Oddbean

This guy has it all wrong anyway. The USA is a Constitution Republic. The only "democracy" involved is on election day when people vote and you have democratically elected leaders. At any other time it is a Constitutional Republic. Very simple really.

Of course our republic is being abused by personal definitions of democracy, ie. the liberals stating that Trump will destroy our democracy and authoritarian laws, but again its basically a misunderstanding of terminology.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that the constitution is one of the most beautiful, insightful and freeing documents ever written. Whatever happened to the USA historically as it drifted away from its foundations is another matter.

Hahahaha Its my way of saying that I've heard "everyone is entitled to thier opinion" so many times from people who have no real arguments or points to make that it has just become laughable. An unintentional punchline.

Article 4 of the Cuban constitution as an example: The defense of the socialist homeland is the greatest honor and supreme duty of every Cuban. Treason is the most serious of crimes, whoever commits it is subject to the most severe penalties. The socialist system that this Constitution endorses is irrevocable

The Constitution was a psyop to introduce authoritarianism. Just like today, its rationale depended on psyops: whiskey rebellion, shayes rebellion. The Bill of Rights got the anti-federalists to play along with slipping the Constitution onto the people. Within 10 years of introducing it, future amendments stopped focusing on improving the lot of the people, and instead focused on empowerment of the central government.

Nah... Which founding father said "We've given you a republic now lets see if you can keep it"? Which of the first 10 amendments centralized government control? Anyway you made my point that no matter what happened to the USA historically, the constitution was no psyop from the beginning lolol.

The anti-federalists, the ones who were against the Constitution, like Patrick Henry, demanded the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) before they would sign on. So the authoritarian feds appeased them to get their centralized power psyop through. Subsequent amendments (beyond the first 10 which you still failed to understand) are pretty much all focused on consolidating power, exactly as the anti-federalists warned. https://i.nostr.build/u9b9N0SvCS5TdWsx.jpg

Stop telling me what I don't understand. I'm familiar with all of that and simply called you out on calling the Constitution a "psy-op" which is patently ridiculous. Of course there were different factions but the original idea was never to impinge on the rights of man but to recognize and honor them.

The justice system was intended to protect the individual, but it is twisted to defend the party when it is coopted by the government. Justice cannot survive democracy or republic. It must be completely independent, as in, not part of the government. Law is something that is discovered by men, not dictated by men. A man can no more dictate the morality of rape, theft, assault and murder than he cam dictate the laws of gravitation, electric and magnetic fields, or the density of gold. The police, the bar, the courts, all must be private organizations functioning independent from government. When justice and money is separated from the state, there is no longer a need for legislation. From there, the only remaining function of government is to regulate the militia.

Your 2nd and 3rd sentences bend the definition of government in my mind into something I don't recognize. What is government if not the monopoly on the use of force in order to defend the law? If it is something else, I don't think we need it. But I do think you have pointed out something of critical import that is not well understood. I wouldn't be as absolute as you, but law derives from nature. Laws that work well must be in line with nature and in that sense, such laws are discovered by men, not created by or dictated by them. But only to a degree. The real situation is far messier once you get into the details. Theft depends on a shared agreement as to ownership which isn't always clearly agreed upon. Rape depends upon the will of the victim which cannot easily be adjudicated (believe all women?), and what about age of consent does nature give you an absolute number? Murder depends upon whether or not it is just (in defense of your family for example). Principles can be stated, but details will always exist making the whole affair a giant mess that few people want to soil themselves with, other than those whose minds were soiled already (typically the lawyers). I would be in favor of a nation whose citizens voluntarily joined (and contains no other citizens) which is founded on foundational law that cannot change, not by any democratic or republic means, and if those laws become "bad" you are free to quit, but you cannot change the foundation... but which then has subservient laws and rules that hierarchically have different statuses and which can be changed and are voted upon perhaps by democratic vote, perhaps by republican representation, or whatever.