At this point, the upper right square is the way to go. Not all the way to the top, obviously. But it is clear that too much leniency has allowed for moral degeneracy to take root in our country.
California could be communist...and it would fail miserably
...but it would be allowed to fail
The governing models that succeed will survive in those respective states, and people will adopt policies that work for them.
If you don't like where you live...maybe it's too auth-right, no problem! Just move somewhere that's libertarian-right.
But doesn't that also mean that all the illegal invaders, communists, etc. etc. etc. can spread from California and out into the rest of the country, take over things in more states, and repeat until the USA is no more? If individual states cannot control who can and cannot enter them?
And if California (or more) states secede, will that not eventually weaken the USA in a number of important regards, including militarily?
The individual states can set residency laws, and while there are constitutional and semi-constitutional limits on preventing citizens from other states from going about or settling in the US (like the "Full Faith and Credit" thing), there is nothing to say you cannot regulate what they must do to become a citizen of your state. Or prevent those without clear US ID from getting in.
As for Cali or other states seceding, it would weaken the US, but that's the issue of where they have to deal with it diplomatically, so that all sides can sign off on it and deal with this. We know what happened last time a bunch of radical nutbar Dems decided to try and unilaterally secede by terror and violence.
The individual states can set residency laws, and while there are constitutional and semi-constitutional limits on preventing citizens from other states from going about or settling in the US (like the "Full Faith and Credit" thing), there is nothing to say you cannot regulate what they must do to become a citizen of your state.
That sounds like it would only help a minuscule amount. If they can just go through California and/or other states, they might have an easy time immigrating there illegally, and thus likewise have a much easier time infiltrating and subverting the given state. And it tends to be much easier to keep people out in the first place than to get them out once they are in (apart from the damage, subversion, destruction, etc. etc. etc. they can do while inside), which is one reason to build walls among other things. I don't see how this (at least by itself) would be sufficient or effective in practice.
As for Cali or other states seceding, it would weaken the US, but that's the issue of where they have to deal with it diplomatically, so that all sides can sign off on it and deal with this. We know what happened last time a bunch of radical nutbar Dems decided to try and unilaterally secede by terror and violence.
This... sound like a really, really weird take. Whether California "secedes diplomatically", it would weaken the USA in a number of important regards, including but far from limited to militarily. And the more divided the USA becomes, the much, much more easily it is conquered and pressured, and that may then spell the death of the USA, and possibly destruction of many/most/all of its territories.
Why allow California and/or other states to be seized by hostile forces? And then allow such forces to seize even more states?
imo there’s nothing libertarian about enabling mental illness
In desires, wishes and goals; or in practical ability to prevent and discourage it effectively (and definitely not encourage it), such as protecting against infiltration, subversion and the like and preserve integrity and various integral systems, etc. etc. etc.; or both; and/or something else?
I view it as actively harming vulnerable people. Just improve the mental health care rather than mutilating them because you can’t be bothered to actually treat your patients.
Lobotomies used to be a common medical practice, but you still wouldn’t be able to get one in a modern libertarian society. Same idea.
But what if the "drag queen story hour" people are intentionally, in-depth, geuinely incredibly or more evil? And some of them and those that help them are organized and plan and coordinate, etc.?
I don’t think all of them are evil, I’m sure some are, but most are just really sick. I don’t care what someone else does or thinks as long as the aren’t hurting anyone else. But doctors and society encouraging this bullshit does actively harm people.
the older I get the more I realize you can't have libertarianism unless everybody is willing to play nice. Communism must be stamped out ruthlessly or it will destroy everything it touches, and libertarians of today support ideas like no borders. This is not possible to coexist with a functioning society.
oh I completely agree with you, because of what I said about it needing everybody to play nice to work. Anything that requires everyone to do (or not do) a certain thing is flawed because some people just aren't wired right and won't play nice
I think little-L libertarianism would work just fine if tempered by what's in the founding documents. Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (including a full border wall & protections against foreign invaders), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
But there's definitely a problem with being able to implement libertarianism at this point. People have grown soft and dependent on government. Communities have been wrecked and culture diluted.
