"you cannot get “smarter guys next time” or “educate the demos so that democracy provides liberty” because democracy itself is antithetical to liberty and morality. democracy is mob rule supplanting self-rule."
If one looks at how voting worked at the time of the framing, generally only land was taxed, and only landowners got to vote. This was not a mistake. The system was designed for the only people to have a say in the government were literally the people paying for it.
Consider that in the 1770's one had to likely be on the right side of the bell curve (or at least not the far left side) to have enough economic success to to own land, pay taxes, and vote.
This system was immediately attacked and eroded over the coming years and culminated in the ratification of the 19th amendment.
My unpopular thought is that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote. If you don't pay, you don't play. Allowing persons with no skin in the game encourages grifter politicos to run, garner their votes, and on a long timeline you get Bernie's, Barack's, and AOC's running the show. You get democracy by default.
would need to be "net" taxpayers. probably 60-70% of americans pay some tax. only about 25% pay any tax net of benefits they recieve.
that's the group you need voting.
also: anyone who goes on the doles, welfare, snap, medicaid, loses their vote and does not get it back for 12 months once they stop getting benefits. you can be subsidized by the state or have a say in the state, not both.
Considering we can’t even get worthless Republicans to pass SAVE, a policy where only significant tax payers could vote would never fly - at least in the current morally corrupt & cowardly “Congress” we have now.
unless...we can revert to first principles. Basic problem solving:
1. recognize it's not working
2. identify what is not working
3. understand why it is not working
As a young student I learned that when things weren't making sense, backing up to first principles would lead to understanding where it went wrong. Our first principles as a nation are the declaration and the constitution. IMO the solution is in those words - as written, not as wished or interpreted by clever well educated lawyers, but as written.
One major failure from our framers, as I have posted previously, is to assume a moral and ethical elected class. This resulted in no prescribed penalties for passing un-Constitutional laws. The thought that the words "congress shall pass no law..." would be sufficient. They were mistaken. We have had congress-critters literally say that it is not their job to determine the constitutionality of a law they pass but that of the Supreme Court.
Yes, the failure to pass the SAVE Act proves that it was actually pointless to elect a Republican majority. Given the clear opportunity to do the right thing, they don't.
Read up on what George Washington said about national parties. They undermine the representative republic. They are exactly the competing mobs described above!
A third party results in the “two wolves and a sheep deciding on the dinner menu” scenario. Read eugyppius’ Substack for how screwed up Germany is with their multiple parties, always looking to form coalitions and ostracize any party that promotes reforms to prevent them from having any influence.
When this bill comes up, I always ask a basic question of those espousing an opinion: have you read the bill? I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you probably have, or at least given it a skim. Typically those preaching it's evils have not even sought to find the text, often have no idea how one would and, when I show them how easy it is to find, reject the notion they should. Why is that?
Because they've "been told" by the "leaders" of their political party, the fictional news source they elect to view, that it is bad. They parrot the story without verification, logical consistency check or conscious thought.
When my son was about 10, we had gathered with friends at my fathers home. One of his oldest (in both senses) friends was a retired Rabbi. He and my 10 year old were discussing the meaning of "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", Rabbi asserting that this has meaning only with belief in the divine, and asking my son to argue against that idea. After a moments thought, the obvious answer: if you do not believe in the divine, then the "creator" would be mom and dad. Rabbi smiled and then asked the question: "so what do YOU think is true?". The sense of responsibility of that question wasn't lost on the 10 year old or the 32 year old he's become. He learned that it is his responsibility to think, to understand, and not blindly follow. BTW his 10 year old answer, which I'm sure is the same today, was that we are nothing without knowing that there is something larger than ourselves.
I actually think it is a fact that they DON’T read the vast majority of bills because they’re often hundreds or thousands of pages AND dropped mere hours b4 a vote.
Remember the “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” saw from that corrupt & drunken hag, Pelosi? And the “what’s in it” is invariably very bad for the citizenry.
That is a tactic, in deed. It is intentional. I'd not call it a "bug" or "feature" exactly. The word "crime" comes to mind.
Here's a rule of thumb: if you can't understand it (and that means read it in a single lifetime), those tasked with implementing it won't either, and thus it is most likely a bad law. And what you've been told it will do is probably wrong.
The ANA is an example: Most people still have no idea what it contains, and the Party uses this by simply telling you what is in it based on what they think helps them achieve the greatest expansion of their power at the moment. The claims will change over time, despite the law not being changed. The actual content is not politically relevant: It contains what they tell you it contains, and far too many people accept that.
This is a powerful political tool. Carefully coordinated and enforced ignorance is proven method of control and oppression.
While making wholesale changes to the constitution to get back to more of what the framers intended lets repeal (or realistically restrict 5% max) income tax too, get rid of direct election of senators, authorize feds to verify voter rolls, and put in some term limits.
The federal government has no control over elections in the constitution for a reason. It is left to the legislators of the several states because it is harder (in theory) to corrupt multiple points than a single point of corruption.
IMO if we restore the power to state legislatures, which means eliminating the hold that national political parties have over state legislators, and people vote for candidates and not party affiliation, then the "term limit" problem solves itself. I'm pretty sure if even a third of voters looked at the record instead of party affiliation, few incumbents would win more than 1 or 2 terms ;-).
I generally agree, but there needs to be a basic minimum, enforceable federal standard for eligibility. It should include citizenship and net tax payer requirements.
The law in every state (even California) requires US citizenship to vote. Several states (e.,g. California) ignore their state's law. The law in every state (even California) makes it illegal anyone other than the registered voter to cast their ballot. Several states such as California ignore their state's law.
One could argue that by ignoring their own law the states are violating the civil rights of voters. This would be a basis for federal intervention. I'm conflicted. On one hand, it is the responsibility of the people of the state to keep their legislature representative, and federal control compromises that power. On the other hand, I live in California, where one party has corrupted the elections so as to assure one-party rule, and legislators are beholding to the party, not the people.
Seems to me to restore the power of the people we need to restrict the power of national parties. But increasing the power of the federal government is dangerous. Both national party and federal power undermine the foundation of the representative republic.
