I was waiting to see the response here to that one once I saw it.

https://twitter.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1096230771591970816

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzaXvRzVsAAgj09.jpg

@Broo TulsiGang 2024 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 holy shit suddenly I am in favour of LGBT education

@turtwig maybe this was the plan all along <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

fucking ∞D chess then

For our new Jewish friend
https://youtu.be/OTVZXKSH9Vw

is that

a t-shirt?

fake styx

I don't see his chest

@turtwig He layers up in the winter months

<:GWmythsBlobGlare:391322010980057120>

@nutsnax

Anne isn't happy <:what:382980756139409409>

https://theweek.com/speedreads/824063/ann-coulter-says-only-national-emergency-that-president-idiot

so I'm trying to figure out if we've been sold out yet

anne thinks we have

Will it be 4D Chess?

Or LOW ENERGY

Trump wants to win 2020 more than he wants to build the wall... huh.

I think ann coulter/breitbart might be controlled opposition

Ann just wants her wall

@galesteppes I'm taking a dive into propertarianism. I'll get back to you in an hour.

Any thoughts about it? Even heard of it before?

nope

time to consulte wikipedia

It was confusing lol

`Propertarianism, or proprietarianism, is a right-libertarian`
I like it already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2p3LW2i2I

@galesteppes Basically, what I'm gathering is, sophistry would be illegal in politics?

There's some kind of 'format' that you have to use for policy proposals, with a 'purpose', pros and cons, impact studies from both advocates and opponents, and a punishment for lying in these documents

<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

No more standing in front of congress to give a speech, you just get the same summary as everyone else

@galesteppes Oh god, that's woke.

Propertarianism extends property rights, to the point where the two, 'property' and 'rights', are *one in the same.*

Property: "Anything that an individual or group shows a willingness and ability to defend"

virgin classical liberal vs chad Propertarianism
<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

so slavery is back on the table?

@AlanPowell It would be decided in a court

Right to own a person vs the person's right to freedom

So do the math lol

@galesteppes Oh shit, there's defined morality as well. Interesting

Interesting.

So really..... it elevates the judiciary to a legislative finalizing body that put every single policy proposal through the wringer, and if it fails, sends it back over and over until the noted items are fixed

So imagine the government as a huge courtroom, and the judiciary is the judge, while the opposing parties for any policy decision are the plaintiff/defendant, and prosecuting lawyer.

Everyone on the metaphorical witness stand is under oath when speaking, and if demonstrated that they are lying, it's a criminal offence

I can see some inefficiencies at first. Over time it would improve.