In addition to people melting down about "muh scroolz" & "muh roads" it'd require hard to get buy-in from bleeding hearts who would refuse to recognize that actions have consequences--consequences that are not the responsibility of government, but of churches, private charities, family, and friends.
Sadly, without borders, language and culture, libertarianism is somewhat out of reach for the moment on a macro level. But that doesn't mean its ideals can't be reached for and implemented in smaller ways as we restore the necessary protections required.
Honestly just give me a state authoritarian regime for 3 months until this BLM shit is over. We already live in an authoritarian regime via big tech, education, and other corps ban you for saying a list of no no words or phrases. At least give me the aesthetically pleasing authoritarianism with tanks and shit.
I guess that is one of the earliest examples of "dictatorship", and arguably (despite its possibly mythical aspects since little is known for certain about it as far as I know) a successful instance of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus :
Cincinnatus was a conservative opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son's violent opposition to their desire for a written code of equitably enforced laws. Despite his old age, he worked his own small farm until an invasion prompted his fellow citizens to call for his leadership. He came from his plow to assume complete control over the state but, upon achieving a swift victory, relinquished his power and its perquisites and returned to his farm. His success and immediate resignation of his near-absolute authority with the end of this crisis (traditionally dated to 458 BC) has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, humility, and modesty. As a result, he has inspired a number of organizations and other entities, some named in his honor. In the United States, parallels are drawn between Cincinnatus and national hero George Washington, and, as such, the Society of the Cincinnati, the town of Cincinnatus, New York, and (indirectly) the city of Cincinnati, Ohio are named after him.
Though a major issue is of course that such a position can be abused greatly, among other aspects, and it also requires types of people that may be extremely rare or non-existent depending on things.
I don't know much about Pinochet, though Cincinnatus did step down after his task was done according to legend, while Pinochet was involved in politics for a long time (though the kind of task he had before him was likely also something that required much more time). But again, the position of dictator is definitely something that can be abused, though there may be cases where there are no good options. I don't know whether Pinochet did a good job or not overall, though as far as I know, Chile is not communist, and it has done decently well in many ways, including relative to its neighbours. I wonder how long it will last, however.
I’ve hit top right awhile ago. They want fascism dead and gone? Well they are practically begging us to become one. I’m a 33 year old suburban white mom for fuck sake.. I can only imagine how others are feeling watching this all play out.
Gen. Pinochet was ordered by Chilean Congress, (the DEMOCRATICLY ELECTED Chilean Congress btw, acting well within their powers enumerated to them per the Chilean Constitution) - to REMOVE Pres. Allende A.S.A.P. pursuant to their Resolution of 22 August 1973. He did so on Sept. 11th 1973. There was no coup. It was Democracy in action.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Oh, it sure does - because anyone watching legacy lamestream media have 'democracy' brainwashed right into their cortexes. Forget all about the rule of law, the Constitution, god-given rights, legislative processes requiring super-majorities, everything, just because 51% want the government to "DO SOMETHING!!!" regardless of how destructive 'it' is.
I heard an interesting argument that being a “just leave me alone” libertarian leaves open a power vacuum for an authoritarian movement to come in and assert power. As somebody who has called myself a libertarian for a long time it is making me reconsider my stance.
Free Speech doesn't make you into a fascist - Free Speech is a correction mechanism, so that stupid people can say what they think and be corrected by their peers. Silencing Free Speech only makes it so that stupid people are unopposed and uncorrected in their idiocy and those who would shame and ridicule them are kept from doing so.
You're confusing openly shaming someone for saying something stupid with forcing them to remain silent. Nobody who treasures free speech will keep you from making a fool of yourself - they're more likely to try and correct you or keep you from making a fool.. but you're 'Free' to do so.
Everyone is FREE to be racist or bigoted, it self corrects if you let them be themselves openly.
"I just wanted to be left alone. But you just had to get in my face"
Most of us, by far and away.
At this point, the upper right square is the way to go. Not all the way to the top, obviously. But it is clear that too much leniency has allowed for moral degeneracy to take root in our country.
It's cliche, but we must return to God.
