I am firmly against universal franchise.
The title says it all, but what does it mean ?
I believe a vast majority of things that crawl out of woman belong obeying orders for their entire life without let or respite and without alternative ; and I believe that whether that entire life turns out short, unhappy, incomfortablei, painfulii or otherwise makes very little difference and isn't (nor should be) anyone's concern.
The foregoing stands for most whites as it stands for most blacks ; for most women as it stands for most men ; and for most humans selected by whatever objective measureiii equally well. "Om nu te nasti, om devii" means that no one is born a person. You become a person - and if it were easy everyone'd do it. But it's not easy, and most everyone doesn't do it.
The franchise attaches exclusively to personhood, and for this reason :
- Most bipedal lifeforms, with or without feathers or flat nails, may not own property. This isn't some sort of conventional interdiction, it's not the case that some "we" won't let them. This is merely the recognition of a fundamental characteristics of the subhuman object : it lacks the ability to own. It just doesn't have that property, much like an opaque vase is not transparent. Exactly as a turtle lacks the ability to fly. Most "people" may not own anything for the exact same reason turtles can't fly anywhere ; and just as is the case with turtles - trying to emulate flight by launching them in the air is absolutely always injurious, for them as well as the environment.
- Most bipedal lifeforms, with or without feathers or flat nails, may not form opinions. This isn't simply "may not vote". Literally, they get no say, there's nothing that may proceed from their arbitrariety because lacking the franchise means they lack arbiter. Whether they engage in sexual congress or not is up to the other party. Whether they go to eat here or there ; or whether they eat at all is not up to them.iv Absent franchise, the notion of "liking" a movie or a song is without meaning, and bereft of any interest.v
In short, most "people" aren't. Anything. Most "people" aren't anything. Most "people" aren't people, first and foremost ; and it all follows from there.
Confronted with this statistical truth, the safest move for any individual is to assume slavery as a subjective identity. This because a person that sees himself a slave is at the worst an eccentric, and universally benign ; whereas a non-person that sees himself enfranchised is universally an idiot, by definition a danger to himself and others, and the only available incarnation of evil.
Among the millitantvi idiots the unexpressed and thus unexamined view holds currency that supposedly slavery is a taint, from which one can never recover ; whereas idle pretense to personhood is a sort of duty, cvasi-religious in nature. This happens to be exactly contrary to reality, like pretty much everything else the millitant idiots ever came up with. Slavery actually is the path to personhood ; the alternatives are all magic, and work about as well as magic, but slavery works like technology works. Meanwhile idle pretense put forth on the shaky basis of absent personhood is both very expensive to maintain (all delusions are - but this one's the worst) and an absolute bar to actual individuation and eventual enfranchisement.
I also believe this is the fundamental gender difference - that males mature towards the franchise ; while females mature towards competent slavery id ipsum, with exceptionsvii ; and I am absolutely certain that systematic definitions of the franchise (be they by blood, or skin tone or spoken language or anything else in this vein) are suicidal, the conceptual equivalent of a steamship whose engine is designed to plug into the sink tap.
That'd be it.
———- In- is the privative by the nature of things whereas un- is the privative by evolution of phenomena. Hence you say "Undressed woman" and "Indistinct noise" rather than "Indressed woman" and "Undistinct noise" - the woman can be dressed and certainly at some point was ; the noise is not distinct by its nature nor ever could have been otherwise. This is and also why you say both "indecisive" and "undecisive" as the case may be. [↩]
- As Poincare (not the matemathician, the other one) aptly observed, an avoidance of human suffering can never be the goal of policy, because the only certain way to ensure the desired result is also the simple way : kill everyone. This is, incidentally, exactly the regime under which you're belabouring today. Can you feign surprise convincingly ? [↩]
- See this discussion of what that means ; and while at it see also this. [↩]
- The Latin anecdotal retelling of this is "Si tum, inquis, dives est tum cenare potest cum cupit - si pauper, tum cenare debet cum potest." unduly particularizes the matter - of course most people will be poor, and of course poverty here is not a situation but an identity, and of course its meaning is absent optionality. [↩]
- Which is why the only answer to the "opinions" of anodyne unperson masquerading as a "blogger" is "nobody cares". [↩]
- Those uppity slaves that aren't merely content with posturing for themselves, but aim to also persuade others. [↩]
- Which exceptions are so common in a society at ease as to practically equal the rarity of successful male maturation. [↩]
Sunday, 25 September 2016
Well, that settles it. You will, of course, get all our votes for this plan.