But, how has that worked out. Goes back to the point of being able to the Alexander Fraser Tyler quote about "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
Right, that's what I wonder. It's not about "skin in the game" (everyone has that); it's about avoiding/mitigating "clear conflicts of interest" (like we all agree on what those be, right?!). Which is fun to think about, but probably not realistic.
One trick we haven't tried would be to assign positions based on a lottery - fully representational of the populace, impossible for corporations et at to muck with it since anyone that's in the system will be out after four years, which also makes political nobility impossible.
I haven't the slightest if it'd work better, but it would remove a lot of problems (while undoubtedly creating new ones).
Thats a nice idea in theory, but its a slippery slope. What about people that work for gov contractors? Outside engineering/construction for gov contractors? Business that sell to the gov?
I also think its a bad idea to exclude the servicemen and service women - the only people that have literal skin in the game.
I love this idea for so many reasons. It would definitely cut down on the lines on election days. Net contributors are the minority, if we did the responsible thing and cut cut cut welfare and other social programs we could get more net contributors too. People would have an incentive to be a net contributor so they had a say in their lives. I love this idea. Of course it’ll probably never happen, but I’m prone to enjoying a good dream.
"Unlike standard political models where leaders seek to maximize overall economic welfare, the Curley Effect posits that politicians may prefer inefficient policies because the resulting waste acts as a mechanism to induce the emigration of political opponents. This strategy inverts the traditional Tiebout sorting model: rather than mobile citizens disciplining bad government, mobility allows incumbents to consolidate power by shrinking the tax base and altering demographic composition in their favor."
So, while I mostly agree with Gato here, let's try a fun thought experiment: How would this system apply to, say, someone living in NH but working for the MA, VT, or ME state government? Do they get to vote in NH? Federally? Locally? Also, what about something like foster care subsidies? You're "subsidized" by the state, but only for a service provided -- your system might blow that up completely. And what about Social Security, if you paid in dutifully for 50 years, if you want it back, do you not get to vote anymore?
Which is how we started, with only property-owning heads of families voting. That system decayed into the one we are now afflicted with. Why would it be different this time round?
That's the question I posed in my below comment in another thread: how can we design a republic the people can keep over long timelines? Is this one salvageable with the right constitutional ammenments?
Skin in the game…it changes the way people think. Only taxpayers vote and only if the majority of their income does NOT come from a government entity such as Medicare or other contracted services.
Show me a present day democracy that works (one that is responsive to voters).
The US? Canada? The UK? Germany? (the ones I’m most familiar with) - all of these are far more responsive to party / corporate / ideological / financial / special interest /donors / and the media (and their own whims), than to voters.
There are no quick and effective mechanisms to bring politicians to heal or to discipline them. The parties make the operating rules for congress, the people have no say. Most of the important functions of government are effectively done “in camera”. Our elections are a low integrity crazy-quilt. We have too many laws, and many of them are intentionally vague. We routinely spend massive amounts of money, that we don’t have, in ways that often can’t be traced.
Do we really have a “Democratic” republic - or is that just a word we bandy about?
Granted, I don't have any land now, but as a widow I don't see how losing ones husband should make one a second class citizen in terms of representation especially if one is being taxed on that land.
The land tax thing is a very good idea, called Georgism.
Land can't be hidden, and land taxes are public record. Taxing land does not discourage its production, but taxing income from work discourages work, and taxing sales discourages commerce.
When the Federal income tax was passed the rates were set at 1% on incomes above $3000 ($108,000 in 2026 dollars) and 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($16,800,000). Oh, and the Federal Reserve was also created in 1913 resulting in the U.S. dollar losing 94% of its purchasing power. Can the National Mall accommodate enough scaffolds?
Change my mind: There is no way to “do democracy right this time.” No society which accepts the principle that a group can rightfully initiate force against a smaller group (or an individual) will be a moral society, ever.
I think “designing a republic” is the wrong move in the first place. But to answer what I think is the spirit of your question, I’d point you to David Friedman’s *Machinery of Freedom.* A light illustrated video that explains some of the moves Friedman makes: https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o?si=G4ZckWHJ5UVUnrer
It seems to clearly mean just what it says, that it is morally wrong as a matter of principle (i.e., irrespective of circumstances and reasons) for a group of people to initiate force against a smaller group. Which is w.d.r. bonkers.
Reminds me of the system setup in Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) where only citizens could vote or run for office. Citizenship came from service- demonstrating ability to put others ahead of yourself for a period of time.
Yet not able to vote while serving as be conflict of interests.
Really interesting and believe their were points anout how market was still capitalistic and ecen business owners viewing citizenship as low brow / community minded.
Point though being skin in game and removing conflict of interests alone inject a moral standard for traits that will be in societys leadership.
Even in Heinlein's book, that system of government sounded pretty fascist. I don't think we want to go down that road.
Economics drive peoples decision making, so if individuals paying net taxes want to vote for politicians that want to institute social security programs then that is their right. It is not within the (natural) rights of someone not footing the bill to vote themselves more social security - that is tyranny of the majority. Who wouldn't vote for a pay raise if it cost them nothing personally?
not sure if i am reading you right, but it sounds kind of like you think women shouldn't pay taxes . . . thus they would be unable to vote (which i have noticed is popular on this stack with a few anyway). interesting.
Not necessarily. Abolish the income tax. End the Fed. Introduce a (constitutionally capped! and low) national sales tax. Now everyone is a taxpayer unless they take aid of some sort which would automatically disqualify suffrage for that individual and their spouse for the next election cycle.
The progressive movement has been demolishing the US republic, piece by piece, and installing democracy in its place since the beginning of the 20th century. The 16th (income taxes) and 17th (democratically elected senators) amendments made it possible for the masses to vote to themselves the property of others.
The brainwashing is real. It was never democracy that made the U.S. prosper, but that is what was pounded into our heads from a young age. Rather it was the relative lack of overbearing government; in other words, freedom and liberty.
Exactly. The subtle lie of calling the USA a "representative democracy" versus what it is supposed to be, a republic, has resulted in a slow downfall of our society. The demos (to borrow gato's word of the day) truly believe at this point that a 51% popular majority can nullify the rights of others, such as the right to bear arms.
