The American experimemt of unleashing human ingenuity in a free market of ideas, services and products, to succeed or fail on merit alone, is both the reason for America's success and the reason it must be destroyed. An entire planet run this way would be impossible to control and plunder. The model must be ended in failure for all to see.
And so while it is still called "capitalism", all know it is anything but. And we all know it is much easier to destroy than to create and build, and even then the project to destroy America took generations. And had to be finalized with a stolen election, because the common people can see what is happening.
Trump is certainly an imperfect instrument, but he is the one we have, and we can't let perfection be the enemy of good.
I think there may be a way forward in theory, but probably not in practice. I think the problem with the Constitution is that it defined our government in terms of rules instead of principles. The Declaration was more a statement of principles. There is a book "Freedom and the Law" by Leoni which describes the relatively recent development (beginning in the 1600's) of what he called "legislative law". In the book he outlines the many shortcomings of this now clearly failed process that is the basis of our form of government. There is also an essay by David Kelley titled "Rule-Breaking is Necessary and Moral" where he discusses the importance of principles over rules in making life's decisions. If a new Constitution were to be written in terms of the principles of individual freedom and limited government it might be more effective. That happening now is very difficult to imagine. Too much ignorance, venality, and emotion running riot. Through those same states of mind our form of government has degraded from a Republic to a Democracy. As the Founders well knew, Democracies fail and evolve into tyrannies of the majority lead by parasites and rabble-rousers. The form of government I'm imagining can't be created by a consensus of the rabble. After the collapse that is almost inevitable perhaps a small group of productive individuals will create such a government. One can only hope.
I was thinking less of the constitution than the Bill of Rights when I wrote about the principles of individual rights. That's why whatever form they give their government, the Russians would be better off forming a government to ensure individual rights than trying to form a government to embody those principles. The United States is incapable of ensuring those rights now for the reason you pointed out the concept of legislative law rather than common law defined by individual rights.
The principles (Declaration) are to be referred to as necessary when interpreting the rules (Constitution). The priciples define what is trying to be accomplished, the rules attempt to put the priciples into action.
If you would take the time to read Madison's Notes of Debates, and especially the Virginia Ratification Debates, you will see the reason the Bill of Rights exists is because of a determined insistence by many, especially Virginians Henry and Mason, that some of the specific principles be hard coded into rules. That is what the Bill of Rights is.
More spot on commentary. My comment may seem off topic but I don't think so. I'm not a blind fan of anyone anymore. The curtain has been pulled back and The Wizards are everywhere pulling their levers! Although not an acolyte ( i trust few) I recently watched a Tucker monologue. He was presenting at a meeting in Las Vegas. He started talking about the basic evil in the country and how all respect for all institutions was gone saying that rank and file folks are all angry! We are in a perilous time and 2024 would be a year marked basically by absolute craziness and anything is possible. The folks running the zoo are not going to relinquish power quietly or easily. He reinforced the concept of follow your gut feeling, it is usually correct. Folks need to study up on some self reliance concepts in order to survive. I'm agreeing with Tucker- it could get real ugly real quick. Time to pull the plug, drain the old dishwater, and start fresh. But thats just crazy me speaking.
Dugin's Eurasianism by no means supports the rights or dignity of the individual, rather the opposite: "Several Russian journalists have underscored that Dugin-style "Eurasianism" meets a number of political needs in Russia. A belief in the primacy of the rights of the individual over those of the state, journalist Evgenii Ikhlov wrote, would result in the control of civil society over the state. In Russia, by contrast, Ikhlov continued:
[O]ur new chief stratum are incapable of ruling under such a democracy.... [T]hey stand in need of an attractive foundation for another, non-democratic model. Here Eurasianism extraordinarily fits the bill. It offers the following: an authoritarian-charismatic (autocratic) model; selfless and ascetical serving of the regime as the highest form of valor (the messianic great power syndrome); the agreement of ethnic and religious minorities to play a subordinate role; and imperial xenophobia. 41" https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics
And while Dugin may make no mention of this in his Fourth Political Theory (2012) - written in English - it is a very strong theme in his Oborovny Geopolitica - Foundations of Geopolitics (1997) - written in Russian - of which I've seen no accurate English translation - many exist and every one of them seem to gloss over controversial points such as mentioned above. Dugin is a Russian nationalistic Fascist, still very much in line with the same philosophy with which he founded the National Bolshevik Party in Russia in the 1990s.
The American experimemt of unleashing human ingenuity in a free market of ideas, services and products, to succeed or fail on merit alone, is both the reason for America's success and the reason it must be destroyed. An entire planet run this way would be impossible to control and plunder. The model must be ended in failure for all to see.
And so while it is still called "capitalism", all know it is anything but. And we all know it is much easier to destroy than to create and build, and even then the project to destroy America took generations. And had to be finalized with a stolen election, because the common people can see what is happening.
Trump is certainly an imperfect instrument, but he is the one we have, and we can't let perfection be the enemy of good.
