Message from AugustoPinochet(Paul)TX in Front And Center #general
I agree. Get the jews out and have banking not protected by the state and things improve dramatically.
@AugustoPinochet(Paul)TX I do not agree with that statement if we're talking generally speaking. If we're talking natural right, then the answer is no. If we're taking legal rights, then that is a matter of contract.
https://youtu.be/zqLPv-Qhu9Q Hearing from Twitter Jewbook and Jewgle reps about censoring "Russian meddling" or as we know it, the alt-right white nationalist movement
A society can establish the legal right to a job.
You can restrict the legal right to citizens, and restrict citizenship to people who have already shown some act of duty to the nation. A family man might have more of a right than a young college kid, and a veteran even moreso.
Those all being legal rights maintained by the governent.
What about the employer? Doesn't he have the right to hire whomever he sees fit? What if he wants a young man over an old one or vice versa?
Well the employer could be the State in the instances where the private market is not an option or preferable.
And yes I said legal right in the first sentence I believe.
I'm hesitant to state intervention. I typically don't like the term "rights".
Except for property rights.
Rights are anything a nation is willing to protect as such.
A right to having your left ear dyed blue at the age of 67 is a right as long as people can allow the State to support it, or to prevent the State from infringing on it.
Natural rights are a bit different, and arguably much more muddy because nature's laws don't really include rights. That's a human thing. A good thing, in my opinion, as far as social constructs go.
@AugustoPinochet(Paul)TX I think the idea of natural rights is born from a sense of property. You own yourself. i.e. You are in possession of the self. All property rights begin with possession.
@Thomas Ryan The fine line between despotism and rule of law is the ability to show the soudness of the moral theories you're implementing.
Apart from natural rights, people like to come up with new entitlements and call them rights in order to lobby governments. And govs sell these in exchange for votes. This is the action of leech ass lower species. They look at hard built prosperity and they come up with ways to tap into it. It always ends up the hard workers being forced to pick up the slack of the leeches
*"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."*
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
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.