Porretto: A Diagram And A Question

SocialStructures
This “anarchy” the State’s boosters are always warning me against: Just how bad would it be?

Especially since we are headed there anyway….

Don’t forget that a big part of 4GW ‘winning’ involves convincing non-combatants that they will be better off with Team Insurgent than with Team Tyrant.

C’est compliqué, non?

49 responses to “Porretto: A Diagram And A Question

  1. Pingback: A Diagram and a Question … | NCRenegade

  2. outlawpatriot

    Soooo. Can I ask a question? I’m not the smartest guy here. But I would really like to hear from the more enlightened dudes.

    Where exactly does our original Constitution and Bill of Rights fit in that graphic? I think I know. But I am a duffer. I dare not hazard an opinion.

    Poretto? Klein? Peter? Kerodin? My favorite South Carolina secessionist? Bracken, what do you think? How about you Mosby? Max, you too, chime in. G, where are you at on this?

    And the rest of you. Where? Where does our original Constitution and Bill of Rights fit in this graphic?

    Conventional wisdom says we sit back on our ass, wait for collapse, then have a Mad Max moment. There’s nothing worth fighting for.

    Something ain’t right.

    • OP:

      IMHO, right on the line delineating minarchism from classical liberalism/paleo-conservatism. Roads, military, courts (mostly civil). Everything else (ESPECIALLY education) to the states or to individuals.

      Sometimes, the label on the thing distracts from the thing itself. “Constitution” is one of those times, for me anyway. It has been such a painful, wrenching transition from believer in the entire pre-Sixties social revolution American “mythology” (sneer quotes on the term, ‘cuz much of the myth was true, at least in material part) to where I am today that I am as loathe to abandon my Spoonerist skepticism as many constitutionalists are to abandon their document.

      I hope you know that I respect you and your brain. If the plan is to

      – establish individual freedom (“unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others”)
      – protected by common armed defense against all enemies foreign and domestic, by any means necessary,
      – with “governmental” functions limited severely to roads, military, and (mainly civil) courts/dispute adjudication,
      – and the “he was a natural-rights-restricting varmint who needed whacking” affirmative defense to available by right in any murder prosecution,

      and you want to call that effort “restoring the constitution”, then count me in.

      Just let me call it “a reset based on the DoI”, at least when we are playing together.
      🙂

      We still gotta win first.

      Respectfully,

      CA

      • I think you’re describing the constitutional sales pitch, not the reality.

        Where does ‘factually accurate criticism of the government is illegal’ (Alien and Sedition Acts) and ‘free-market money is illegal, and citizens are forced to pay off USA war bonds floated when the USA didn’t exist for citizens to consent to those bonds, nor could most citizens vote’ (Whiskey Rebellion) fit in your chart?

        The sales pitch never existed as a factual reality. Therefore, the constitution is not represented on that chart. You can’t restore something which never existed.

        Is your grand new compulsory scheme of centrally-planned behavior going to funded by TAXES? How about my individual freedom not to be stolen from? You’re sounding like a natural-rights-restricting varmint who needs whacking.

      • I think on the line between minarchism and voluntarism. The only roads addressed back then were post roads. Hardly applicable today. I also have a problem with “police”. No such thing for the first hundred years or so. I’ve been arguing with my daughter (she’s a teacher) about education. She thinks government should spend more, I think it should be turned over to private enterprise as it was in the beginning.

        I have no bitch with your points. And I am especially fond of the legal defense for shooting traitorous bastards. It seems I may be a bit to the right of you. 🙂

    • I’ve always had a problem with people drawing up contracts, social or otherwise, and including me in them just because.

      I’ve done thousands of real estate and construction contracts and never once included anyone that was not a signer.

      I’m not against contracts, as you can see, and believe them to be the vehicles that can join people in common goals, as long as all aspects are voluntary and agreed upon by all signers.

