*"The liberal gentlemen are asked to tell me if there ever was in history a Government based exclusively on the consent of the people and renouncing the employment of any kind of force. Such a Government has never existed and it never will exist. Consent is as changeable as the sands of the seashore. It cannot always exist. Nor can it ever be entire. No Government has ever existed which has managed to make everybody it governed happy. Whatever solution you happen to give to any problem, whatever, you—even were you participants of divine wisdom—must inevitably create a class of malcontents. If so far geometry has not succeeded in squaring the circle, still less have politics managed to do it. Allowing as an axiom that any governmental decision creates discontented people, how are you to prevent this discontent from growing and becoming a danger for the safety of the State? You prevent it by means of force; by surrounding the mass with force; by employing this force without pity when it is necessary to do so. Take away force from any Government whatever—and physical armed force is meant here—and leave only its immortal principles—and that Government will be at the mercy of the first organized group which has made up its mind to beat it."*
- Mussolini

If the will of the people does not coincide with the state, what then?

Right now we are in that very struggle with the state.

Then the State must overcome the people, or the people must overcome the State.

When you say state or government just think of Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell.

I don't want fags like that having any dominion over my life.

There is our current State, which we are seeking to overcome, and then the State we would like to see implemented. The difference is that one is legitimate and one is not.

My inner AnCap would rather see a state like my HOA.

But so long as we have feral niggers and jews surrounding us, it's a moot point.

But at least we can all have a civilized discussion about the legitimacy and role of the state without shooting each other.

'Multiple injured' in shooting in downtown Manhattan - Daily Mail
https://apple.news/AmPqToVd_TRK1U2hh1MYvGg

I believe the dailystormer is down again...

Stormer is still working for me.

A nation state, and a properly Fascist cohesion between the people and their government requires cooperation. Cooperation cannot happen if the people are not bound to cooperate with the state, and nothing is expected of them as far as duty is concerned. If there's nothing keeping the contract together, there's no reason for, as Mussolini said, and I think he's a smart guy, that the govt won't be at the mercy of the first organized group of people seeking to enslave the people.

Remember. Fascism, E Pluribus Unum, strength through unity.

@Smiter-IL are you on vpn? sometimes the normie site gets blocked when I use vpn

The idea of "consent of the governed" is in line with whether or not the state represents the will of the people.

Stormer worked for me yesterday afternoon.

Goebbels has a quote how NatSoc isn't Fascism, and it always confused me, because NatSoc seems completely fascist in concept, but very pragmatic to adapt to the needs of your people.

Mussolini was a civic nationalist if I'm not mistaken.

I am not on vpn, and I tried Firefox, and chrome. DNS server not found.

The governed cannot always consent to what is in their best interests, and if we were in a position to legislate the nation into a better spot, people or "the governed" would fight us as we tore away their gay orgies, or Jewish loans, or opioids, or generally not give consent.

My problem is that government tends to attract the worst kinds of people to power (the aforementioned fags). Once in power their faggotry is used to ruin the citizenry.

Thats why fascism is great.

Because it eliminates that.

A democratic govt allows certain people to gain footholds where other systems do not offer the same incentive.

Thomas, yes, people's preferences change. But, that doesn't change the nature of the law enforced, i.e. is it universal or not? Is it of sound moral theory, or not? If you have a grievence (i.e. valid moral objection), then it is an imperative that this objection be considered or else you've created an environment for tyranny.

Elaborate on what you mean by laws being universal. And moral theory, or what people think is right and wrong, is as contentious and fluid topic as there can be.

Even interpretations of natural law are just that. Interpretations. Ultimately the best way to oppose tyranny or immoral force, is by overcoming the State, via moral force.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5036717/Multiple-injured-shooting-downtown-Manhattan.html?ITO=applenews

Truck of peace in NYC in case anyone missed it. This myster meat guy did better than the last one I think.

@Thomas Ryan Natural law is built upon the observation that there is a natural order to things — which is to say that nothing is random (not to imply that every event has purpose).

If you accept that there is a natural order to things (i.e. chaos theory), then it’s safe to assume that there is a natural order to human behavior, i.e. it’s not random.
Thus, if that is accepted, then it is safe to assume that there are particular actions that lead to particular outcomes. Meaning: The human experience is not random.
So, that said, if it is sound to hold that no outcome is random (i.e. no such thing as true random), then there must be a natural law governing our experiences regardless of how ignorant we are of its influence on events as well as to what degree. In the past, this force — and all natural forces for that matter — were commonly referred to as ‘god’. Thus, prior to secularism, in the hierarchy of law, god was supreme. We have the same centralized institution today, except now there is no deity. The state is the new fictional entity most hold as being supreme.

More importantly, if there is a goal like justice (a description of a particular experience), then there must be *laws* (i.e. principles) affecting events that lead to such outcomes. And, so, the discovery of such principles is the pursuit of the rule of law. Or, better said, the pursuit of justice.

Anyone that demands justice is by default acknowledging there are natural laws, otherwise ‘justice’ is a meaningless word, i.e. it’s not objective.

If what I say is sound, then these ‘laws’ should not be confused with edicts — which are decrees granted the force of law by the bonds created among men, i.e. contracts, so long as there is consent. More so, since all legal rights are the product of contract, what are natural rights?

The absence of consent is slavery.

I agree that humans are bound by their nature to certain experiences, but how is the State a fictional entity? Do you deny the possibility of someone being made to do something they don't consent to that is ultimately good for them?

The one giving consent can be wrong, and the one receiving it, or otherwise, can be right.

In America we have an order of common law in order to protest the discoveries we made. In contrast, some jurisdiction in the world have civil law which allows for any law to be interpreted in anyway the arbiter sees fit.

The way in which one system overcomes the other, and the right usually ends up winning is because systems that do not adhere to, or seek to dismantle human nature, of which heirarchy is an important part, those societies fail because the nature of people's laws conflict with the laws of the govt, making them dysfunctional and contradictory.

The use of force in self-defense or thrid-party defense is justified. Anything outside of that scope begins to get into acts of conquest or acts of aggression against others.

Our nation was founded on conquest and aggression on a civilizational scale, and the primary natural currency of all societies is ultimately violence, or the threat of it.

From a natural and very broadly historical perspective, Rule A does better than Rule B because the person or people behind Rule A commit successful aggression or conquest against the person or people behind Rule B, or that Rule B is so flawed by means of contradicting natural laws that it fails on its own.

We're getting into tribalism there. I thought the scope of the discussion was limited to governance of our people.