I agree 100 percent. That's why it's cool Trump is a state's rights president.
But doesn't that also mean that all the illegal invaders, communists, etc. etc. etc. can spread from California and out into the rest of the country, take over things in more states, and repeat until the USA is no more? If individual states cannot control who can and cannot enter them?
And if California (or more) states secede, will that not eventually weaken the USA in a number of important regards, including militarily?
The individual states can set residency laws, and while there are constitutional and semi-constitutional limits on preventing citizens from other states from going about or settling in the US (like the "Full Faith and Credit" thing), there is nothing to say you cannot regulate what they must do to become a citizen of your state. Or prevent those without clear US ID from getting in.
As for Cali or other states seceding, it would weaken the US, but that's the issue of where they have to deal with it diplomatically, so that all sides can sign off on it and deal with this. We know what happened last time a bunch of radical nutbar Dems decided to try and unilaterally secede by terror and violence.
That sounds like it would only help a minuscule amount. If they can just go through California and/or other states, they might have an easy time immigrating there illegally, and thus likewise have a much easier time infiltrating and subverting the given state. And it tends to be much easier to keep people out in the first place than to get them out once they are in (apart from the damage, subversion, destruction, etc. etc. etc. they can do while inside), which is one reason to build walls among other things. I don't see how this (at least by itself) would be sufficient or effective in practice.
This... sound like a really, really weird take. Whether California "secedes diplomatically", it would weaken the USA in a number of important regards, including but far from limited to militarily. And the more divided the USA becomes, the much, much more easily it is conquered and pressured, and that may then spell the death of the USA, and possibly destruction of many/most/all of its territories.
Why allow California and/or other states to be seized by hostile forces? And then allow such forces to seize even more states?
Nah man. Lower right square is where it’s at
Lower right square gave us drag queen story hour.
Fair point, but imo there’s nothing libertarian about enabling mental illness
In desires, wishes and goals; or in practical ability to prevent and discourage it effectively (and definitely not encourage it), such as protecting against infiltration, subversion and the like and preserve integrity and various integral systems, etc. etc. etc.; or both; and/or something else?
I view it as actively harming vulnerable people. Just improve the mental health care rather than mutilating them because you can’t be bothered to actually treat your patients.
Lobotomies used to be a common medical practice, but you still wouldn’t be able to get one in a modern libertarian society. Same idea.
But what if the "drag queen story hour" people are intentionally, in-depth, geuinely incredibly or more evil? And some of them and those that help them are organized and plan and coordinate, etc.?
I don’t think all of them are evil, I’m sure some are, but most are just really sick. I don’t care what someone else does or thinks as long as the aren’t hurting anyone else. But doctors and society encouraging this bullshit does actively harm people.
the older I get the more I realize you can't have libertarianism unless everybody is willing to play nice. Communism must be stamped out ruthlessly or it will destroy everything it touches, and libertarians of today support ideas like no borders. This is not possible to coexist with a functioning society.
I agree 100%, I just think Libertarianism is an unrealistic goal to strive for.
oh I completely agree with you, because of what I said about it needing everybody to play nice to work. Anything that requires everyone to do (or not do) a certain thing is flawed because some people just aren't wired right and won't play nice
I think little-L libertarianism would work just fine if tempered by what's in the founding documents. Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (including a full border wall & protections against foreign invaders), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
But there's definitely a problem with being able to implement libertarianism at this point. People have grown soft and dependent on government. Communities have been wrecked and culture diluted.
In addition to people melting down about "muh scroolz" & "muh roads" it'd require hard to get buy-in from bleeding hearts who would refuse to recognize that actions have consequences--consequences that are not the responsibility of government, but of churches, private charities, family, and friends.
Sadly, without borders, language and culture, libertarianism is somewhat out of reach for the moment on a macro level. But that doesn't mean its ideals can't be reached for and implemented in smaller ways as we restore the necessary protections required.
Yeah all of the checks and balances and decentralization is saving us at this point.
Honestly just give me a state authoritarian regime for 3 months until this BLM shit is over. We already live in an authoritarian regime via big tech, education, and other corps ban you for saying a list of no no words or phrases. At least give me the aesthetically pleasing authoritarianism with tanks and shit.
