Ray. I think you would have been better served studying Twain rather than Aristotle. He understood democracy but Aristotle did not, never having encountered one. You likewise.
I wish more people understood the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. But I have to agree with your comments on where we are currently at. Welfare was abused to the Nth degree. Probably designed that way as everything "they" create has an ulterior goal, and its not for the good of the people. Stealing from the working to give to the non-working who'll never contribute to society. Why should they? I also wish people understood that the government doesn't produce a damn thing, other than problems. What sickens me most is when any politician claims they will tax the rich. Never seen that happen in my lifetime. Its long past the time of quenching the Tree of Liberty. Allowing anyone who wants to inhabit our country for freebies is a major, major mistake. More burden on us tax payers. If only these illegals knew they're next on the kill list.
The only way out of the freemason crystal maze is to build a new system from scratch with the following keynotes:
Money: it’s a bad idea that Government has a monopoly of anything, especially currency. Anything of worth should be legal tender, even vouchers, IOUs, warrants, etc. Communities should be entitled to run their own monetary system, based on real assets. No only gold, silver, copper, platinum, lithium, precious metals and minerals, but also barter vouchers such as a pound/kg of flour, a gallon/liter of gasoline, human hours, distance transported (humans, volume, weight, special care).
Townhall Direct Democracy: votes should never be anonymous. Face to face contact is important in an era of deep fake and fake news, but even more for accountability. Representative democracy isn’t necessary if there are efficient and safe voting systems. You represent yourself, though you have the power to delegate your voting power to different representatives for different topics/mandates for a limited time and recover it whenever you want, even before the period is over.
Direct spending: those that vote believing that their votes count, also believe that they have to obey and endure whatever “their” representative government commands, because they voted for it. This can easily be solved by constitutional restrictions with severe punishment for any violation, especially, spending more than income should be forbidden and jailed. But that won’t stop the corruption, therefore we need direct spending: the federal, state and county incomes are divided by all the inhabitants (including the unborn), and you get to decide where every single proportionate cent is going to be spend in public goods and services. There’s a Spanish saying: “the eye of the master, fattens the cattle”. Direct spending would reduce bureaucracy, corruption, inefficiency, waste, unmet needs and government spending in things that are not a priority for the people. Deficit and borrowing should be illegal. After some years of solving critical problems, people will find harder to justify projects with low socio-economic net present value or internal rate of return, thus surplus would be returned to tax payers, and eventually, taxes lowered: it seems to be the only realistic mechanism to stop the spiral of government deficit and debt, where banksters take hostage future generations and politicians have nothing to lose by increasing spending and everything to win in terms of each group of voters thinking they are taking advantage of their politician/party by receiving more than the rest (e.g. detaxing the rich!).
Brutal transparency: reps should live stream at all possible times (not only working hours). All budgets, bids and transactions should be open for online scrutiny.
Democratic justice: community courts should be formed by people: the number of judges in the court is decided by the community. They could be elected for a certain period by chance or by vote, from a list of those capable of interpreting texts or from a list of lawyers. The same, for higher appeal courts. There’s no true democracy if natural law, including natural human rights, isn’t above the Constitution.
The police should be a local force. The captain should be elected.
The penitentiary system should be community based and directed towards reformation and paying back damages. House arrest or fenced working zones should be the norm.
My little contribution to the discussion:
The 2020 and 2022 rigged and stolen elections (it’s the machines!):
Yup, I never understood how blood-sweat-tears an' some good thinkin' gave us (at the start) a purdy decent republic (on paper...) and a good blueprint to refer to fer keepin' it... an' the damned finger-painters (who erased a lotta elegant John Hancocks...) made a mess've the whole thing--smeared it, mangled it, and "fer simplicity" told everyone we had a DEMOCRACY as if that was a "good thing" to spread around like manure! (how Francis Bacon knew about manure makes me "wunder...") Since that time it's indeed been a lot've manure--an' sadly not the organic kind from which GOOD things grow!