Canada has a "charter of rights" that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Every single "right" was trampled during covid, and especially during the trucker freedom convoy. I envy the USA their constitution.
do not be. really it is a huge joke. Plenty of trampling in the US
The states that have residents that cry and complain all the time, are the same ones that are not even experiencing any sort of "struggle" with invasion of moslims, or illegals, and plenty are on the dole.
Look at New Hampshire and Vermont for example. How many mosques? How many data centers? How many illegals or crimes?
yes, and when they come to visit these other states, for example, Virginia, they break the rules we are forced to follow. One example is the Dulles Access Road, free to airport travelers. Very often the out of state ppl use the road to save the now skyrocketing cost of the toll roads. ....And they brag about it.
The (possibly fatal) Achille's Heel of Heritage Americans is that they are still clinging desperately to the hope that they can vote themselves out of this FUBAR. The hope is rational in its conception, because the alternative to voting is going to be unbelievably ugly, but the hope is irrational in its perseverance in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it simply cannot and will not work.
The potential fatality is founded on the fact that unless that fond delusion is put away soon, it will be too late to implement the only alternative. As a Rhodesian who saw the CIA murder my nation in the name of 'equality', and who sees absolutely zero chance of Zimbabwe ever arising from the ashes, believe me that this is true.
Mourn your democracy, then bury it under a pretty marble statue, but do it quickly, friends.
Our first instinct was to not create a central government through the Articles of the Confederation – complete with term limits, freedom of speech, etc. – and to be very wary of creating a power away from the people. So, what did we do? We created a very strong central government because Alexander Hamilton created fear that the union would be dissolved. (And yes, the Articles could have been amended to include commerce.)
Our Anti-Federalist founders all warned us what would happen and Brutus summarized it best.
Brutus ended up being right about everything and yet too many people have not learned or read what Brutus (and the other better known founders like Patrick Henry and George Mason) who all said the same thing – be wary of a central government.
I recall the public school teacher refrain of "strong central government" with a twinkle in her eye as she described the federalists. Ugh, they're really never right about anything.
Too many people on the right speak of “the founding” as singular. It wasn’t. The Constitution is perhaps better called The Second Constitution.
Rothbard, in his epic work “Conceived in Liberty,” called it a counter revolution, a betrayal of the principles of the revolution (really a secession).
And also a huge con job. The federalists went around selling people a bullshit picture of what this new constitution was going to be. And it started to rot immediately. Next thing you know SCOTUS decides it has a lot more power than the text gave it.
Islam knows this game inside and out. Its 1,400-year history is the ultimate case study in ideological conquest: a relentless pattern of infiltration, demographic swamping, institutional takeover, and moral/cultural subversion — until the conquered society is no longer a democracy, a republic, or even recognizably itself. Every nation under Islamic rule today followed this roadmap. The mob doesn’t storm the gates all at once; it moves in, votes itself privileges, rigs the rules, and devours the host from within. Same story, different banner.
Don’t take my word for it, you sniveling little prick. Listen to a Christian Egyptian who survived it instead. Actually read the history of Spain — Islamic invasion, conquest, subjugation, and the Reconquista that took centuries to undo it. Think for yourself, you fucking dipshit.
“When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of Communism; we will not take it under the label of Socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under “Liberalism”, under “Progressivism”, under “Democracy”. But take it we will.”
Alexander Trachtenberg, at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944
Teaching a new generation that America is just a long history of corruption locks in the loss of faith while at the same time gaslighting that prosperity simply exists and will always exist for the taking, rather than earned through courage and liberty
Here's my question, if democracy didn't work in Athens, a city state of 300k people with maybe 60k actual voters, how does anyone think it will work with a population 1000 times larger? Whatever system we currently live under is not democracy and hasn't been for a long long time, it is only the illusion of democracy. Nothing good ever comes from voting these sociopaths into power, only worse and worse outcomes, and I'm beyond sick of hearing about defending this craptacular system. Any system that allows us to be taxed without consent, freedoms to be obliterated in the name of "public safety", and harassed to no end has no defense, only censorship and gaslighting.
"they gin up and proselytize vast song and dance numbers of justification and rationalization to describe their predatory mob piracy as virtue and justice and use the mob itself as justification for mob tyranny."
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."-- Aldous Huxley
Sad, I can sense it every day and see it in social media posts nd articles. No one expects the second marshmallow anymore. When I entered the workforce, I put my head down ,worked tirelessly, and assumed it would lead to financial success and security. The alternative would have been poverty and shame. It worked for me, but kids now get so much negative information and it’s constant in the digital world.
I agree with some, disagree on others. For example I don't think we need to "discourage boomer squatting at the expense of the young". Government shouldn't be in the business of discouraging anything that isn't actively infringing on the rights of someone else. And no one has a right to land/houses/possessions.
Owning land is actively monopolizing it, excluding all others from its use, especially the young who have no assets.
This monopolization directly infringes on the rights of others to use the land of their own country, and benefits no one else the way work and commerce do. This makes land ownership the sole legitimate target of taxation.
Marxist foolishness. You just bankrupted millions of productive farms and ranches, or drove food cost into orbit.
So I can’t own a second home to vacation in, but you can travel the world on vacation? Maybe we ban foreign travel for vacation to force money to be spent locally
Better yet, we but out of other peoples lives and let the free market go where it goes
Not Marxist at all. Marxism is the enemy of Georgism and did everything it could to suppress it.
It's always possible to pay a small percentage of the value of any productive land. Won't bankrupt anyone, but it will cut into hereditary aristocracy quite a bit.
Sure you can own as many houses as you want, as long as you compensate the rest of us for monopolizing that bit of our country.
Look, we agree on free markets for everything people produce. I'm even more of a free market guy than you, demanding no income tax at all on work and no sales tax because that inhibits commerce.
But no one created land, so taxing it does not affect its production at all. Land is a zero-sum game and no one should be able to profit from owning it at the expense of others while producing nothing at all.