      When I built our new house I installed 2 high pressure landscape sprinklers on the peak of the roof that were fed by a generator powered pump that drew from our built in pool, all 28,000 gallons worth – just in case the living torches in the area decided to ignite. As this was a desolate area I also purchased and installed all of the materials to pave our entire 800′ long street, because no one else lived on it and it was no fit for a 4×4 to traverse and the authorities that were more than happy to steal my money couldn’t be bothered to pave it.

      If our neighbor puts in a hog rendering factory I have no problem with what he does on his own land. Oh wait, he already has some hogs over there, maybe he *renders* them himself, dunno, don’t care. If he is wealthy enough to buy a nuke I don’t care about that either. For all I know he could have one over there already.

      • Mr Sniper,
        What happens when the odors from your neighbor’s hog rendering plant wash over your homestead? Or he starts dumping 10w40 into the creek you use as a water supply? Do you shoot him? I am not being flippant.

        • I bet the nuisance would stop.

        • Grenadier1

          I got an idea…go talk to him!
          Seems we have become so accustomed to having some bedazzeled goon with “Authoritah!” do the thing that we did ourselves for 1000’s of years.
          If he does not see that his actions are infringing on his fellow neighbor then you can use the system of courts (which is a legitimate function of government, to provide and independant third party arbitrator) to address your issue, or you could kill all his pigs so he has nothing to rendor. Your choice as long as you are willing to live with the results of your actions.

          • The government is not an independent third party — government claims to own the waterways and the air and the land and the hogs and the house and and and…

            No government anywhere has ever been an independent third party. Can you imagine government telling the British stamp act inspectors, or George Washington’s army against the Whiskey Rebellion, or the IRS/TSA/NSA inspectors to go away? All of those infringements were government.

          • That’s kind of my point, Grenadier1. We have all met (or been) an ornery bastard that will not listen to reason or accommodate reasonable requests “… because f*<k you, that's why! You're not the boss of me. Nya, nya nya, pffft!" If the world were populated by reasonable people who were generally civil and not desirous of leaching off and defrauding others then we wouldn't need written RULES TO LIVE BY (laws, constitutions, etc) and Kumbaya would be heard from sea to shining sea.

            • If the world were populated by reasonable people who were generally civil and not desirous of leaching off and defrauding others
              That is how most people are, i.e. civil, and good neighbors. Asshole neighbors are protected by government from their community beating the shit out of them for being an asshole.

    • Grenadier1

      I think I agree with CA on where the original document sits. In reality I do not have a problem with that place. If we could drag everything back to that location on the diagram we would be doing just fine, however I would spend the rest of my life peacefully doing whatever i could to move it further toward minarchist just to counter the drift it would inevitably face toward tyranny. The diagram is best thought of as analogus to a ballon. As it floats further from the ground its based on the lessfirm and more hazardous to life the environment becomes.

  3. “I’m not the smartest guy here.”

    I know you’re the best sandbagger. I wouldn’t bet against you, on anything.

    Did you ask about the Constitution? Take it any ol’ way you want. Love the principles, live the dream, whatever…dance around with pagan chants if that’s what you want. Just keep your paws off’n the next guy no matter how he takes it. Remember? That was the point in the first place; that’s WHY you want the Constitution.

    Yeah, I know…”Don’t we need rules for when we do have to mess with the other guy?” Well no, not technically you don’t. Not practically either, especially in these times…you’ll know what you gotta do, when you gotta do it.

    I think your President finally did the world a favor the other day, when he outright couched the issue as self-defense. Speaking only for myself, that suits me just fine. Hope. Change.

    • I take exception to the “my President” thing. I don’t recognize communists in any shape or form.

      Otherwise, refer to response above.

      You and I must go drinking together sometime. 🙂

  4. The sort of Regime that comes out of the forthcoming violent discussion isn’t going to pay any heed at all to the “Constitution and Bill of Rights”. Race war, rural vs. urban, and hard Right vs. hard Left massacres are not conducive to this sort of thing. Personally, I plan on drastically changing the ethnic composition of the ‘Kwa – not to mention liquidating the White cosmics – and doing an Anschluss with Canada. Then we’ll,see.

    • You sir, worry me.