Kek. It's getting to the point where results matter more than principles.
They shut down all of the festivals, clubs, parties and expect these educationally retarded Millenials to not act like Marxist savages.
I guess that is one of the earliest examples of "dictatorship", and arguably (despite its possibly mythical aspects since little is known for certain about it as far as I know) a successful instance of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus :
Though a major issue is of course that such a position can be abused greatly, among other aspects, and it also requires types of people that may be extremely rare or non-existent depending on things.
Yfw Pinochet was the modern Cincinnatus, you could probably troll some academic types with this.
I don't know much about Pinochet, though Cincinnatus did step down after his task was done according to legend, while Pinochet was involved in politics for a long time (though the kind of task he had before him was likely also something that required much more time). But again, the position of dictator is definitely something that can be abused, though there may be cases where there are no good options. I don't know whether Pinochet did a good job or not overall, though as far as I know, Chile is not communist, and it has done decently well in many ways, including relative to its neighbours. I wonder how long it will last, however.
I’ve hit top right awhile ago. They want fascism dead and gone? Well they are practically begging us to become one. I’m a 33 year old suburban white mom for fuck sake.. I can only imagine how others are feeling watching this all play out.
Gen. Pinochet was ordered by Chilean Congress, (the DEMOCRATICLY ELECTED Chilean Congress btw, acting well within their powers enumerated to them per the Chilean Constitution) - to REMOVE Pres. Allende A.S.A.P. pursuant to their Resolution of 22 August 1973. He did so on Sept. 11th 1973. There was no coup. It was Democracy in action.
Pinochet did NOTHING wrong!
Pinochet, probably.
He was the right man at the right time who did what was necessary.
Dang this accurate as fuck, though normally I’m even more centrist. When I see bullshit rage bait, I am become death.
The destroyer of worlds?
ME TALKING ABOUT RIOTS TO MY SON: Always take the Defensible Position, Son; stand your ground and follow standard CC protocols
ME TALKING TO MYSELF WHEN SCROLLING TD.WIN: Somebody needs a Helicopter ride
Democracy is actually the worse way to govern people but it's the best option we have because because man is inherently corrupt.
Ctrl+F the Constitution for democracy, or even "dem" if you feel like it. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Right, republic but it feels more like a democracy.
Oh, it sure does - because anyone watching legacy lamestream media have 'democracy' brainwashed right into their cortexes. Forget all about the rule of law, the Constitution, god-given rights, legislative processes requiring super-majorities, everything, just because 51% want the government to "DO SOMETHING!!!" regardless of how destructive 'it' is.
I heard an interesting argument that being a “just leave me alone” libertarian leaves open a power vacuum for an authoritarian movement to come in and assert power. As somebody who has called myself a libertarian for a long time it is making me reconsider my stance.
It's sad but this is how it happens in every single country that this happens to.
Right there with you. Lib center all the way, unless it comes to these commie fucks, and then you can call me Pinochet.
I know everyone is big on the helicopters... but just think how many you could fit in a C-130...
Just sayin...
Being for justice/self-defence against physical assault doesn't make you an authoritarian.
Also, not standing for looting and arson doesn't make one an authoritarian, it makes one law-abiding.
Yeah, I was firmly in the bottom right, but I'm being pushed further and further up.
We've gone so far to the top left that we need some top right just to get back to the middle bottom where we all want to be.
They’re going to get stabbed by a fork if they keep this up.
Free Speech doesn't make you into a fascist - Free Speech is a correction mechanism, so that stupid people can say what they think and be corrected by their peers. Silencing Free Speech only makes it so that stupid people are unopposed and uncorrected in their idiocy and those who would shame and ridicule them are kept from doing so.
You're confusing openly shaming someone for saying something stupid with forcing them to remain silent. Nobody who treasures free speech will keep you from making a fool of yourself - they're more likely to try and correct you or keep you from making a fool.. but you're 'Free' to do so.
Everyone is FREE to be racist or bigoted, it self corrects if you let them be themselves openly.