Hello and good Thanksgiving to all.
I devoured all the books in the library that I could and books my Mom had
that I was cautioned not to look at or read because they were not for children.
Natch, I read those also. I recognized early that my biggest fear would be the
push for Feudalism's return or a variation of that practice. The peoples' intellect/
critical thinking, and personal drive do align with the Bell Curve. That is one reason
"leaders" are a necessary group. People need role models to show the way forward
and people can aspire /or be inspired to lead worthwhile lives and contribute for the
good of all, cooperating with other nations for the betterment of all. This time is an
anniversary of the murder of JFK and his brother, as well as B activists seeking to improve
their lot. No one is perfect, and among leaders today we find lying, cheating, stealing
and butt kissing the monied class for more wealth and status. We are light years away
from having honorable leader...criminals the lot of them.
See this for a great summation and data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwPvxJ5a5WI&ab_channel=DarkJournalist
11/22/2023
I will read the Alexander Dugin piece at WRSA, thank you for the link
Best regards,
Suzanna
TL,
I think there may be a way forward in theory, but probably not in practice. I think the problem with the Constitution is that it defined our government in terms of rules instead of principles. The Declaration was more a statement of principles. There is a book "Freedom and the Law" by Leoni which describes the relatively recent development (beginning in the 1600's) of what he called "legislative law". In the book he outlines the many shortcomings of this now clearly failed process that is the basis of our form of government. There is also an essay by David Kelley titled "Rule-Breaking is Necessary and Moral" where he discusses the importance of principles over rules in making life's decisions. If a new Constitution were to be written in terms of the principles of individual freedom and limited government it might be more effective. That happening now is very difficult to imagine. Too much ignorance, venality, and emotion running riot. Through those same states of mind our form of government has degraded from a Republic to a Democracy. As the Founders well knew, Democracies fail and evolve into tyrannies of the majority lead by parasites and rabble-rousers. The form of government I'm imagining can't be created by a consensus of the rabble. After the collapse that is almost inevitable perhaps a small group of productive individuals will create such a government. One can only hope.
I was thinking less of the constitution than the Bill of Rights when I wrote about the principles of individual rights. That's why whatever form they give their government, the Russians would be better off forming a government to ensure individual rights than trying to form a government to embody those principles. The United States is incapable of ensuring those rights now for the reason you pointed out the concept of legislative law rather than common law defined by individual rights.
The principles (Declaration) are to be referred to as necessary when interpreting the rules (Constitution). The priciples define what is trying to be accomplished, the rules attempt to put the priciples into action.
If you would take the time to read Madison's Notes of Debates, and especially the Virginia Ratification Debates, you will see the reason the Bill of Rights exists is because of a determined insistence by many, especially Virginians Henry and Mason, that some of the specific principles be hard coded into rules. That is what the Bill of Rights is.
More spot on commentary. My comment may seem off topic but I don't think so. I'm not a blind fan of anyone anymore. The curtain has been pulled back and The Wizards are everywhere pulling their levers! Although not an acolyte ( i trust few) I recently watched a Tucker monologue. He was presenting at a meeting in Las Vegas. He started talking about the basic evil in the country and how all respect for all institutions was gone saying that rank and file folks are all angry! We are in a perilous time and 2024 would be a year marked basically by absolute craziness and anything is possible. The folks running the zoo are not going to relinquish power quietly or easily. He reinforced the concept of follow your gut feeling, it is usually correct. Folks need to study up on some self reliance concepts in order to survive. I'm agreeing with Tucker- it could get real ugly real quick. Time to pull the plug, drain the old dishwater, and start fresh. But thats just crazy me speaking.
Dugin's Eurasianism by no means supports the rights or dignity of the individual, rather the opposite: "Several Russian journalists have underscored that Dugin-style "Eurasianism" meets a number of political needs in Russia. A belief in the primacy of the rights of the individual over those of the state, journalist Evgenii Ikhlov wrote, would result in the control of civil society over the state. In Russia, by contrast, Ikhlov continued:
[O]ur new chief stratum are incapable of ruling under such a democracy.... [T]hey stand in need of an attractive foundation for another, non-democratic model. Here Eurasianism extraordinarily fits the bill. It offers the following: an authoritarian-charismatic (autocratic) model; selfless and ascetical serving of the regime as the highest form of valor (the messianic great power syndrome); the agreement of ethnic and religious minorities to play a subordinate role; and imperial xenophobia. 41" https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics
And while Dugin may make no mention of this in his Fourth Political Theory (2012) - written in English - it is a very strong theme in his Oborovny Geopolitica - Foundations of Geopolitics (1997) - written in Russian - of which I've seen no accurate English translation - many exist and every one of them seem to gloss over controversial points such as mentioned above. Dugin is a Russian nationalistic Fascist, still very much in line with the same philosophy with which he founded the National Bolshevik Party in Russia in the 1990s.