Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

986

We need to look forwards not backwards, try to find what works best, rather than just trying to revive what we had in better days.

The fact that things like democracy and Christianity had fallen is a sign that they weren't worthy in the first place, the best ideology or policy is one that never falls.

Democracy fails because it assumes people would always be vigilant and informed, it was based on a foundational misconception of human nature.

Christianity failed because it tried to take a set of marxist ideals and produce a functional society around it by keeping everyone in the dark about how it's a marxist ideology at its core (the problem with Christianity are the marxist commandments of Christ himself).

Politicians should be prevented from being ae to make laws, they should instead have the sole role of enforcing a minimalistic set of laws that protect the ownership of person and property from any interactions that were not consented to by the owners.

And perhaps these laws should only apply to the ownership of those who are white and male (and alive, and conscious, and human).

These laws would be so open that they would trust people to solve any other issues that come up by acting within this minimal framework of restrictions.

By removing the power from people to make laws, we remove a great deal of potential for corruption, since even if the jewiest peice of shit gets into the highest level of office, all he could do is just choose how the laws that e it are enforced, and that is the most damage that he could do.

That is how a system should be made, assume that whoever gets in charge will be this tyrannical scumbag, then focus on removing his opportunities to hurt the society over which he has found the highest position of power.

Then do the same process for all positions of power in your hypothetical society, finally, repeat this process by assuming every position of power is inhabited by psychopathic tyrants.

Plan for the very worst situation.

This is what separation of powers fails to do, it assumes that someone, somewhere in the government, there will always be someone who is virtuous. So it has no answer to a situation of all branches being occupied by corrupt peices of subhuman garbage.

No answer except violent revolution, but there again comes the fundamental misconception of humans as being ever vigilant and informed, in this case the additional misconception of humans as being willing to go outside a system they disagree with and rebel is also assumed to be true.

We need to look forwards not backwards, try to find what works best, rather than just trying to revive what we had in better days. The fact that things like democracy and Christianity had fallen is a sign that they weren't worthy in the first place, the best ideology or policy is one that never falls. Democracy fails because it assumes people would always be vigilant and informed, it was based on a foundational misconception of human nature. Christianity failed because it tried to take a set of marxist ideals and produce a functional society around it by keeping everyone in the dark about how it's a marxist ideology at its core (the problem with Christianity are the marxist commandments of Christ himself). Politicians should be prevented from being ae to make laws, they should instead have the sole role of enforcing a minimalistic set of laws that protect the ownership of person and property from any interactions that were not consented to by the owners. And perhaps these laws should only apply to the ownership of those who are white and male (and alive, and conscious, and human). These laws would be so open that they would trust people to solve any other issues that come up by acting within this minimal framework of restrictions. By removing the power from people to make laws, we remove a great deal of potential for corruption, since even if the jewiest peice of shit gets into the highest level of office, all he could do is just choose how the laws that e it are enforced, and that is the most damage that he could do. That is how a system should be made, assume that whoever gets in charge will be this tyrannical scumbag, then focus on removing his opportunities to hurt the society over which he has found the highest position of power. Then do the same process for all positions of power in your hypothetical society, finally, repeat this process by assuming every position of power is inhabited by psychopathic tyrants. Plan for the very worst situation. This is what separation of powers fails to do, it assumes that someone, somewhere in the government, there will always be someone who is virtuous. So it has no answer to a situation of all branches being occupied by corrupt peices of subhuman garbage. No answer except violent revolution, but there again comes the fundamental misconception of humans as being ever vigilant and informed, in this case the additional misconception of humans as being willing to go outside a system they disagree with and rebel is also assumed to be true.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (2).
[–] • 0 pt

When you characterize it as failed, keep in mind it only fails us deplorables. The perpetrators are getting what they want. They have no interest in fixing anything for us.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Yes, any system that has failed US was a failed system from the start.

People need to design systems meepimgbin mind how such a system may allow for parts of itself to be changed down the line.

For example, the USA had the first amendment, but also the means for the government to find ways of violating the first amendment.

The USA was designed for only whites, but also had within it the means for everyone to lay claim to it, regardless of race.

Like I said before, the most fundamental failing of any system is in its ability to be hijacked by malicious forces and changed into a new form that does not bear any resemblance to its original and intended form.