Helots wern't part of Sparta a small town in Laconia. They were the subjects of Sparta elsewhere.
But to be honest I am a complete atheist on Sparta. The big town at the time in that region was Argos not Sparta (a small village according to the Iliad). I think Sparta was a complete invention after the fact.
«For years now, Westerners have been living in democratic societies in which this quite unreliable mode of political control is taken to mean everything to all people. Hence, being undemocratic is tantamount to being criminal – because the government of equals is sacrosanct, and considered as built upon moral principle on the same level of “Thy shall not kill!” commandment.
Yet, there’s nothing intrinsically morally binding in democracy, as much as there’s no such thing as ‘government of equals.’
People fall into this illusion because of an assumption that political life and – even more so – the legal system are the ultimate playgrounds of good and evil, whereas they most certainly are not. There were, and there are, authoritarian regimes which on average, weigh upon the shoulders of far better men than those inhabiting so-called ‘developed’ nations and modern democracies.
To add insult to injury, people leading the actual contemporary democracies don’t actually suffer challenge to their power. The ideal about which we are speaking of is a fig leaf – and rather a small one – concealing something called oligarchy.
In this sense, I never had illusions about actual democracies. But, as a political atheist, I also never believed in the ideal of democracy which is properly an object of political theology: the thought that relies upon premise that man and society can be essentially, revolutionary, transformed.
When observing the acts of masses of humanity, I find it obvious that “people’s will” is often far better suited to organize a lynching party rather than to rule itself. But this doesn’t in the least fill me with resentment towards my fellow men. Sometimes anger, sometimes sorrow – most often resignation – but never resentment. However bad they can get, the moment you feel yourself as somehow morally superior, I bet you dime to a dollar that one of them will surprise you and put you to shame by act of selflessness. And then, one is obliged to remember that everything he says about human beings, he also says about himself.
That said… The Democratic Man can have none of this. Either you are damned, or you are the Saint. […] The dangerous man, however, is the true believer in democracy; the real villain and enemy of democracy is the one who evangelises and worships it, and at one moment begins to lose his faith. Or gets radicalized in it. […]»
Aristocrats, Ray. Aristotle favored Aristocrats. Aristocracy, in theory, is the next-best constitution after monarchy (because the ruling minority will be the best-qualified to rule), but in practice Aristotle preferred a kind of constitutional democracy, for what he called “polity” is a state in which rich and poor respect each other’s rights and the best-qualified citizens rule with the consent of all.
We tend to think of our Founders in light of legendary history of this nation as quasi-Aristocrats. And many were. As was the creation of Federal power to favor the merchant class and landholders. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers. Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves. More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a "cohesive" elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially federal bonds) and economic standing. Beard examined the occupations and property holdings of the members of the convention from tax and census records, contemporaneous news accounts, and biographical sources, demonstrating the degree to which each stood to benefit from various Constitutional provisions. Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the American Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded.
I have been wondering about elections and taxes; at what point is it incumbent upon a human being to withdraw support for current governing bodies. What would the gov have to do to encourage folks to abandon these systems entirely to survive or thrive? Congradulations are in order, I suppose, they have done it, made rebels out of what were cooperative though disgruntled citizens. There is now no reward whatsoever to engaging in voting and taxes, only penalty. I still can smell the steel of the trap.
Ray. I think you would have been better served studying Twain rather than Aristotle. He understood democracy but Aristotle did not, never having encountered one. You likewise.
I suggest We opt for a solutocracy...
Solutocracy (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/solutocracy:c?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
And get rid of the need for money.
Money Enslaves Us (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-enslaves-us
I wish more people understood the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. But I have to agree with your comments on where we are currently at. Welfare was abused to the Nth degree. Probably designed that way as everything "they" create has an ulterior goal, and its not for the good of the people. Stealing from the working to give to the non-working who'll never contribute to society. Why should they? I also wish people understood that the government doesn't produce a damn thing, other than problems. What sickens me most is when any politician claims they will tax the rich. Never seen that happen in my lifetime. Its long past the time of quenching the Tree of Liberty. Allowing anyone who wants to inhabit our country for freebies is a major, major mistake. More burden on us tax payers. If only these illegals knew they're next on the kill list.
