It's almost as if...

@Monstrous Moonshine @Miniature Menace propatarianism is a fed operation, change my mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDOMmk3N_A

universal credit - whose idea was that?

aha - IDS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Credit

Conservatives

the problem they were trying to solve is valid - we had 4 different work income related benefits alone

just read something i didnt know about it - it penalises large families. good.

Does it penalize large families, or does it jsut cut off after a certain point?

cut off at max 2 children

you know those stereotype poor estate roads with loads of unemployed families smoking in the doorwy shouting at their 5-6 kids?

those exist, i lived near some

@Comando Just got to the point where he's criticizing the lie by omission standard. This is both something which is a valid criticism or obstacle to enforcement, as well as something Kurt has actually acknowledged. A lot of this is specifically why I don't actually have any great faith in a particular system. In reality, however a system functions will be the product of the aggregate actions of those who operate within and against it. The priorities, values, and abilities of your folk are more important than anything specifically written on paper as law.

@Comando Reaching the part where he's providing a argument against the feasibility of a red american victory in civil war, so far it seems like he doesn't actually *understand* the arguments provided. The reason they bring up that red america has more guns isn't just a point of material logistics, but of temperament and preparedness. They have guns because they *chose* to obtain them, which speaks for a variable of self-selection. If a group of people are more willing to arm themselves with a politically contentious weapon, what *other* things might they have done, or been willing to do? And for those who choose *not* to arm themselves, what does this say about what they're mentally preparing for? He also fails to acknowledge a very important point that Justicar brought up regarding asymmetric warfare against a native insurgency. And that is, that the establishment army and the masses share the same infrastructure. As well as that sabotage of industrial scale is actually shockingly inexpensive, with a little creativity. And that the cities are so dependent on the rest of the country is less a point of, "oh, just blockade them" and more a revelation of how much a *liability* cities can be in a crisis. Sure they have lots of people, but those people have lots of mouths, and many liberal cities are now occupied by tremendous populations of the largely unemployable, mentally ill, and opportunistic criminals. The establishment would be compelled to defend points of major infrastructure to maintain control of them, but wouldn't necessarily be able to strategically deprive insurgents of resources, without risk of collateral events turning the population at large against them.

@Comando
And likely, the uncertain priorities of native soldiers and law enforcement would lead to the establishment needing to make a difficult choice. Either accept that their men might choose either the insurgence, or the security of their own families, ahead of the goals of the elites, or replace them with a foreign force, who the native masses will trust far less, and who they will regard more antagonistically.

By no means is victory certain or red america. Even assuming things play out logistically in their favor, certain strategies may be employed which are ineffective. But arguing that these acknowledged variables don't generally favor red america is naive.

@Comando I do agree strongly with his point on "ghost dance" type strategies likely being failures. And that there probably are significant parallels in the effective "barbarian" rulers post Rome, and what will likely prevail from the collapse of the current paradigm. Kurt Saxon actually provides a pretty fascinating examination of this historical trend. Those who prevail will almost certainly be "barbaric" relative to currently acceptable methods and philosophy.

Propertarianism is not something which can, or will succeed as rallying point against the current elites. Its success rests on the assumption that material victory has already been achieved. It's not a strategy of war, it's a legal/moral philosophy. Those who cling too zealously to legal and moral philosophy in war, are usually the ones who lose wars, providing they do not enjoy the luxury of overwhelming material superiority.

**Its success rests on the assumption that material victory has already been achieved.** <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

This isn't even a specific argument against propertarianism alone. Any system relies on material victories to manifest meaningfully. Too often people ignore this.

Or, more often, it's a lie perpetuated by those who don't want to compete with as many people who understand the true nature of power. Who make up excuses for why they rule, related to some kind of moral, cultural, or spiritual superiority, when in reality, it's all down to leverage.

What can you do, what can you keep others from doing, and what can you persuade others into thinking you can do or stop them from doing.

@Comando Also, specifically on the subject of civil war, I don't regard it as inherently desirable. Rather, due to how invested and entrenched the interests are which oppose a proper reform and anti-corruption initiatives, I have come to regard it as the most likely *outcome* of any meaningful attempt to dislodge them.

Civil Wars normally are the result of a group that's recently become powerful, not gaining institutional power and striking out to get it, or a formerly powerful group attempting to prevent the ascension of a new group which is otherwise gaining institutional power.

He is correct that the *international* resources and networks of the elites is probably one of the most significant *obstacles* to a red america victory in the event of a civil war.

As they were the chief cause of the failure of other anti-globalist uprisings.

Comando is correct. The causes of the American Civil War can largely be laid at the feet of abolitionism, and the institution of slavery.

States' rights was a smokescreen. It was about states' rights—to own slaves.

Also, debts, but yes. Slavery was a large political component.

But it was an institution. The South broke away, then went to war, to protect this powerful institution.

And another reason why slavery was a political component is because of prior compromises between slave states and the free states.

And the compromises baked into the Constitution, such as the 3/5ths clause.

Exactly

You'd be surprised how much revisionism there is in the South.

It's not as bad as it used to be, but still...

Honestly, I don't care whether you want to call it a civil war or a revolutionary war. War is likely in the event that the established elites are meaningfully challenged. And the most likely alternative to that war is that the elites simply crush dissent, and continue on until their system implodes under its own weight, or control is seized by another faction from within. I don't see them surrendering power willingly unless they expect to face such overwhelming opposition that flight is more appealing. And I don't think that's likely the way things currently appear, but might change down the road.

A civil war is only a revolutionary war when it's fought by seperatists, and only then if they win.

kek

There's no need to be pedantic.

Oh, but there is. The two terms are not interchangable.

How are they meaningful to the discussion?