The repeal the 19th meme is funny but now I'm not sure that is as much of a problem.
The property requirement meant that only those with skin in the game were the ones who got to decide who governed. Without it we have paupers and indolents with the power to spend money that they did not earn or pay.
That inevitably leads to the death spiral from the famous quote:
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.
Obviously no political movement can form based on this principle since our current "conservatives" are too spineless to even fight for voter ID requirements. But at least it is within the overton window allowing for public discussion.
There's also that warning from the Family Compact (that I actually remember learning about in school) about how they thought democracy would devolve into the equivalent of a popularity or beauty contest.
We were supposed to laugh and scoff at their elitism, but I fail to see where they were wrong.
And maybe the big flaw of Western feudalism was in allowing titles to be bought by the merchant class.
And maybe where we all went wrong was in allowing the merchant class to have a say in anything.
Merchants can be very useful at distributing things to the public. However they should not be praised if they do that well, it's just them responding to public demand.
The worst case is when a merchant expends public demand, but wants more so they manufacture demand instead. Historically this is the "snake oil salesman" but in recent years it's just basic advertising and social engineering.
Yes, yes, only Feudalism will free us!
Feudalism, which is effectively what Capitalism replaced, was an authoritarian nightmare of inbred-authoritarian-aristocracies ruling by fiat for the sake of power alone. Fedualism's big failure is that it maintained the un-ending tyranny of bio-lenninst failures for millennia based solely on the fact that they were born. Heraldry existed as a useful way to disseminate human capital through multiple generations, but in the end, this system was so corrupt that it was nothing short of useless for the actual progression of human societies. It only existed to maintain itself.
This is why the black death was such a blessing in disguise. Slaughtering as many as it did, it repeatedly killed off swaths of worthless aristocrats and necessitated the expansion of capitalism where people could actually trade goods for mutual benefit, instead of desperately struggling against the interests of powerful guilds who did nothing but bicker and fight for power at the expense of literally everyone.
Even the concept of family was corrupted to no end, hence the inbreeding. Once aristocratic families created their own cosmopolitan global aristocrats, they found that maintaining that power was all that ever mattered, even if it meant fucking your sisters and cousins for political power. Any utility a family unit would have was wasted on the aristocracy.
The flaw of of Feudalism, was damn near everything. From power mongering, to social immobility, to multi-generational slavery, to inbreeding, to globalism. The reason it died is because it couldn't help but get every fucking thing wrong, and even murdering the entire ruling class wouldn't work because in a very short time, everyone would be making all the same mistakes all over again.
If you want feudalism, pledge all of your assets, your freedom, and the lives of children to Jeff Bezos and you might get an idea of why that shit don't fucking work.
Yes, but that's all what we have now, just in a different form. We are right at where your second paragraph is, with hollywood and politics interbreeding and making dynasties, etc.
So really, we need another real disease to wipe out all the elites again.
No, we aren't. Wealthy celebrities are nothing more than pawns and financial investment vehicles. When I say inbreeding, I mean, no shit, cousin fucking to the point of genetic abnormalities in the aristocracy being fairly common. We really aren't at that level. All of the current oligarchy's 'incestuousness' is figurative, not literal. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush did not have a kid in order to maintain the power of the uniparty system.
What we have now is similar to the global aristocracy of old because that's what happens when you get internationalist tyrants together.
Our situations are very different.
Here, take a look at how Capitalism replaced Feudalism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2gnxVhTci0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agPvpo3Qdsk
Well, I know that, and I also know that this is why the "eugenics" of "don't marry your cousin" is a thing. Yeah, that was probably THE biggest mistake, by people who had no concept of how heredity worked.
But the fact is, they're all IDEOLOGICALLY inbred, and are consolidating their power. We are HEADING towards a new kind of corporate fuedalism, where the illusion of voting for politicians is just that - an illusion, with everything being controlled by the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezos of the world, and the hollyweirdoes and media acting like the priest class.