No one has a right to use the "land of their own country". We fundamentally disagree on that one. A person only has the right to use the land they own. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of communism, and we've all seen that movie before.
Communism is communal ownership of everything that is produced, discouraging work and causing mass poverty.
Georgism holds that what you produce should be entirely your own, and must not be taxed at all. You get to keep all of it. This greatly encourages work.
And no sales tax would be allowed under Georgism either. Only a tax on land values. Not the buildings.
No one produced the land, so no owner should get to exclude the public, unless the owner is compensating the public for the right to monopolize it.
I'm pretty sure I posed a similar question after one of your earlier brilliant essays about whether a prescribed 2-3 year martial law was one of our only options left, but it didn't really resonate or initiate any conversation. So, I decided to do a little social experimentation among my close circle of male friends who I consider mid-wit and above. I asked, "Have we ever considered examining and measuring if the 19th amendment to the constitution has been a net positive or negative towards building a more perfect Union?" The pussified and spineless answers (mostly snarky comments) I received back were pathetic. If I were to encapsulate them in one sentence, it would be: "How dare you even ask such a vile question!" How does this relate to this essay, you might ask? Well, I might answer, "Because, by and large, women tend to be caregivers and tend to value mercy over justice and that tends to lead towards democracy and away from a constitutional republic...but only 99 out of a 100 tries. Men, on the other hand, tend to value justice over mercy and that tends to lead towards a constitutional republic and away from democracy...but only 99 out of 100 tries." If you still think I'm just a knuckle dragging sexist, I'm afraid you need to brush up on your biology, economics, and possibly sociology (but this subject can be very confusing especially when interpreted and taught by females). No, ladies and gentlemen, I'm no garden variety sexist. I've been married and monogamous for 41 years to a strong woman who I keep falling in love with every morning (okay, almost every morning) so, I'm confident in my knowledge about what women do better and worse than men, and me thinks voting is likely in the worse category. Hence, here we are, and we should talk about it, shouldn't we? Any hand wringing insults will be laughed at just prior to being entirely ignored. :)
Everyone who cares about this country should read "The Great Feminization" by Helen Andrews. Our nation is in trouble and the feminist movement is at fault. But... dig deeper and see who funded the bra-burning? You will find the communists. Everything that I have seen destroyed in my beloved country has been done under the banner of fairness, equity, and inclusion. Ouch!
Interesting thought. Polite society wants us to believe that there is no difference between men and women but there obviously is and recently I have noticed that some people are talking about this.
However, I do think diversity of thought and wisdom of the crowds generally come up with a better solution.
I think the bigger issue is that men aNd women can vote for more stuff for themselves.
Believing there is no difference between men and women is not polite. It is wrong and kicks the magnet that holds society—and life—together. Destroy it at all peril.
If I am paying taxes, I should be able to vote. Period. How that taxation is determined is another thing, but eliminating illegals and other non-productive wards of the state would go a long way before we start axing women's rights.
What baffles me always is how poorly so many of those who regard themselves as "conservatives" actually value our foundational values; they try constantly to insert into them their own factional desires. They are as dangerous as progressives are.
We have a unique Constitution, crafted by unique men. The conditions that forged such men won't come again but we have what they perfected for us. We just need to drag ourselves back to it. every time.
What conservatives poorly understand is that The Constitution was a counter revolution and a con job by the federalists.
By 1870, Lysander Spooner put it succinctly, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
In any case, whatever effectiveness it had can’t be restored. If we’re going to drag ourselves back to anything, it should be the original constitution, called the Articles of Confederation.
Read “Nullification” by Thomas E. Woods. A lot can be achieved by states ignoring tyrannical FedGov or separating entirely. I think it’s the inevitable path simply because it’s the only path.
I'm going to post an unpopular thought / idea.
"you cannot get “smarter guys next time” or “educate the demos so that democracy provides liberty” because democracy itself is antithetical to liberty and morality. democracy is mob rule supplanting self-rule."
If one looks at how voting worked at the time of the framing, generally only land was taxed, and only landowners got to vote. This was not a mistake. The system was designed for the only people to have a say in the government were literally the people paying for it.
Consider a previous article:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-summers-of-our-discontent
Consider that in the 1770's one had to likely be on the right side of the bell curve (or at least not the far left side) to have enough economic success to to own land, pay taxes, and vote.
This system was immediately attacked and eroded over the coming years and culminated in the ratification of the 19th amendment.
My unpopular thought is that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote. If you don't pay, you don't play. Allowing persons with no skin in the game encourages grifter politicos to run, garner their votes, and on a long timeline you get Bernie's, Barack's, and AOC's running the show. You get democracy by default.
would need to be "net" taxpayers. probably 60-70% of americans pay some tax. only about 25% pay any tax net of benefits they recieve.
that's the group you need voting.
also: anyone who goes on the doles, welfare, snap, medicaid, loses their vote and does not get it back for 12 months once they stop getting benefits. you can be subsidized by the state or have a say in the state, not both.
Considering we can’t even get worthless Republicans to pass SAVE, a policy where only significant tax payers could vote would never fly - at least in the current morally corrupt & cowardly “Congress” we have now.
and that, alas, is how one lands in "dictatorship."
unless...we can revert to first principles. Basic problem solving:
1. recognize it's not working
2. identify what is not working
3. understand why it is not working
As a young student I learned that when things weren't making sense, backing up to first principles would lead to understanding where it went wrong. Our first principles as a nation are the declaration and the constitution. IMO the solution is in those words - as written, not as wished or interpreted by clever well educated lawyers, but as written.
One major failure from our framers, as I have posted previously, is to assume a moral and ethical elected class. This resulted in no prescribed penalties for passing un-Constitutional laws. The thought that the words "congress shall pass no law..." would be sufficient. They were mistaken. We have had congress-critters literally say that it is not their job to determine the constitutionality of a law they pass but that of the Supreme Court.
Yes, the failure to pass the SAVE Act proves that it was actually pointless to elect a Republican majority. Given the clear opportunity to do the right thing, they don't.
A Republican majority will do a stupid thing, and a Democrat majority will do a catastrophically stupid thing.
Yes, so we need a third party.
