CapeXit 2

[Splinter]

Hmm... but tell me, how is all this related to WC secession? You've forgotten that the Mod here likes to smack your botty. So I'll say goodbye now, have a nice further rest from the forum.

And it's relevant as it is a reply to your comment? Or are you saying you are off topic?

 

[lexity]

Since I'm still in limbo, remind me again, Lex, how and why a fragmented new country(ies) makes sense?
(Any successful-types examples?)

One example is to benefit from laws and justice that is in your mother-tongue, instead of your second, or third language.

Another it to be better able to hold your fellow citizens to account for wrong-doing.... decentralized systems shine on this front.

 

[Grant]

If a majority can simply vote away the rights of a minority ... that's the definition of mob-rule.

So if a majority voted for w/c independence, then that would be mob-rule?

 

[Brian_G]

One example is to benefit from laws and justice that is in your mother-tongue, instead of your second, or third language.

Another it to be better able to hold your fellow citizens to account for wrong-doing.... decentralized systems shine on this front.

Or, it can lead to kangaroo courts

 

[lexity]

So if a majority voted for w/c independence, then that would be mob-rule?

Like I said, the only way to vote on a bill of rights is via a secession referendum. Otherwise it should remain for the most part static.

The BoRs is not supposed to vary. It's supposed to be a hard reflection of a peoples' core moral code.

A referendum to secede involves the exact opposed of mob-rule.... it's a case of live and let live.

So a majority that votes to change a bill of rights is going to deprive a minority of some of those rights. That would be a case of forcing one's rules onto the minority.

The minority is of course not forced to secede, but having a right they should be free to separate if they so choose.

 

[lexity]

Or, it can lead to kangaroo courts

Isn't kangaroo courts more likely in jurisdictions that pay less attention to who is appointed as leaders?

Decentralized accountability decreases the likelihood that you - as a corrupt actor - would be able to hide in an office thousands and thousands of miles away.

Instead you might run into several people on the bus to work, who you screwed over.

See what I mean about incentives, with decentralized, self-government?

 

[ToxicBunny]

Like I said, the only way to vote on a bill of rights is via a secession referendum. Otherwise it should remain for the most part static.

The BoRs is not supposed to vary. It's supposed to be a hard reflection of a peoples' core moral code.

A referendum to secede involves the exact opposed of mob-rule.... it's a case of live and let live.

So a majority that votes to change a bill of rights is going to deprive a minority of some of those rights. That would be a case of forcing one's rules onto the minority.

The minority is of course not forced to secede, but having a right they should be free to separate if they so choose.

Since you're harping on the Bill of Rights element.

Have our Bill of Rights changed at all since they were instituted with the Constitution?

 

[lexity]

Since you're harping on the Bill of Rights element.

Have our Bill of Rights changed at all since they were instituted with the Constitution?

Afaik, the equality provisions, were included from the start.... so the constitution has effectively been broken from the start. At least in so far as positivist law is concerned, which violates private property rights because it places constraints on exclusive control of one's property and freedom of association.

p.s. I don't think it's changed from '96, but ironically it should be changed..... but only via a referendum.

As it stands, it is an example of supreme law that is ambiguous, which tends towards corruption through the artificial need for arbitration.

Conversely, the SA Constitution wouldn't need to change once the WC has seceded. Because there would be nobody left who didn't feel adequately represented by the Equality provision.

 

[Brian_G]

See what I mean about incentives, with decentralized, self-government?

Six of one, and half a dozen of the other. I'll accept that it's another way to go

 

[Cray]

100% correct.

But you can't live under a Statist, 2-tier regime, like we do now.

That's the caveat you failed to mention.

Of course, suddenly living in Lexietopia will suddenly make rich company owners model corporate citizens and who would never try to make a quick buck at the expense of others. Your delusion that your perfect state will funamentally change human nature is a sight to behold.

 

[Splinter]

Like I said, the only way to vote on a bill of rights is via a secession referendum. Otherwise it should remain for the most part static.

The BoRs is not supposed to vary. It's supposed to be a hard reflection of a peoples' core moral code.

A referendum to secede involves the exact opposed of mob-rule.... it's a case of live and let live.

So a majority that votes to change a bill of rights is going to deprive a minority of some of those rights. That would be a case of forcing one's rules onto the minority.

The minority is of course not forced to secede, but having a right they should be free to separate if they so choose.

You completely miss/avoid what Grant was saying., Vorastra...