Yes, I agree that they are pushing corporate feudalism. In fact, corporate feudalism is just regular feudalism. This is what Guilds are. The failure of "Western Feudalism" is that it is a totalitarian and authoritarian system which had to be abandoned due to the inevitable consequences of that system. A return to Feudalism is not an answer, and Feudalism (as it was) is till not workable.
But it seems to be the human animal's default position, unfortunately. All that old-school ethology crap about alphas and pecking orders? Came out of artificial groupings of individuals forced to deal with one another, and was actually projection on the part of the humans doing the pronouncements.
Why do you think they hate Whites so much? Getting whites together to do shit is like herding cats. The Alphas out there hate things that have minds of their own, and always have. The cycle repeats, even if it looks different every time it happens (more like a spiral than a "circle".)
Feudalism is not the same as higherachy, or social ordering. You're reducing social ordering and using it interchangably with very complex socio-economic & political system that existed primarily only in Europe and parts of MENA.
Okay, now you're mixing a whole bunch of stuff. European populations are highly organizable, they just aren't pan-organizable because they are very distinct from each other.
Alpha's are a specific kind of pack ordering that doesn't properly exist in humans. The vernacular term just refers to more dominant individuals, but you can't claim that those same individuals have an aversion to whites when plenty of them are also white.
This reminds me of the article I read about Germany cracking down on Nazis. Raiding these peoples homes was framed as trying to maintain democracy and freedom, when in reality it was the opposite, it was cracking down on freedom.
Hollywood seeks to be the new priest class. The guardians of morality, behaviour, and correct thought.
One could even say that our current culture war is revolving around this priest class struggling to break the 'faithless'. But it only looks bleak because the merchant class is allied with the priests right now. If there were a way to sway the merchants somehow, perhaps we wouldn't be eager to ask daddy government to write new laws (example: legislature banning lootboxes).
You're taking him to literally. He means "the priestly class". Those who disseminate, propagandize, and enforce the will of the establishment / cathedral.
It is not one thing that killed the republic
It is a combination of multiple factors
The rise of corporatism
Regulatory capture of all the bureaucracies
Unelected bureaucrats have too much power
Education system taken over by radical leftists and creation of the woke
Corporate media propaganda
The expansion of the welfare state
Pushing of identity politics
Non property owners voting
Youth voting
Women voting
Sounds like something that would only work in a population of a given size, and no bigger.
But then, I think a lot of things are starting to break down simply because the numbers are becoming too cumbersome, and there's too much "diversity" all the way around. Computers came in a "just in time" sort of way to save certain problems from arising, but perhaps they only served as an extension of sorts (which is all technology really does, in the end ...)
(Computers certainly came just in time to handle the population boom after WW2 and the crazy-ass population explosion since then; otherwise, I can see a whole lot of "scibe errors" taking place that computers simply don't allow ... my mom told me about an incident she had just before I was born in '68, where she noticed an older woman's bankbook in front of her had the same account number she did. And this was when our bank branches each acted like their own little island, and you had to do things at your branch and there were no ATMs or anything until I was an older kid. Anyway, imagine still having to keep track of accounts or anything else by hand, on paper, in filing cabinets, with armies of typists ...)
It would also make public-private partnerships pretty difficult, I think.
Anyway, also with the property ownership? First make sure that all your property owners are loyal citizens and not, say, skanky sussy foreigners (lookin' at you, Chancouver.
I think if you only let property owners vote you have to have some limitation on who or what can own property, and perhaps how much property a given entity can own. Otherwise you'd have eg. Apple and its giant war-chest of cash buying up all the real estate in an area to prevent anyone else from owning property and voting against it.
Allowing corporations to own real property probably itself was a mistake, since they have potentially indefinite lifespans.
The two are related, but I think you still want to avoid the scenario where a company (or the richest person in town) buys all the land in a city so no one else has voting rights.