B-)
Sunday, 25 September 2016
Lol.
Well, other than the fact that it's not a plan nor does it seek votes, I reckon!
Sunday, 25 September 2016
&added footnote i.
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
If there is no plan to actually put into effect your desire, do you truly desire it? If you don't seek to disenfranchise anybody, can you honestly be against universal franchise?
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
Let's recast this conversation into more neutral terms.
Pasteur : "I don't agree live things are self-contained. Food spoliage as well as live tissue degenerescence generally - such as disease and death - are all caused by really small live particles found inside all larger living things such as apples, or your liver."
Bystander : "That's nice. I don't think the king will approve the plan of having smaller live things stuffed into larger live things."
Pasteur : "It's not a plan or anything of that sort, it's a statement of fact."
Bystander : "But if there's no plan to actually put your desire into effect, do you truly desire it ?"
Pasteur : "Motherfucker. What part of scientific-speech-is-not-magic-speech description-is-not-prescription cause-is-not-purpose scl etc don't you grok!"
What's the next move here, something along the lines of
Bystaner : "But I really like the one-animal-per-container model. I find it easier to visualize."
or somesuch ?
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
That works quite well, except the extent of the franchise is a choice, not a physical fact as is the existence of putrefying creatures. Whether a polity organizes itself in a functional or a dysfunctional manner is a choice. To be against the franchise is to advocate a choice. Perhaps it is a better choice, perhaps not. But it's social science, not actual science that is under discussion and it's pure delusion that anybody in the whole field is an actual scientist truly dealing in the scientific method.
And that is the first serious comment I've had on the thread.
It's also probably the last.
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
I suppose this then gets to the heart of our disagreement. I do not believe the franchise to be a choice ; but a physical fact. Nor do I believe consensus enacts social reality ; nor for that matter do you, or anyone else. Observe that while in the charade that is "representative democracy" each vote is counted as one vote, in the matters before the courts, be they civil or criminal, each testimony is to be evaluated on abstruse criteria rather than a case of "count the witnesses for, count the witnesses against". While a widespread naivite, in the manner of "Santa lives at North Pole and gives gifts to good chitlins", there's no such thing in nature as universal franchise ; or equal franchise ; or consensus-established franchise.
Monday, 3 October 2016
At least in the US, there are juries which do, in fact, vote and determine the outcome of the trial. The abstruse criteria, if there are any, are individually determined. Juries have the right to vote on both the facts and the law as a formal matter and there is something of a longstanding fight going on about jury nullification of laws by letting people off on the grounds that the particular law they have been accused of violating is incorrect/unjust. The US is an extreme outlier in the matter of voting. You couldn't have picked a society that is more obsessed with voting. We often even elect our land registry clerks.
As for the franchise, I think I'll leave my last comment to just stand as is because I said I would not comment further on that.
It's my choice and exercising that right of choice *creates* a physical fact. Are we doing a chicken and egg dance here?
Monday, 3 October 2016
I do not believe you take my meaning.
The concept of "voting", as employed to justify the nonsense known as "representative democracy" is an implementation of a side of the franchise, specifically the electoral franchise. It is regarded, for no reason and without any serious examination, that "one man = one vote" and "one vote = another vote", which would make this particular side of the franchise universal.
Meanwhile, the concept of "testimony", as employed in the ordinary work of the courts, is also an implementation of a side of the franchise, arguably disjunct from the foregoing. It is regarded, for very good reason even if without any serious (contemporary) examination, that "one witness != one vote" and "one testimony != another testimony", which would make this particular side of the franchise not universal.
That you hold the same thing to be one way or another in different places of the same construction (because both elections and courts construct the socialist state, which is both necessarily and by definition totalitarian) ruins it, much as if you held a meter to be six inches for the Western wall of your house but eight inches for the Eastern wall of your house you'd end up with a house that can not stand but in imagination.
You can't have a choice but by my sufferance. That I suffer it does not automatically speak about you. Your children, if you have any, also eat from your fridge as a "physical fact" ; but this does not mean they are independent, or entitled, or that they matter.
Tuesday, 4 October 2016
The US, as I said before is somewhat unique and what I'm limiting my remarks on. Your statements may be more accurate in other countries.
The US is a democratic republic, not a representative democracy so we have a somewhat substantive disagreement there. Which is the baseline reality and which is the grace note? It does make a difference.