Or...here's a thought... no parties at all!
Read up on what George Washington said about national parties. They undermine the representative republic. They are exactly the competing mobs described above!
A third party results in the “two wolves and a sheep deciding on the dinner menu” scenario. Read eugyppius’ Substack for how screwed up Germany is with their multiple parties, always looking to form coalitions and ostracize any party that promotes reforms to prevent them from having any influence.
When this bill comes up, I always ask a basic question of those espousing an opinion: have you read the bill? I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you probably have, or at least given it a skim. Typically those preaching it's evils have not even sought to find the text, often have no idea how one would and, when I show them how easy it is to find, reject the notion they should. Why is that?
Because they've "been told" by the "leaders" of their political party, the fictional news source they elect to view, that it is bad. They parrot the story without verification, logical consistency check or conscious thought.
When my son was about 10, we had gathered with friends at my fathers home. One of his oldest (in both senses) friends was a retired Rabbi. He and my 10 year old were discussing the meaning of "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", Rabbi asserting that this has meaning only with belief in the divine, and asking my son to argue against that idea. After a moments thought, the obvious answer: if you do not believe in the divine, then the "creator" would be mom and dad. Rabbi smiled and then asked the question: "so what do YOU think is true?". The sense of responsibility of that question wasn't lost on the 10 year old or the 32 year old he's become. He learned that it is his responsibility to think, to understand, and not blindly follow. BTW his 10 year old answer, which I'm sure is the same today, was that we are nothing without knowing that there is something larger than ourselves.
I actually think it is a fact that they DON’T read the vast majority of bills because they’re often hundreds or thousands of pages AND dropped mere hours b4 a vote.
Remember the “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” saw from that corrupt & drunken hag, Pelosi? And the “what’s in it” is invariably very bad for the citizenry.
That attitude is the feature, not the bug.
That is a tactic, in deed. It is intentional. I'd not call it a "bug" or "feature" exactly. The word "crime" comes to mind.
Here's a rule of thumb: if you can't understand it (and that means read it in a single lifetime), those tasked with implementing it won't either, and thus it is most likely a bad law. And what you've been told it will do is probably wrong.
The ANA is an example: Most people still have no idea what it contains, and the Party uses this by simply telling you what is in it based on what they think helps them achieve the greatest expansion of their power at the moment. The claims will change over time, despite the law not being changed. The actual content is not politically relevant: It contains what they tell you it contains, and far too many people accept that.
This is a powerful political tool. Carefully coordinated and enforced ignorance is proven method of control and oppression.
Once the kettle boils, only those with arms will vote. Buy guns and ammo.
and "keep your powder dry".
It’s appalling but not surprising
Yes exactly, net taxpayers, that's who we need.
While making wholesale changes to the constitution to get back to more of what the framers intended lets repeal (or realistically restrict 5% max) income tax too, get rid of direct election of senators, authorize feds to verify voter rolls, and put in some term limits.
Yes, I have lot of ideas like those:
https://patrick.net/post/1303173/2017-02-19-the-independence-party-platform
With you except for the last two.
The federal government has no control over elections in the constitution for a reason. It is left to the legislators of the several states because it is harder (in theory) to corrupt multiple points than a single point of corruption.
IMO if we restore the power to state legislatures, which means eliminating the hold that national political parties have over state legislators, and people vote for candidates and not party affiliation, then the "term limit" problem solves itself. I'm pretty sure if even a third of voters looked at the record instead of party affiliation, few incumbents would win more than 1 or 2 terms ;-).
I generally agree, but there needs to be a basic minimum, enforceable federal standard for eligibility. It should include citizenship and net tax payer requirements.
The law in every state (even California) requires US citizenship to vote. Several states (e.,g. California) ignore their state's law. The law in every state (even California) makes it illegal anyone other than the registered voter to cast their ballot. Several states such as California ignore their state's law.
One could argue that by ignoring their own law the states are violating the civil rights of voters. This would be a basis for federal intervention. I'm conflicted. On one hand, it is the responsibility of the people of the state to keep their legislature representative, and federal control compromises that power. On the other hand, I live in California, where one party has corrupted the elections so as to assure one-party rule, and legislators are beholding to the party, not the people.
Seems to me to restore the power of the people we need to restrict the power of national parties. But increasing the power of the federal government is dangerous. Both national party and federal power undermine the foundation of the representative republic.
But, how has that worked out. Goes back to the point of being able to the Alexander Fraser Tyler quote about "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
How about no-one employed by the state, on any level, is allowed to vote as long as they are an employee of the state?
Police, military, county dog-catcher, whatever. You take tax-money as your paycheck, you don't get to vote.
Right, that's what I wonder. It's not about "skin in the game" (everyone has that); it's about avoiding/mitigating "clear conflicts of interest" (like we all agree on what those be, right?!). Which is fun to think about, but probably not realistic.
One trick we haven't tried would be to assign positions based on a lottery - fully representational of the populace, impossible for corporations et at to muck with it since anyone that's in the system will be out after four years, which also makes political nobility impossible.
I haven't the slightest if it'd work better, but it would remove a lot of problems (while undoubtedly creating new ones).
Thats a nice idea in theory, but its a slippery slope. What about people that work for gov contractors? Outside engineering/construction for gov contractors? Business that sell to the gov?
I also think its a bad idea to exclude the servicemen and service women - the only people that have literal skin in the game.
I love this idea for so many reasons. It would definitely cut down on the lines on election days. Net contributors are the minority, if we did the responsible thing and cut cut cut welfare and other social programs we could get more net contributors too. People would have an incentive to be a net contributor so they had a say in their lives. I love this idea. Of course it’ll probably never happen, but I’m prone to enjoying a good dream.
🎯🎯🎯
With the added benefit of neutralizing The Curley Effect tactic which is all the rage on the coasts
Thanks, didn't know about this.
"Unlike standard political models where leaders seek to maximize overall economic welfare, the Curley Effect posits that politicians may prefer inefficient policies because the resulting waste acts as a mechanism to induce the emigration of political opponents. This strategy inverts the traditional Tiebout sorting model: rather than mobile citizens disciplining bad government, mobility allows incumbents to consolidate power by shrinking the tax base and altering demographic composition in their favor."