States and municipalities would be free to allocate voting rights any way they want.
Truly. I forget what the original legal justification was, but now we have non-entities that receive all the legal protections of citizens yet have none of the responsibilities of citizens. Terrible stuff.
Service guarantees citizenship.
I absolutely believe that property requirements are an imperative to voting.
Blackstone, himself, basically said that the purpose of the property requirement was to reduce the power of elites who were landlords, factory owners, and charlatans. Fundamentally, his argument came down to the fact that a man without his own property was not only not invested in the community, but was merely an extension of the interests of the elites. That the individual free man's right to vote would be deluded by rent-seekers, debtors, the ignorant, and the enslaved to vote on behalf of the interests of their masters.
Blackstone argued that a property requirement guaranteed a form of financial independence from the elites. Particularly in a time when votes were not anonymous, there was little chain of custody, and no voting right protections pretty much at all. A worker who didn't vote as the factory owner wanted would be fired. A renter who didn't vote as the landlord wanted would lose his home. A debtor who didn't vote the way his lender wanted would find his assets confiscated. A slave who didn't vote the way his master wanted would die.
John Adams, many years later, concurred. He pointed out that, unlike England, America had vast amounts of land for farming. Any man who effectively had a bit of land would find himself able to have financial independence and contribute to his local community. If you had a forest on your property, you could log. If you had a pond/river, you could fish. If you had plains, you could farm. If you owned property in the town center, you'd learn a trade. The American Experience clearly demonstrates the value of property rights as a mandatory aspect of freedom, and owning property guarantees independence from authoritarian control.
This logic can even be seen in the 3/5ths Compromise. Not only should slaves not vote, they should also not be counted for representation. Slavers in the south argued that they helped to represent the will of their slaves, thus each slave should be counted so that government funds could be adequately distributed. Northern anti-slavery activists and liberals knew that allowing slaves political power would only further the interests of their masters, and never the slaves. Slaves should not be given protections or political power, they must be freed.
If history has shown us anything in regards to this logic, it's shown us that Blackstone and Adams were undoubtedly correct. Their assertions have been proven utterly. Dependent people vote for the interests of those whom they are dependent on. Slaves vote for their masters. Slaves vote for slavery. This is why every American slaver tended to emphasize how they were wonderfully benevolent people who were civilizing 'wild' humans. They just wanted power. Universal suffrage, particularly to those who do not own their own means of financial independence, is morally abhorrent because it only adds votes to the extremely powerful. People vote in their own interests... but if those interests are dependent on the interests of some elite, then it means that the elite is simply voting twice.
500 employees of Walmart who can't survive without the job, are not 500 people voting. It's just Walmart voting 500 times.
A property requirement is imperative. I wouldn't even say that residency is enough. If you have a mortgage on that house, it's not yours. It's the bank's. You're voting on behalf of the bank.
Some people will scream that this is disenfranchisement. No, that's wrong. These people are already disenfranchised. You can't disenfranchise someone who already has no say. No slave is ever free. No slave can ever have power. No slave can ever vote. A slave must be freed, only then can he be free. Once he is free, then he can have Independence and power through property. That power through property guarantees their interest, and requires their representation in power. Better for the slave to see his that his chains than to pretend he is free. He must know that he is a slave if there is ever going to be a chance for him to be free. There is no better way teach someone that they are enslaved than to say: "You own nothing, you have no say".
It's not pretty. It's negative incentive. But it's honest.
As long as the draft and selective Service exist there's no argument that should deprive men of the vote.
There's also an argument to be made that, while havin skin in the game (aka paying taxes) is important there's also an argument to be made that men, historically didn't vote for mass-handouts and frivolous welfare. Case in point: Switzerland, one of the few countries where women got the vote way after men did, and insane tax-spending only ever exploded after they got the vote.
Sounds like the draft should be ended, and the militia system be reinstituted.
