[puckerman]

(09-07-2017 08:40 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

For one, let me be clear about the following things I believe.

1) No serious political change is going to happen absent a massive collapse of the current regime. The current order cannot weaken without being consumed by chaos. To do otherwise would be like trying to renovate an enormous house of cards.

I am afraid this is true.

Quote:

2) Giving certain groups a vote is easy. Taking it away is impossible politically. There will be no bloodless re-ordering of the franchise.

This depends on the size of the group. If it's 1% or 2%, it might not be a big deal. If it's larger, it's more difficult.

Quote:

3) In the event of a massive collapse or revolution the most dominant players left on the field will decide the next form of government, and it will likely be fascist in nature, if not plainly tribally tyrannical.

That is usually how it works out. I have no idea what it will be like though.

Quote:

4)No nation in the West is still united under a Christian God, which was the fertile ground for the belief in the inherent rights of all men (as bestowed by said God).

Many of America's Founders acknowledge the role of Christianity. Christianity had been around for a long before that, however. It also influenced many of the dictatorships that existed, as well as the Inquisition.

Others believe that it was the influence of Aristotelian philosophy and a rejection of Platonism. The influence of Saint Augustine gave us the Dark Ages. The influence of Saint Thomas Aquinas gave us the Renaissance. Luther's Reformation was also a rejection of Aristotle in favor of Plato. I think we are still paying for that today.

Quote:

5) Only a small handful of academics actually respect individual rights outside of the framework of a Christian God, and they are obviously incapable of establishing a new order from the chaos of the old order's collapse/destruction.

It has never been accomplished without Christianity so far. But libertarianism is totally neutral on Christianity. Some are atheists, and some are very religious.

Quote:

With all this in mind, I'm a firm believer that there is no perfect system and that there isn't even a near-perfect system. Even the founding fathers of the American system stated plainly that eventually it would have to be torn down forcefully by those who cherished freedom. Their own carefully crafted system which was far from a universal franchise and furthermore was united under a single God in a homogeneous culture still gave them cause to regret that the tree of liberty would inevitably have to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I am well aware of what Jefferson wrote about the "tree of liberty" and having a rebellion every 20 years. The other huge mistake was establishing a system of government schools. I don't think we would have any of these problems if America never had public schools.

Quote:

So what could we hope for next that might provide a somewhat longer buffer between bloodshed? We could either try for a 2.0 version of the universal democratic franchise depending on what the electorates look like on the other side of the Hell bearing down on us, but to me it rings a bit hollow. If democracy is the least worst option we've conceived so far then I would lean toward a system not unlike that described in Heinlein's Starship Troopers where the vote must be earned in some manner.

I have long favored having legislators chosen by lottery in one branch. I don't know how one would decide who earns a vote. Poll taxes were the last bulwark against this. They should be brought back, and I will be called a racist by socialists for advocating this.

Murray Rothbard advocated that all votes should have to be write-in votes. You would have to know your candidates. The informed would vote. The ignorant would stay away.

Quote:

I have railed against socialism for years but ultimately in a world where robots are fated to step into just about every menial job ever required of the human race, the idea that the jobs market will simply adapt is ridiculous.

I am not that optimistic about technology. I am not that cynical about markets. Markets find solutions all the time.

Quote:

But the six points listed above make the whole matter moot for me. Modern libertarians are not a meaningful political force much less a military one, and I expect the younger survivors of what's coming will usher in the turn of the next century with libertarianism being relegated to merely another footnote in the evolution of human sociology.

I am not sure what to say about this. I am coming to the conclusion that Marxism may never die. It is just as alive as it was in 1988.

Will college professors always be charlatans, hucksters, and frauds? That is the question I wonder about. I hope it isn't the case. There is no reason to believe things will change though. Then again, the Ivy League schools in America were once religious.

Quote:

As a final note, in answer to your specific question of "what am I for?" I am for my family and my people. This is what sets me apart from a lot of people on the forum and makes me realise how degraded as a society we have become. If a disaster occurs and collectivist government collapses then does it really matter "what I'm for"? If the local clans band together and create a fascist regime to repel outsiders (and in doing so protect me and my family) am I to fight them to the death because I "am not for fascism"?

It's foolish to place your political beliefs above your people, but the sad reality is that most people don't have a people to identify with any more. All that's left to them is a vague code, shared by a distant few who in any case wont be there to watch your 6 when it really matters.

In the absence of having people, that is all we have. Many of us don't have a community. I think we were meant to have one, but a lot of people don't have one.

People is not a static thing. I will die. Others will die. Children are born, grow up, and take over. In the end, principles are the only things that are eternal.