So, while I mostly agree with Gato here, let's try a fun thought experiment: How would this system apply to, say, someone living in NH but working for the MA, VT, or ME state government? Do they get to vote in NH? Federally? Locally? Also, what about something like foster care subsidies? You're "subsidized" by the state, but only for a service provided -- your system might blow that up completely. And what about Social Security, if you paid in dutifully for 50 years, if you want it back, do you not get to vote anymore?
The devil is in the details.
>would need to be net taxpayers
Which is how we started, with only property-owning heads of families voting. That system decayed into the one we are now afflicted with. Why would it be different this time round?
It would need to be codified more heavily in constitution and law. But you're correct, it would just buy us more time. Nothing lasts forever.
That's the question I posed in my below comment in another thread: how can we design a republic the people can keep over long timelines? Is this one salvageable with the right constitutional ammenments?
Skin in the game…it changes the way people think. Only taxpayers vote and only if the majority of their income does NOT come from a government entity such as Medicare or other contracted services.
Show me a present day democracy that works (one that is responsive to voters).
The US? Canada? The UK? Germany? (the ones I’m most familiar with) - all of these are far more responsive to party / corporate / ideological / financial / special interest /donors / and the media (and their own whims), than to voters.
There are no quick and effective mechanisms to bring politicians to heal or to discipline them. The parties make the operating rules for congress, the people have no say. Most of the important functions of government are effectively done “in camera”. Our elections are a low integrity crazy-quilt. We have too many laws, and many of them are intentionally vague. We routinely spend massive amounts of money, that we don’t have, in ways that often can’t be traced.
Do we really have a “Democratic” republic - or is that just a word we bandy about?
"Democracy" has becoming nothing but a thin cover story for oligarchy, as the famous Princeton study showed:
https://patrick.net/post/1246954/2014-07-26-princeton-study-usa-is-an-oligarchy
Switzerland comes closest, by a wide margin.
The reasons however are decidedly not politically correct.
How so?
obviously bandied
Land owning men.
Okay okay, we can go with land owning head of household.
I'm a woman and I would gladly give up my right to vote if it would prevent the AWFLs from voting.
I'm good with land owning head of household.
Granted, I don't have any land now, but as a widow I don't see how losing ones husband should make one a second class citizen in terms of representation especially if one is being taxed on that land.
The land tax thing is a very good idea, called Georgism.
Land can't be hidden, and land taxes are public record. Taxing land does not discourage its production, but taxing income from work discourages work, and taxing sales discourages commerce.
Agreed. If you earn a gross income of $90k a year, you take home more of your paycheck than someone earning a gross income of $100k a year.
You should always take home 100% of the pay you get from working.
It is a gross injustice to be taxed on your income from work at all.
Yes. When it was introduced, the citizens were told that the income tax would be temporary, but there is nothing more permanent than a temporary tax.
When the Federal income tax was passed the rates were set at 1% on incomes above $3000 ($108,000 in 2026 dollars) and 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($16,800,000). Oh, and the Federal Reserve was also created in 1913 resulting in the U.S. dollar losing 94% of its purchasing power. Can the National Mall accommodate enough scaffolds?
This is not unpopular in this sphere. And in my personal sphere/family...
Change my mind: There is no way to “do democracy right this time.” No society which accepts the principle that a group can rightfully initiate force against a smaller group (or an individual) will be a moral society, ever.
I think you are correct, but failing to ask the follow-up question: How can you design a republic in a way the people can keep it?
I think “designing a republic” is the wrong move in the first place. But to answer what I think is the spirit of your question, I’d point you to David Friedman’s *Machinery of Freedom.* A light illustrated video that explains some of the moves Friedman makes: https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o?si=G4ZckWHJ5UVUnrer
The only possible way to NOT accept that principle would be as a result of failing to recognize what it means.
What do you understand it to mean?
It seems to clearly mean just what it says, that it is morally wrong as a matter of principle (i.e., irrespective of circumstances and reasons) for a group of people to initiate force against a smaller group. Which is w.d.r. bonkers.
This is not an unpopular thought.
I totally agree, but, as you say it is unpopular. Each time I mention it, people look at me as if I said a blasphemy.
Reminds me of the system setup in Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) where only citizens could vote or run for office. Citizenship came from service- demonstrating ability to put others ahead of yourself for a period of time.
Yet not able to vote while serving as be conflict of interests.
Really interesting and believe their were points anout how market was still capitalistic and ecen business owners viewing citizenship as low brow / community minded.
Point though being skin in game and removing conflict of interests alone inject a moral standard for traits that will be in societys leadership.
Even in Heinlein's book, that system of government sounded pretty fascist. I don't think we want to go down that road.
Economics drive peoples decision making, so if individuals paying net taxes want to vote for politicians that want to institute social security programs then that is their right. It is not within the (natural) rights of someone not footing the bill to vote themselves more social security - that is tyranny of the majority. Who wouldn't vote for a pay raise if it cost them nothing personally?
not sure if i am reading you right, but it sounds kind of like you think women shouldn't pay taxes . . . thus they would be unable to vote (which i have noticed is popular on this stack with a few anyway). interesting.
Not necessarily. Abolish the income tax. End the Fed. Introduce a (constitutionally capped! and low) national sales tax. Now everyone is a taxpayer unless they take aid of some sort which would automatically disqualify suffrage for that individual and their spouse for the next election cycle.
excellent ideas but it would never happen.
Would data centers help with monitoring this? heck no.
The progressive movement has been demolishing the US republic, piece by piece, and installing democracy in its place since the beginning of the 20th century. The 16th (income taxes) and 17th (democratically elected senators) amendments made it possible for the masses to vote to themselves the property of others.
The brainwashing is real. It was never democracy that made the U.S. prosper, but that is what was pounded into our heads from a young age. Rather it was the relative lack of overbearing government; in other words, freedom and liberty.
Exactly. The subtle lie of calling the USA a "representative democracy" versus what it is supposed to be, a republic, has resulted in a slow downfall of our society. The demos (to borrow gato's word of the day) truly believe at this point that a 51% popular majority can nullify the rights of others, such as the right to bear arms.