Taxation isn't "having skin in the game". There is never a direct benefit to you. That's why I recommend bonds as a form of funding.
They absolutely do. Your issue is that women vote for it at a higher rate, not that men don't do it.
"Taxation is theft" has become a meme, but it's basically true; you, as a taxpaying citizen, have no real say in how your tax money is spent. Sure, you can elect officials that might spend how you like, but that's no guarantee they won't pick this one time to start taking bribes. You'll have a hard time voting in a politician that promises to spend 100% to your liking in the first place. You could run yourself, but not for every position in existence.
Can you explain bonds and how they might solve this problem?
No.
I just spent the past hour trying to explain it in a giant comment and now I accidentally hit the back button and lost everything. Links and all.
...
I'm going to fight through my unbridled rage and sorrow and give you a small bullet list of the concept.
Sorry to hear, I know that feel.
That's great, I didn't know. If they're seperated in a useful manner, maybe I'd consider it for investing surplus money.
I'm unclear on this 'negative yield' thing, though, it sounds like it demotivates financial investment so what's the benefit to the person paying into it?
As awesome as that scenario would be, I'd count that as a strong incentive for parasites to go all out trying to prevent this from being permitted. I actually consider this to be the true motivator for anyone fighting against the idea of tax erasure (politically, I guess it could be called tax reform).
Let me be clearer about this. They can be. They just normally aren't. The reason for this is the same reason a cable TV provider grants you access to 4 of the 6 channels you want along with 200 others you don't. Bundling is the objective to prevent low demand from effecting a business. In politics, the same protectionism applies. You'd have to have a government willing to actually run a program that would respond to voter demand through funding.
And yes, the huge benefit to this is that the voter also becomes a literal investor in his own community and state. The state is required to benefit him in the long run, and fulfilling those benefits makes a high-trust society between the state and the people.
Financially, it shouldn't ever be done. For my purposes, I'm only using it to counter the argument against profitability.
However, for a financial justification, negative yield bonds are still purchased to counter inflation, while assuming that the state will still repay them.
For example, Let's say that back in 2015, you went out and bought a $100, 5 year, US bond that gives you 5% annual interest. When you sell back the bond today, you will get back $128.34. That's nice. It's a profit of $28.34... But inflation is a thing in most countries. The US has around 3% annual inflation. $100 in 2015 is worth the same purchasing power as $109.32 today.
All the numbers went up, but think about this for a second. Inflation causes prices to go up, which means your purchasing power goes down. If you had simply had a $100 bill in your pocket for 5 years, you would have effectively lost $9.32 in purchasing power. Check the graphs on the right hand side of the page. That $100 bill would have bought you significantly fewer snickerdoodles in 2020 than it did in 2015. But because you had a bond, you got $28.34 back... That offsets the $9.32 you lost in purchasing power.
So because of the bond, you gained $19.02 in purchasing power. (28.34-9.32)
What throws people off is the lack of a time reference. I'd argue this done maliciously, so let me be more specific.
In 2020, because of that bond, you are able to buy 19.02 2015-USD more snickerdoodles than you could in 2015... but the cash register will have read 28.34 2020-USD.
The purpose of money is to preserve purchasing power through time. Because of intentional inflation, your currency is actually losing purchasing power all day long.
Bonds and saving's accounts are meant to counter the very problem that government and the banks intentionally created for you. "I'm stealing your money. Quick! Give it to me now and I promise to steal less of it over time!"
Okay, so let's say you don't live in the US. Let's say you live in Venezuela.
Same example. If you had had 100 2015-Bolivars in your pocket it would be worth... um... 5e-9... which is actually worth less than the paper it's printed on. When your currency is worth less than itself, that's a sign of inflation. Remember that the next time John Green rants about pennies.
But let's say you were a mad man and trusted the Venezuelan government to pay back your bonds, and because you were a party loyalist, they did!
