Disenfranchisement

[Martin Hash]

When men got together to form Liberty Nation America, they voluntarily surrendered the one thing all men have, their Right to Violence, to The State. This worked out when it was men voting because they had all sacrificed something, and got something back: strongest did not rule. Democracy was the most liberty-friendly method of making decisions, and so it was adopted.

Unfortunately, a new religion was simulatenously born, the concept of Natural Rights, embued by a magical force, that imaginarily superceded the Right to Violence. Inevitably this led to the Right to Vote (enfranchisement) of everybody, including people whose violence was inconsequential, women. Through democracy, these women who had not ceded anything, exploited the The State's monopoly on violence for their own benefit. Men have been thoroughly cucked.

[DBTrek]

Internally inconsistent garbage.

Government’s monopoly on violence affects both sexes. Men didn’t surrender a “right” to violence but leave a loophole for women to dispense their own justice. All citizens surrendered their “right” to take violent repercussions into their own hands.

[Speaker to Animals]

If by liberty nation, you mean a democracy of some form, then I would argue the monopoly of violence also represents an obligation to commit violence on behalf of the state.

In the Hobbesian sense, a sovereign is the guy who retains the right to make war when all else surrender it in order to enjoy other rights. In any form of democracy that can actually persist, the electorate all have an obligation to make war when they collectively vote to do so via the state or electing state representatives who then make those decisions. This is what popular sovereignty means. Sovereignty belongs to the body of the electorate, which means they have the duty to make war.

Where we went woefully wrong -- a generation before we fucked up and gave women the vote without the corresponding obligations -- was when we decoupled the obligation of the electorate to serve in the aftermath of the Civil War, when the government was no longer so keen on state and town militias, preferring instead the urban police model which they could use to better control people.

Giving women the right to vote without actually having to pay any of the consequences of their votes was the coup de grâce that ensured it was only a matter of time before democracy itself became a farce, and at some point we would return to some kind of autocracy or military rule.

The reason the forefathers actually forbid a standing army was that they assumed we always had an electorate who were armed and ready to make war when they vote to do so. That, really, is the only way a democracy can function longterm. You might get a four centuries or so out of a democracy that doesn't do that, but history shows the end result.

[Speaker to Animals]

To wit: you can't really even fix this by returning to the draft and forcing women to sign up with an equal chance of being drafted, and severe legal consequences for trying to get out of it by exploiting their reproductive systems. Even then, with all that equal, all you get is a kind of inverse lottery where only a small fraction of the population has to pay for the consequences of their votes. It's a risk they won't even consider when casting ballots.

We need to somehow simulate the militia system or require mandatory military service of some kind. We also need to require that everybody pays some price for shit. If a dozen people can vote the thirteenth man has to give up all his money, the thirteenth man is going to lose his money. But if those dozen people have to do litter patrol along the highway every Friday to get that money, the thirteenth man has a better chance.

[Martin Hash]

Forced compliance to an imagined ideal is not sustainable, people must WANT to be law abiding.

In my book, "The Center," I suggest that half the people are losers. Not necessarily the same half, but at any one time half the people are wards of The State. Of the competent half, half of those are capable of "getting rich." (Since money is all anyone respects.) If a quarter of the population was rich, and the bottom half knew someone that had made it; their kid, cousin, neighbor; then as a nation of gamblers, three-quarters of the population would allow the other quarter to pursue wealth disparity, BUT, opportunity is tied to money, and wealth has accumulated to a relative few: 99% will not oblige themselves to 1%, approaching 0.01%, much longer.

[C-Mag]

To wit: you can't really even fix this by returning to the draft and forcing women to sign up with an equal chance of being drafted, and severe legal consequences for trying to get out of it by exploiting their reproductive systems. Even then, with all that equal, all you get is a kind of inverse lottery where only a small fraction of the population has to pay for the consequences of their votes. It's a risk they won't even consider when casting ballots.

We need to somehow simulate the militia system or require mandatory military service of some kind. We also need to require that everybody pays some price for shit. If a dozen people can vote the thirteenth man has to give up all his money, the thirteenth man is going to lose his money. But if those dozen people have to do litter patrol along the highway every Friday to get that money, the thirteenth man has a better chance.

There is a mechanism for this, State Defense Forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

State Guards can set their own training standards and report to the Governor and local commanders.

[Martin Hash]

Internally inconsistent garbage.

Government’s monopoly on violence affects both sexes. Men didn’t surrender a “right” to violence but leave a loophole for women to dispense their own justice. All citizens surrendered their “right” to take violent repercussions into their own hands.

I am not afraid of my wife, or your wife, or any woman I have ever personally met. However, I do know my place in the male dominance hierarchy. Women have no threat of violence.

p.s. Think testosterone and sociopathic behavior.

[DBTrek]

Irrelevant to the argument of who sacrificed their “right” to violence to the state. All citizens sacrificed.

[Martin Hash]

Irrelevant to the argument of who sacrificed their “right” to violence to the state. All citizens sacrificed.

What did they sacrifice?

[DBTrek]

Their right to vigilante justice, same as men.