I disagree, or at least am not convinced, of a few things here. I wish I had time to spell them out.
The only way out of the freemason crystal maze is to build a new system from scratch with the following keynotes:
Money: it’s a bad idea that Government has a monopoly of anything, especially currency. Anything of worth should be legal tender, even vouchers, IOUs, warrants, etc. Communities should be entitled to run their own monetary system, based on real assets. No only gold, silver, copper, platinum, lithium, precious metals and minerals, but also barter vouchers such as a pound/kg of flour, a gallon/liter of gasoline, human hours, distance transported (humans, volume, weight, special care).
Townhall Direct Democracy: votes should never be anonymous. Face to face contact is important in an era of deep fake and fake news, but even more for accountability. Representative democracy isn’t necessary if there are efficient and safe voting systems. You represent yourself, though you have the power to delegate your voting power to different representatives for different topics/mandates for a limited time and recover it whenever you want, even before the period is over.
Direct spending: those that vote believing that their votes count, also believe that they have to obey and endure whatever “their” representative government commands, because they voted for it. This can easily be solved by constitutional restrictions with severe punishment for any violation, especially, spending more than income should be forbidden and jailed. But that won’t stop the corruption, therefore we need direct spending: the federal, state and county incomes are divided by all the inhabitants (including the unborn), and you get to decide where every single proportionate cent is going to be spend in public goods and services. There’s a Spanish saying: “the eye of the master, fattens the cattle”. Direct spending would reduce bureaucracy, corruption, inefficiency, waste, unmet needs and government spending in things that are not a priority for the people. Deficit and borrowing should be illegal. After some years of solving critical problems, people will find harder to justify projects with low socio-economic net present value or internal rate of return, thus surplus would be returned to tax payers, and eventually, taxes lowered: it seems to be the only realistic mechanism to stop the spiral of government deficit and debt, where banksters take hostage future generations and politicians have nothing to lose by increasing spending and everything to win in terms of each group of voters thinking they are taking advantage of their politician/party by receiving more than the rest (e.g. detaxing the rich!).
Brutal transparency: reps should live stream at all possible times (not only working hours). All budgets, bids and transactions should be open for online scrutiny.
Democratic justice: community courts should be formed by people: the number of judges in the court is decided by the community. They could be elected for a certain period by chance or by vote, from a list of those capable of interpreting texts or from a list of lawyers. The same, for higher appeal courts. There’s no true democracy if natural law, including natural human rights, isn’t above the Constitution.
The police should be a local force. The captain should be elected.
The penitentiary system should be community based and directed towards reformation and paying back damages. House arrest or fenced working zones should be the norm.
My little contribution to the discussion:
The 2020 and 2022 rigged and stolen elections (it’s the machines!):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-2020-american-coup
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
J6: what THEY don't want YOU to know
The fake riot was mason-planned, incited and guided by FBI agents, who broke into the Capitol !!!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/j6-what-you-need-to-know
Dominion over US
You can’t make this stuff up. Do they laugh in our faces? Was the name Dominion chosen to prove their dominion?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/dominion-over-us
A Republic or a Democracy? Are we crazy to accept demo-crazy?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/democracy-democrazy
It sucks! We need to improve democracy… how about REAL democracy?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/reinventing-democracy
Yup, I never understood how blood-sweat-tears an' some good thinkin' gave us (at the start) a purdy decent republic (on paper...) and a good blueprint to refer to fer keepin' it... an' the damned finger-painters (who erased a lotta elegant John Hancocks...) made a mess've the whole thing--smeared it, mangled it, and "fer simplicity" told everyone we had a DEMOCRACY as if that was a "good thing" to spread around like manure! (how Francis Bacon knew about manure makes me "wunder...") Since that time it's indeed been a lot've manure--an' sadly not the organic kind from which GOOD things grow!