But let's say that the bond's interest rate is -5% every year. You're left with 77.84 Bolivars. Now, as bad as that is, it's better than the literally worthless paper in your pocket. Just make sure they don't pay you back the Bolivar in cash (which is what most governments try to do).
That should tell you what investors are thinking when they are buying German government bonds at negative interest rates, they expect inflation to be so bad, that taking a guaranteed loss is better than them keeping currency in their pockets.
Well, yeah.
Alright, I think I understand the negative yield thing. It's..a horrible setup to have expected inflation be so high.
I'm curious if you were wanting another motivation to be at play here? As much as I'd personally like it if people were motivated purely by wanting to further their communities and the usefulness of currently inescapable governing bodies, I don't actually expect others to be so motivated.
It's a bit of a blackpill topic, so I don't speak of it much, but what do you consider to be the primary motivators behind this planned inflation thing that seemingly every nation must suffer? I just shorthand the blame to central banking sometimes, but I know I'm missing some data.
Going off of gut instinct, I want to blame the stock market because I get warning signs over that easy-money, no-value, gambling-for-adults racket. I've even managed to get a few friends to agree with me on stocks being untrustworthy or "wrong", but ultimately, they feel they have no choice but to invest because of inflation/devaluation/random economics jargon. I hate that - people feeling forced into a specific action because of pressure from all angles. That's part of why I immediately jumped to financial reasoning for bonds.
I'm not gonna bother asking "How do we delete inflation?", it's enough to just understand why it's being forced everywhere all the time. I imagine the federal reserve and our debt-based currency is part of America's problem here, but I don't think that explains things in other nations. Money stuff and globalized systems tend to make me angry, and so I kind of shut them out of my mind, leaving me lacking on a lot of data.
Assuming vote counters aren't actively stealing elections, a democracy is a direct reflection of the people comprising it. The proportion of those people who are productive, responsible, and moral determines the health of the democracy.
In the case of America, our population was simultaneously replaced and corrupted by mass immigration and Cultural Marxism, respectively. All of this kicked off during the 1960s, when Hart-Cellar lit the fuse on our demographic demise and radical leftists took over academia, news media, and entertainment. Now every yearly "class" of immigrants represents a substantial net voter gain for anti-American interests, and every new generation of native born citizens is increasingly indoctrinated to despise and destroy their own country.
In short: we didn't gatekeep our borders or our critical institutions, so now we're locked in a democracy with people who are using their votes to burn down the country - and their numbers have surpassed critical mass.
Theoretically, the constitution should protect us from these people. What we've seen over the last several decades is that they don't care what the constitution says. They're going to do whatever they can with whatever power they manage to secure. The only thing the constitution really does is tell us when to start shooting.
McCarthy was right, change my mind.
I could try, but it would take fifty years of dedicated propaganda in schools and mass media, and I still wouldn't be able to guarantee success.
It really depends on how far back you want go. You could say the Magna Carta ruined everything. Hell, you could blame Eve for listening to the fucking (((snake)))!
The most fundamental problem IMO goes right back to the beginning in thinking of voting as a human right. Voting is a means of making decisions, and the useful thing about democracy is combining a lot of little input signals to steer a big ship. Come up with a system that excludes me from voting, and I might be butthurt about it, but I'd much rather live in a society where the people that can vote make the correct decisions than in one where I can vote but so can every idiot, and the worst decisions are made.
When the government taxes property though, do you really own it? But largely it would seem that removing some such requirement to own land or at least pay more in taxes than you get back has doomed the Republic.
I lean toward ayn rand style minarchy where we do need a government to handle external defense and to provide a framework under which contracts can be enforced and disputes can be resolved non-violently but very little else. Even with just those basic functions the whole thing needs to be paid for somehow and property taxes are as good a way as any.
I argue that the government should be functioning solely off of Bonds.
That’s basically what Alexander Tyler wrote in his political treatise. He posited no democracy could last once the people realized they could vote benefits from the public coffers.