"Point of Personal Privilege"... the new way to address any assembly....(*spew*)
submitted 11 months ago by HeyImSancho from (self.SundogsPlace)
view the rest of the comments →
[–]x0x7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago (2 children)
If I made a small nation (about the size of a county) where the immigration policy involved psychological screening and only the most healthy and high IQ individuals would be let it, would you be interested in moving to it?
Also it would be a psuedo-anarcho-monarchy. Basically it would be anarcho-capitalist with a head of state to fill the seat and to interact with other nations. The border is not anarchist in order to make sure only those who can abide other people's freedoms are let it and to appease the neighboring county. Build what you want, trade what you want. And super minimal taxes paid in bitcoin based on a georgist model (adjusted by population density).
[–]HeyImSancho[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago (1 child)
Allow the art, or necessity of dueling, and I'd be all in. I actually think a monarchy in many ways, or I'll say it, 'dictatorship', maybe the most efficient form of limited government.
Think about it, you would know exactly who to ask for answers, or assign blame, and be able to hold either a single person, or group accountable.
Guarantee, and enshrine Natural Inalienable Rights in this Free Republic, and I think it would be a nice place.
[–]x0x7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago* (0 children)
You would know exactly who to ask for answers.
You would know exactly who to ask for answers.
I'd like to train the people to realize that person is themselves. Natural Inalienable Rights is absolutely a thing. The idea is that law exists outside of myself. My job isn't to create law but to match law as close as I can. I'd rather do nothing than interfere with the demands of law. One demand of law is this delineation of rights to each person. An individual can't steel from you without trampling that. The government also can't trample that. If a government steps even slightly into a gray area then it should only do so for existential purposes and the protection of other people's rights. Because almost all government action does do that those are the only things government can pursue.
Not only that but if 70% of people want to hang me they can. That's in the agreement. The other aspect is democratic boarders. I'm not entirely a democratic person. Why should we constantly have a political contest for retaining our freedoms when we know what answer we would like. But people should have a right to choose what system of government they affiliate with. And so if a community on a boarder (or in general) decides they want to leave or decide they want to secede and form a new government, or an individual who's land is directly on the boarder decides he prefers the neighbors form of government then a system would exist to handle those changes. If you live on the US/Canada boarder and decide you want to be in Canada, that should be possible. Now a community changing forms of government would require a 2/3 vote because I believe there is partially a natural right to consistent government if you prefer it but there is a competing natural right for people to affiliate with the form of government they prefer. Those people can move though, but at 2/3 vote for something as drastic moving from one country to another, something is clearly there and it's the right choice for it to change.
My hope is that if this thing exists and can help set up new standards for how boarders are drawn that it will decrease war. Most boarders are a consequence of war and not from being such an effective nation that people want to join it. It completely changes the incentives for nations that want more land.
In some ways philosophy then dictates what can be done domestically, but a different philosophy governs the boarder. It could almost be said to be two separate governments with different operating principles. The boarder views itself as having absolute power and considers only the existential needs of the people and their safety. Because drugs would be legal domestically and the movement of drugs into the united states would be an existential threat to the nation, the existence of customs would exist. Boarder crossings could be quite invasive. Also because patent and copyright law wouldn't exist it could go beyond drugs.
Edit: Best part. No capital punishment except for corruption. Any misapplication of government authority by its agents, if it benefits the agent, caused harm, and was clear that the agent knew what he was doing.. that's a hanging. Big or small.
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~0 users here now
Welcome to Sundogs Place! Please feel free to share your posts and comments on this forum. We look forward to posts that encourage open discussion, debate and learning for all.
Let the free thought flow!