Helots wern't part of Sparta a small town in Laconia. They were the subjects of Sparta elsewhere.
But to be honest I am a complete atheist on Sparta. The big town at the time in that region was Argos not Sparta (a small village according to the Iliad). I think Sparta was a complete invention after the fact.
Gave me a headache; it may be unsolvable. Ha, what IF? it's unsolvable?
Am I glad to be 'Sola Scriptura', simple, clean, good. Worship
on Sabbath, 7th day. All through the bible. No sun worship for us.
No condemning either. But what I hear sounds crazy.
Iesous (Jesus) said 'Serve God or Mammon'. Mammon is clear.
«For years now, Westerners have been living in democratic societies in which this quite unreliable mode of political control is taken to mean everything to all people. Hence, being undemocratic is tantamount to being criminal – because the government of equals is sacrosanct, and considered as built upon moral principle on the same level of “Thy shall not kill!” commandment.
Yet, there’s nothing intrinsically morally binding in democracy, as much as there’s no such thing as ‘government of equals.’
People fall into this illusion because of an assumption that political life and – even more so – the legal system are the ultimate playgrounds of good and evil, whereas they most certainly are not. There were, and there are, authoritarian regimes which on average, weigh upon the shoulders of far better men than those inhabiting so-called ‘developed’ nations and modern democracies.
To add insult to injury, people leading the actual contemporary democracies don’t actually suffer challenge to their power. The ideal about which we are speaking of is a fig leaf – and rather a small one – concealing something called oligarchy.
In this sense, I never had illusions about actual democracies. But, as a political atheist, I also never believed in the ideal of democracy which is properly an object of political theology: the thought that relies upon premise that man and society can be essentially, revolutionary, transformed.
When observing the acts of masses of humanity, I find it obvious that “people’s will” is often far better suited to organize a lynching party rather than to rule itself. But this doesn’t in the least fill me with resentment towards my fellow men. Sometimes anger, sometimes sorrow – most often resignation – but never resentment. However bad they can get, the moment you feel yourself as somehow morally superior, I bet you dime to a dollar that one of them will surprise you and put you to shame by act of selflessness. And then, one is obliged to remember that everything he says about human beings, he also says about himself.
That said… The Democratic Man can have none of this. Either you are damned, or you are the Saint. […] The dangerous man, however, is the true believer in democracy; the real villain and enemy of democracy is the one who evangelises and worships it, and at one moment begins to lose his faith. Or gets radicalized in it. […]»
https://21stcenturywire.com/2016/07/15/bedtime-for-democracy-a-dialectics-of-resentment/
Aristocrats, Ray. Aristotle favored Aristocrats. Aristocracy, in theory, is the next-best constitution after monarchy (because the ruling minority will be the best-qualified to rule), but in practice Aristotle preferred a kind of constitutional democracy, for what he called “polity” is a state in which rich and poor respect each other’s rights and the best-qualified citizens rule with the consent of all.
We tend to think of our Founders in light of legendary history of this nation as quasi-Aristocrats. And many were. As was the creation of Federal power to favor the merchant class and landholders. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers. Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves. More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a "cohesive" elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially federal bonds) and economic standing. Beard examined the occupations and property holdings of the members of the convention from tax and census records, contemporaneous news accounts, and biographical sources, demonstrating the degree to which each stood to benefit from various Constitutional provisions. Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the American Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded.
I have been wondering about elections and taxes; at what point is it incumbent upon a human being to withdraw support for current governing bodies. What would the gov have to do to encourage folks to abandon these systems entirely to survive or thrive? Congradulations are in order, I suppose, they have done it, made rebels out of what were cooperative though disgruntled citizens. There is now no reward whatsoever to engaging in voting and taxes, only penalty. I still can smell the steel of the trap.
Good Morning and touché!
Good discussion. More later. This opens a great pathway to even more meaningful discussions. Thanks.