The actual reason that one vote equals another is that pretty much anybody may become a murderer. The institution of a universal franchise is created to reduce the chance for the generalized slaughter usually called a civil war. Since the US imports just about every nasty national/ethnic conflict around the globe in the form of combatants from around the globe, the US should be constantly in a state of proxy wars between various diasporas. And in some cases that is a real issue.
From about the 1920s to the 1970s in the last century, the young romanian and hungarian lads had yearly fights during a certain NJ town's parade of nations as their competing conception of greater Hungary and greater Romania had significantly overlapping territory, a conflict you're probably familiar with. The local hospital had a few admissions for stitches and xrays and that was it. The other 364 days of the year there was peace.
So why did the two ethnic competitors mostly choose peace? I don't think that your framework provides an answer that explains this multi-decade reality.
Trigger pulling is easy and can be accomplished by the vast majority of the population, whether they matter or not (as you categorize things). That is their equality. That is why the franchise is near universal.
Tuesday, 4 October 2016
The US is neither unique, nor particular. It's a thirld world shithole unfit for human habitation just like any other. Stop pushing the pretense. I get that you're deeply invested it "the country" being ah-so-special but the fact remains it isn't, nor is this the venue where that particular shared delusion carries water.
The US is a popular democracy, which is what socialist totalitarian regimes call themselves. It is not a republic ; and it has absolutely nothing to do with the idealised democracy socialist totalitarianisms usually try and peddle ideologically.
I have no idea about the truth of your proposition that "everyone may become a murderer" ; except inasmuch that anyone misfortunate enough to live in a socialist totalitarian regime may be declared a murderer, a terrorist, an enemy of the revolution, a kulak scl etc at any point and for no particular reason. If that's what you had in mind, your statement is true. If not - it is at best dubious, feel free to support it. In either case - no further reasoning can be produced on its basis.
The reason ticks fed a significant supply of outside blood choose to not fight each other has everything to do with the outside supply of blood. If the ticks are somewhat advanced, they may engage in ritualized "fights" to preserve "identity", which is to say the ability to fight once the Rooseveltian tit goes away. Which is exactly what will happen - as Bitcoin progressively limits the ability of the USG to play financial games ; and as the deep ineptitude of its "leadership" slowly gives away the last remaining scraps of prestige, the erstwhile tribes will rise up and send the cattle to the abattoir.
I have pulled the trigger. Have you ? Kindly theorize about "any woman could" AFTER, and not before, having done it. That way you might be privy to the fundamental characteristics of the topic from direct experience, and not have to spend your time vicariously groking that the whole point of "military training" is a mostly doomed attempt to mitigate the fact that the vast majority of people can not actually pull the trigger.
Tuesday, 4 October 2016
MP: Nobody belives in universal franchise, yourself included. Observe : 1 vote = 1 vote but 1 testimony != 1 testimony
TMLutas: No but that is because anyone could become a murderer.
So what if they could, anyone could become a president, also, for the same values of anyone and could - aka "you couldn't".
Tuesday, 4 October 2016
The problem with running into people who actually understand the things that interest one is that all the mismatches between what they understand and what one wishes to encounter are painful. Which pain then leads to a lot of dancing around the matter and "advice is what we seek when we know what to do and don't want to do it" and etcetera.
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Nonsequitur, esquire - universal franchise doesn't mean what you think it means and why it's granted is largely for the reasons I gave, something I expect will remain incomprehensible to you until you clear up what universal franchise is.
Mircea Popescu - Heh, I should get back to work creating the government oversight widget building system that is my day job. It was a pleasure and an honor.
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Enjoy.
Thursday, 6 October 2016
Franchise = the legal fiction through which bureucrats represent the human genius. The difference between bios and zoon politikon from the point of view of the state.
Thursday, 6 October 2016
Aptly put.
Sunday, 29 October 2017
> the fact that the vast majority of people can not actually pull the trigger.
This strikes me as strange. I say this from a position as someone who has not, and does not want to, but has no problem with the concept if employed in self defence. I note from a fairly extensive reading of your work that you typically don't just make declarations without justification, and it's a certainty from the perspective of physics that moving your finger with some weight beneath it is something the vast majority of people certainly could do.
I can see the military training thing as somewhat supportive of the perspective also, but it doesn't seem like anything approaching a proof for such a peculiar statement. Why are you convinced this is actually true?
Sunday, 29 October 2017
Experience.