are here.

[quote]
-What oppressive responsibility? You wouldn’t have to be the people’s nanny.[/quote]

Meanwhile back in reality.

Dude I like you, but you, very often, live in a dream world.

[quote]

-You would be free to govern in a way that permitted you to do just that.[/quote]

I’ve said I wouldn’t want to be a dictator, said why, and you’re now going to try and convince me that I actually do?

No. Dude, just drop it.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-I don’t follow…the only way that a single vote equals consent to being governed is if that single vote decides the election(and that voter was not forced into merely voting for the lesser of two evils).[/quote]

Do you really not understand the election process, or are you trying to seem obtuse for the sake of argument?[/quote]
-What makes you question my understanding of the election process? How does voting equal consent to being governed by the elected? Approximately 50% of the country DID NOT vote for the people in office at any level. In addition, how can voting be seen as consent to being governed, if not voting is consent to being ruled? That’s like saying that it’s not a robbery(or being governed) if the robber(or state) holds a gun(or a representative) to the victim’s head and the victim gives up his money(or votes) before being killed(or having an unelected representative). Voting may be considered the best option under the circumstances, but that’s it.

[quote]

SCOTUS overturning Clinton’s DOMA is a perfect and current example of how wrong you are here. [/quote]
-How so? The federal government just took more control over an issue that, if it must involve government, should be purely a state issue.

[quote]

[quote]
-What oppressive responsibility? You wouldn’t have to be the people’s nanny.[/quote]

Meanwhile back in reality. [/quote]
-This thread is about DESIGNING YOUR OWN CITY STATE. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that’s reality for anyone here.

[quote]
Dude I like you, but you, very often, live in a dream world. [/quote]
-This thread is about a dream world. I must have missed it, but I assume that your response to this thread was something like, “Ridiculous thread-we don’t get to design our own city state.”

[quote]

[quote]
-You would be free to govern in a way that permitted you to do just that.[/quote]

I’ve said I wouldn’t want to be a dictator, said why, and you’re now going to try and convince me that I actually do?[/quote]
-No, that’s fine. However, I find it strange that you wouldn’t want to be a king due to “the oppressive responsibility,” but you do vote and claim that voting equals consent to being governed. Should voting, in a representative democracy(which is what America has become), not be seen as just as big a responsibility? The fact that it’s not, because individual voters can’t really be held accountable for the rules they pass, is a big problem with this system.

For those interested in monarchy, Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg is an interesting character. He was a radical reactionary monarchist from the White Movement during the Russian Civil War who became the last khan of Mongolia before he was caught and shot by the Bolsheviks.

Ungern-Sternberg went native in Outer Mongolia and ruled a theocratic dictatorship in Outer Mongolia from where he planned a spiritual counter revolutionary wave against Bolshevism and modernity reinstating monarchies across Europe and Asia. He was insane and believed himself to be the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan.

Kinda like a Christian version of a Caliphate?

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Kinda like a Christian version of a Caliphate?

[/quote]

No. A feudal Lamaist theocratic-monarchy. The lamaists in Mongolia and Tibet believed him to be a living god - the incarnation of the god of war.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-What makes you question my understanding of the election process? [/quote]

Because the other option is you’re pretending to not understand in order to make some obscure point about your personal beliefs.

Holy shit, really? Someone standing up and saying “I choose this person to be my representative” somehow isn’t clear consent?

Irrelevant

See above, fill in the “conversely”.

No, not really at all. You’re attempt here to compare voting to being robbed and/or killed has failed.

I never claimed it was perfect, but we haven’t really found a better alternative yet.

[quote]
-How so?[/quote]

Jesus H.

SCOTUS overturned Clinton’s ban on same sex marriage. Therefore it protected minority opinion and freedom to enter into a contract, even though, as Democrats are apt to do, the government tried to take away those freedoms.

States used mob rule to take away the freedom to enter into a contract recognized by government. SCOTUS effectively said that, no mob rule can not take away the freedom of the minority to enter into a contract.

No the opposite is true. As long as people stop calling it “gay” marriage and call it “samesex” marriage, we’ve effectively seen LESS government oversight in our day-to-day lives as a result of this ruling. The government can no longer dictate that gender can determine one’s eligibility to enter into a contract.

[quote]

[quote]

[quote]
-What oppressive responsibility? You wouldn’t have to be the people’s nanny.[/quote]

Meanwhile back in reality. [/quote]
-This thread is about DESIGNING YOUR OWN CITY STATE. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that’s reality for anyone here.[/quote]

The point being, nor you or anyone could design a state in which a dictator didn’t have an oppressive amount of responsibility.

[quote]
-No, that’s fine. However, I find it strange that you wouldn’t want to be a king due to “the oppressive responsibility,” but you do vote and claim that voting equals consent to being governed. [/quote]

How the fuck is that strange? One has nothing at all to do with the other and your following twisted logic doesn’t bring the two any closer.

No. Each individual chooses their level of involvement in the consent. On the surface voting is consent. However, working on a campaign, getting on a soap box to spread an ideal, etc are much more involved.

Voting is consent to being governed. Working to further one’s agenda is participating in governance.

They are accountable. WTF?

Suddenly people don’t have to live under rule of law anymore?