      While every once in a while I’m with ya…

    • “Personally, I plan on drastically changing the ethnic composition of the ‘Kwa – not to mention liquidating the White cosmics –”

      Really?

      Tall order for one guy….

      You are going to be one busy murdering son of a bitch; judge, jury and executioner… for about the three days it takes for someone to decide to off your ass.

      Otherwise worthy goals… or at least emotionally satisfying, revenge wise.

  5. How are we going to convince the non-combatants when, as evidenced many times in recent years, they can not think logically?

  6. Semper Fi, 0321

    I don’t think any one of us wants to play martyr by taking on fedgov alone. And getting a mass movement against said traitors isn’t going to happen either. So the only option I see is as OP said, wait for collapse and sort things out accordingly in your own AO. Refer to original documents as needed thereafter.
    Collapse is coming, their financial games have to come crashing down, no matter what they say to the contrary.
    I think we are in a moment of meditation; look within yourself, strengthen your mind and body, and act when it is called for.

    • That’s been my thinking SF, but I’m reconsidering. Economic collapse–technically already here owing to the halt of production–to a wolf, just means it’s gotta eat more sheep.

    • Sig, collapse isn’t necessary. We’re choosing it by default because of inaction.

    • I’ve been hearing that meme for years-collapse any day now.

      AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

      these leaders we have are evil incarnate and they’ve figured out how to keep the game going indefinitely.

  7. The original Constitution is essentially a Classical Liberal document. It goes slightly beyond the pure-protective functions of the minimum / “night watchman” state. Friedrich Hayek explored its nature and philosophical genesis in several books, including “The Constitution of Liberty.”

    • You may want a 200 MPG car or a night watchman state, but writing the sales brochure as if such a car or a government exists doesn’t make one appear. That’s magical thinking — the idea that human will alone modifies the physical universe when a wish is spoken or written as a magic spell.

      You want the USC because it sounds good, but sounding good doesn’t necessarily make it work good. The reality is the USC worked as the anti-federalists predicted it would, and the classical liberals were mistaken (Jefferson) or crooked (Hamilton).

  8. C’est le merde, avec fromage. Outlawpatriot, if you ask the socialists, the Constitution and BOR fit everwhere! If you ask FreeFor, it only fits in the first couple of rings at the bottom. If you ask me, it isn’t written on any graph, or piece of paper. Freedom and liberty are either written on the hearts of men, or nowhere. Or, as one man put it, “Good argument, I hope we will not fly– And time hath worn us into slovenry: But by the mass, our hearts are in the trim”. Earlier, the same man said: If we are marked to die, we are enow to do our country loss. You, I, and everyone, including the damned socialists, know something, a lot of something, is wrong. So we get out the tools and fix it. C’est la guerre.

    • outlawpatriot

      Sean my friend, while I am always in agreement with you. Not now. What I know is right. It doesn’t need fixed. Hence, C’est la guerre.

      • “What I know is right. It doesn’t need fixed. Hence, C’est la guerre.”

        There you go again. That’s EXACTLY the position of Obama and Holder and McCain and the whole gaggle of ’em. Verbatim.

        Being brain-dead, and not being able to produce a lick of value, they’ll NEVER tire of that position. The more interesting question is…will you?

        • You keep this up and you’re gonna hurt my feelings.

          Read all the other stuff I’ve written around here the last few days.

          Don’t take things out of context.

          🙂

  9. Anyone else wondering about the label “minarchism”? Consider where in the sphere it is positioned.

    Seems to me that “semi-limited statism” (i know, an equal contradiction in terms) would be more appropriate.

    The CONstitution fits in as a necessary precursor to, and blueprint for tyranny. Every abuse of liberty and personal rights envisioned by the anti-federalists has come to pass, despite assurances by Hamilton &c that such would be impossible due to the inherent safeguards. Of course, the B of R was added only after states refused assent without some (pitiful) written assurances.