Don't forget the 19th, which directly led to flooding the US with the 3rd world.
Canada has a "charter of rights" that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Every single "right" was trampled during covid, and especially during the trucker freedom convoy. I envy the USA their constitution.
the US bill of rights has not been faring terribly well either
Lack of enforcement.
Our rights here were trampled too, esp in blue states but also by the federal government w/ mandates
It's long gone.
Same. Im so jealous.
do not be. really it is a huge joke. Plenty of trampling in the US
The states that have residents that cry and complain all the time, are the same ones that are not even experiencing any sort of "struggle" with invasion of moslims, or illegals, and plenty are on the dole.
Look at New Hampshire and Vermont for example. How many mosques? How many data centers? How many illegals or crimes?
wow. and they scream really loud about democracy.
Oregon and WA state are the same way. What they have in common with NH and Vermont is being vestigial concentrations of white people. Why?
yes, and when they come to visit these other states, for example, Virginia, they break the rules we are forced to follow. One example is the Dulles Access Road, free to airport travelers. Very often the out of state ppl use the road to save the now skyrocketing cost of the toll roads. ....And they brag about it.
Yes, Canada needs a 1st Amendment and a 2nd Amendment, and a certain and swift death penalty for the slightest infringement on either one.
The (possibly fatal) Achille's Heel of Heritage Americans is that they are still clinging desperately to the hope that they can vote themselves out of this FUBAR. The hope is rational in its conception, because the alternative to voting is going to be unbelievably ugly, but the hope is irrational in its perseverance in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it simply cannot and will not work.
The potential fatality is founded on the fact that unless that fond delusion is put away soon, it will be too late to implement the only alternative. As a Rhodesian who saw the CIA murder my nation in the name of 'equality', and who sees absolutely zero chance of Zimbabwe ever arising from the ashes, believe me that this is true.
Mourn your democracy, then bury it under a pretty marble statue, but do it quickly, friends.
Our first instinct was to not create a central government through the Articles of the Confederation – complete with term limits, freedom of speech, etc. – and to be very wary of creating a power away from the people. So, what did we do? We created a very strong central government because Alexander Hamilton created fear that the union would be dissolved. (And yes, the Articles could have been amended to include commerce.)
Our Anti-Federalist founders all warned us what would happen and Brutus summarized it best.
Brutus ended up being right about everything and yet too many people have not learned or read what Brutus (and the other better known founders like Patrick Henry and George Mason) who all said the same thing – be wary of a central government.
And our current reality is proving that Brutus was right about everything, so why not go back to our first instinct and dismantle the federal government (strategically): https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/brutus-was-right-about-everything?r=76q58
I recall the public school teacher refrain of "strong central government" with a twinkle in her eye as she described the federalists. Ugh, they're really never right about anything.
This.
Too many people on the right speak of “the founding” as singular. It wasn’t. The Constitution is perhaps better called The Second Constitution.
Rothbard, in his epic work “Conceived in Liberty,” called it a counter revolution, a betrayal of the principles of the revolution (really a secession).
And also a huge con job. The federalists went around selling people a bullshit picture of what this new constitution was going to be. And it started to rot immediately. Next thing you know SCOTUS decides it has a lot more power than the text gave it.
And here we are today.
Very true. And here we are today...
Want to see a democracy with no bill of rights? Check out Australia.
Its amazing how many freedoms were removed by legislation, not even put to a vote, referendum or an election platform.
Islam knows this game inside and out. Its 1,400-year history is the ultimate case study in ideological conquest: a relentless pattern of infiltration, demographic swamping, institutional takeover, and moral/cultural subversion — until the conquered society is no longer a democracy, a republic, or even recognizably itself. Every nation under Islamic rule today followed this roadmap. The mob doesn’t storm the gates all at once; it moves in, votes itself privileges, rigs the rules, and devours the host from within. Same story, different banner.
Don’t take my word for it, you sniveling little prick. Listen to a Christian Egyptian who survived it instead. Actually read the history of Spain — Islamic invasion, conquest, subjugation, and the Reconquista that took centuries to undo it. Think for yourself, you fucking dipshit.
https://x.com/isaacrrr7/status/2061928299970916591?s=46
“When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of Communism; we will not take it under the label of Socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under “Liberalism”, under “Progressivism”, under “Democracy”. But take it we will.”
Alexander Trachtenberg, at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944
Teaching a new generation that America is just a long history of corruption locks in the loss of faith while at the same time gaslighting that prosperity simply exists and will always exist for the taking, rather than earned through courage and liberty
And the people believe we have all these guns to hunt deer
Thank god for our second
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Collect more guns now while you can.
In any city that the Mafia controls, the first thing they do is buy the judges.
Here's my question, if democracy didn't work in Athens, a city state of 300k people with maybe 60k actual voters, how does anyone think it will work with a population 1000 times larger? Whatever system we currently live under is not democracy and hasn't been for a long long time, it is only the illusion of democracy. Nothing good ever comes from voting these sociopaths into power, only worse and worse outcomes, and I'm beyond sick of hearing about defending this craptacular system. Any system that allows us to be taxed without consent, freedoms to be obliterated in the name of "public safety", and harassed to no end has no defense, only censorship and gaslighting.
Yes, "safety" is the go-to excuse for eliminating rights.
"they gin up and proselytize vast song and dance numbers of justification and rationalization to describe their predatory mob piracy as virtue and justice and use the mob itself as justification for mob tyranny."
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."-- Aldous Huxley
Sad, I can sense it every day and see it in social media posts nd articles. No one expects the second marshmallow anymore. When I entered the workforce, I put my head down ,worked tirelessly, and assumed it would lead to financial success and security. The alternative would have been poverty and shame. It worked for me, but kids now get so much negative information and it’s constant in the digital world.
And they are probably correct to not expect the second marshallow. The bag is about empty at this point.
Maybe, but that’s the attitude that the author is talking about. Only way to know is to work for it with all you have to give.
Looking at the comments below it appears a lot of people think the boomers took everything. They give up and look for a scapegoat
Here are the answers:
- mass deportations of all criminal aliens (aka "illegals") to raise wages and lower rents for actual citizens
- tariffs on foreign goods made with cheaper labor, to raise wages here
- complete elimination of the Federal Reserve and its replacement with nothing, to stop the inflation
- definition of money to be 0.9999 silver by weight alone, no "dollars", also to stop the inflation
- the Georgist Land Value Tax to discourage boomer squatting at the expense of the young
- elimination of income tax on actual work and all sales tax to boost incomes and spending power of the young
John Carter replied approvingly when I first suggested them on barsoom.substack.com:
"All great suggestions, all of which will be resisted by every person of wealth and influence..."
I agree with some, disagree on others. For example I don't think we need to "discourage boomer squatting at the expense of the young". Government shouldn't be in the business of discouraging anything that isn't actively infringing on the rights of someone else. And no one has a right to land/houses/possessions.
Owning land is actively monopolizing it, excluding all others from its use, especially the young who have no assets.
This monopolization directly infringes on the rights of others to use the land of their own country, and benefits no one else the way work and commerce do. This makes land ownership the sole legitimate target of taxation.
Marxist foolishness. You just bankrupted millions of productive farms and ranches, or drove food cost into orbit.
So I can’t own a second home to vacation in, but you can travel the world on vacation? Maybe we ban foreign travel for vacation to force money to be spent locally
Better yet, we but out of other peoples lives and let the free market go where it goes
Not Marxist at all. Marxism is the enemy of Georgism and did everything it could to suppress it.
It's always possible to pay a small percentage of the value of any productive land. Won't bankrupt anyone, but it will cut into hereditary aristocracy quite a bit.
Sure you can own as many houses as you want, as long as you compensate the rest of us for monopolizing that bit of our country.
Look, we agree on free markets for everything people produce. I'm even more of a free market guy than you, demanding no income tax at all on work and no sales tax because that inhibits commerce.
But no one created land, so taxing it does not affect its production at all. Land is a zero-sum game and no one should be able to profit from owning it at the expense of others while producing nothing at all.
No one has a right to use the "land of their own country". We fundamentally disagree on that one. A person only has the right to use the land they own. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of communism, and we've all seen that movie before.
No, Georgism is VERY different from communism.
Communism is communal ownership of everything that is produced, discouraging work and causing mass poverty.
Georgism holds that what you produce should be entirely your own, and must not be taxed at all. You get to keep all of it. This greatly encourages work.
And no sales tax would be allowed under Georgism either. Only a tax on land values. Not the buildings.
No one produced the land, so no owner should get to exclude the public, unless the owner is compensating the public for the right to monopolize it.
I'm pretty sure I posed a similar question after one of your earlier brilliant essays about whether a prescribed 2-3 year martial law was one of our only options left, but it didn't really resonate or initiate any conversation. So, I decided to do a little social experimentation among my close circle of male friends who I consider mid-wit and above. I asked, "Have we ever considered examining and measuring if the 19th amendment to the constitution has been a net positive or negative towards building a more perfect Union?" The pussified and spineless answers (mostly snarky comments) I received back were pathetic. If I were to encapsulate them in one sentence, it would be: "How dare you even ask such a vile question!" How does this relate to this essay, you might ask? Well, I might answer, "Because, by and large, women tend to be caregivers and tend to value mercy over justice and that tends to lead towards democracy and away from a constitutional republic...but only 99 out of a 100 tries. Men, on the other hand, tend to value justice over mercy and that tends to lead towards a constitutional republic and away from democracy...but only 99 out of 100 tries." If you still think I'm just a knuckle dragging sexist, I'm afraid you need to brush up on your biology, economics, and possibly sociology (but this subject can be very confusing especially when interpreted and taught by females). No, ladies and gentlemen, I'm no garden variety sexist. I've been married and monogamous for 41 years to a strong woman who I keep falling in love with every morning (okay, almost every morning) so, I'm confident in my knowledge about what women do better and worse than men, and me thinks voting is likely in the worse category. Hence, here we are, and we should talk about it, shouldn't we? Any hand wringing insults will be laughed at just prior to being entirely ignored. :)
Everyone who cares about this country should read "The Great Feminization" by Helen Andrews. Our nation is in trouble and the feminist movement is at fault. But... dig deeper and see who funded the bra-burning? You will find the communists. Everything that I have seen destroyed in my beloved country has been done under the banner of fairness, equity, and inclusion. Ouch!
Interesting thought. Polite society wants us to believe that there is no difference between men and women but there obviously is and recently I have noticed that some people are talking about this.
However, I do think diversity of thought and wisdom of the crowds generally come up with a better solution.
I think the bigger issue is that men aNd women can vote for more stuff for themselves.
Believing there is no difference between men and women is not polite. It is wrong and kicks the magnet that holds society—and life—together. Destroy it at all peril.
If I am paying taxes, I should be able to vote. Period. How that taxation is determined is another thing, but eliminating illegals and other non-productive wards of the state would go a long way before we start axing women's rights.
Not all women wear noserings.
100% correct.
What baffles me always is how poorly so many of those who regard themselves as "conservatives" actually value our foundational values; they try constantly to insert into them their own factional desires. They are as dangerous as progressives are.
We have a unique Constitution, crafted by unique men. The conditions that forged such men won't come again but we have what they perfected for us. We just need to drag ourselves back to it. every time.
What conservatives poorly understand is that The Constitution was a counter revolution and a con job by the federalists.
By 1870, Lysander Spooner put it succinctly, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
In any case, whatever effectiveness it had can’t be restored. If we’re going to drag ourselves back to anything, it should be the original constitution, called the Articles of Confederation.
Excellent plan for achieving nothing.
Read “Nullification” by Thomas E. Woods. A lot can be achieved by states ignoring tyrannical FedGov or separating entirely. I think it’s the inevitable path simply because it’s the only path.
If you got a better plan, let’s hear it.
I proposed it already. You're free to choose any plan that suits you.
“drag ourselves back into it” ain’t a plan.
I appreciate you demonstrating my point for me, Tim.