    I would say that the Declaration Of Independence fits nicely outside the sphere of statism. TJ summed it all up nicely, elsewhere:

    “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

    Me? I’m with Spooner. No one can enter into a contract – social or otherwise – binding me without my explicit, informed & voluntary consent, just as I can bind no others.

    itor

  10. If the US Constitution (USC) created a good government, we would not be where we are today. The hard truth is that the USC is functioning exactly as intended by those who produced it and the Federalists who controlled the government in the early days. Look to John Marshall’s 30 years as Chief Justice for defining all of the above.

    Depite the fact that the USC has Article III, Section III which calls attacking a state treason, the USC was powerless to prevent that very thing happening.

    There is no restoration available because the document was created by a cabal who dominated a Constitutional Convention called for and limited by charter to amending the Articles of Confederation.

    We Southrons have come to the conclusion that it was a mistake to enter into any compact with the northeastern, mainly New England, states. They’re just not like us.

    As to where the USC fell, looking at reality over the 200+ years of its existence I’d have to say it began small, but was in the red zone all along. Paraphrasing Billy Beck, “if you’re not in the yellow zone, you be in the red zone eventually”.

  11. The diagram needs some help. For example a typical modern lib would oppose the war on drugs, that both neocons and paleocons typically would support. And I bet a lot of paleocons send their kids to a government school. More sophisticated Venn diagrams are capable of showing these details. As it is, this one makes it seem a straight path from less government to more. It just ain’t so.

    As to constitutionalism, I’ve made my peace with it:
    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle684-20120819-03.html

  12. In 1790 women could not vote, people who did not own property could not vote. Only men with ‘skin in the game’ could vote. Andy Jackson and Monroe started the idea that ‘income’ was ‘property’ and the vote was expanded in the 1840s. And then it was all blown to hell 1861-1873. There is no way in hell you are going to return to 1790.

    • Barney Google

      Bobbye, of course we cannot return to a fully 1790 government, but we can get close. A return to 1912 would be a start, pre 16th and 17th Amendments. For a more perfect constitution, I would modify the voting laws so that those living on government assistance, and those who work for the government get zero federal voting privileges (because of conflict of interest), this would be an incentive to stand on your own and keep politics out of the bureaucracies. I would also add a literacy test, if you cant read then why the hell should you vote? Additionally, bureaus must NOT have the ability to MAKE law, only to enforce law.

    • Don’t want to return to 1790.

      However, I do want certain aspects to be re-instated. Like for instance, only propertied male citizens are allowed to vote and women are not.

      While I’m a big fan of Jefferson, he was wrong on this one and that rat bastard Hamilton was right.

      A lot of our problems would disappear with just that simple thing.

      • Barney Google

        LOL, good luck getting women to go along with no voting privileges. The problem is dumb voters, male and female, who vote with their emotions, or based on who has the best hair, and other irrelevant factors. Women who vote conservative/libertarian/constitutionalist are invaluable assets to freedom. Its all a matter of education, teach proper political theory to the masses and then encourage dumbasses to NOT vote.

        In order to have property owners you would have to get rid of property taxes, how the hell can you own something if you must pay taxes eternally? A 21st century solution would be to have felons,most on government assistance, and those on federal payroll prohibited from voting (at least in Federal matters).

        • Hey! It’s my fantasy. I’ve conquered the enemy completely and I’m the interim King of the United States.
          The women are gonna do what they’re told and there ain’t gonna be any property taxes. 😉

  13. Outlawpatriot, yo, meant the same as you did, used “fix” as the wrong word. I don’t think it can, or will be fixed. More like, le guerre, c’est moi. N’ I don’t understand some of these guys either, but it never stops them from saying what they say.

    • No worries. It gave Klein a moment. 😉

    • “N’ I don’t understand some of these guys either, but it never stops them from saying what they say.”

      And you’re no worse the wear for it, right? [Well okay, Alan gets a little dizzy.] So now just extrapolate that to actions as well as words. Nobody will be the worse for wear over that either; in fact everyone will benefit.

      Voila…laissez-faire capitalism.

      There are almost no natural thugs in the world…a tiny few maybe, but no matter. That’s why people gotta be paid/bribed so much to turn into them.

      I know this isn’t news, but think of the madness of trying to reduce thuggery among men, by institutionalizing it.