 

[lexity]

Six of one, and half a dozen of the other. I'll accept that it's another way to go

Assuming you are envisioning a smaller state so secession part 1, where no lexitistanis have taken the next step.

The smaller the tax-base, the less incentive for corruption... cos there isn't enough money to risk bad behavior over.

It's way easier to keep an eye on politicians when they work for you in your own neck of the woods. It's not rocket science.

This is part of the problem Americans have, because all their swamp rats work thousands of miles away from their constituents.

 

[lexity]

Of course, suddenly living in Lexietopia will suddenly make rich company owners model corporate citizens and who would never try to make a quick buck at the expense of others. Your delusion that your perfect state will funamentally change human nature is a sight to behold.

You are applying Statist incentives to a non-statist economy.

The reason corporates behave badly is because there is no real incentive for them not to.

This is because the consumer has been infantilized and therefore no longer plays the role of individual-responsibility-bearing selector/appointer of contractors, for products. and services.

It should be obvious. You have made a gatekeeper out of the State, who while you are not watching - under the guise of all the better to protect you, dear consumer - prevents new market entrants from coming in and improving the price/quality combination to the satisfaction of the consumer.

The consumer has abdicated his role in markets...... OBVIOUSLY he's going to be taken for a ride!!!!!

When you get rid of this two-tier system... or move to a one-tier system... there is no nanny-state.... so this abuse will stop, as individuals grow up and start selecting market winners by voting solely with their feet.

 

[Cray]

You are applying Statist incentives to a non-statist economy.

The reason corporates behave badly is because there is no real incentive for them not to.

This is because the consumer has been infantilized and therefore no longer plays the role of individual-responsibility-bearing selector/appointer of contractors, for products. and services.

It should be obvious. You have made a gatekeeper out of the State, who while you are not watching - under the guise of all the better to protect you, dear consumer - prevents new market entrants from coming in and improving the price/quality combination to the satisfaction of the consumer.

The consumer has abdicated his role in markets...... OBVIOUSLY he's going to be taken for a ride!!!!!

When you get rid of this two-tier system... or move to a one-tier system... there is no nanny-state.... so this abuse will stop, as individuals grow up and start selecting market winners by voting solely with their feet.

Can you give me a real world example, either current or throughout history of this non- statist economy?

Surely there must be one? I would hate to think that you are basing all these predictions on what happens in a non statist economy on pure theory with no actual real world experience?

 

[vigras rojara]

You are applying Statist incentives to a non-statist economy.

The reason corporates behave badly is because there is no real incentive for them not to.

This is because the consumer has been infantilized and therefore no longer plays the role of individual-responsibility-bearing selector/appointer of contractors, for products. and services.

It should be obvious. You have made a gatekeeper out of the State, who while you are not watching - under the guise of all the better to protect you, dear consumer - prevents new market entrants from coming in and improving the price/quality combination to the satisfaction of the consumer.

The consumer has abdicated his role in markets...... OBVIOUSLY he's going to be taken for a ride!!!!!

When get rid of this two-tier system... or move to a one-tier system... there is no nanny-state.... so this abuse will stop, as individual grow up and start selecting market winners by voting solely with their feet.

People vote with their feet and their wallets anyway.

Most people probably prefer it to be unlikely that their restaurant meal will kill them, the fact that if they and several other patrons died it might lead others to avoid the restaurant notwithstanding.

 

[lexity]

Can you give me a real world example, either current or throughout history of this non- statist economy?

Surely there must be one? I would hate to think that you are basing all these predictions on what happens in a non statist economy on pure theory with no actual real world experience?

Read the 'mytheory' post, linked to earlier... it explains the resistance to free market reforms.

There has not been a totally free market economy, that I know of.

Free market economics, to the extent is has been practiced, has been attacked and marginalized several times in economic history.

If you look up the the origin story of post-Roman free-market development in Europe, the modern State was born in opposition to the wealth that was being generated without the permission or involvement of the then rulers.

This was a major challenge to the ubiquitous 2-tier system. It was the birth of a Middle-Class.

Immediately legal privilege(in the form of guilds, in England) was assigned by the King to prevent open competition from requiring the ruling class and aristocracy be subject - like everyone else - to market forces.

So I won't go into detail, here, unless anyone is interested, but to the degree freedom to transact was uninterfered-with, there were results which over time became predictable.

To the extent, today, that we have economic indices that show less government intervention in the economy = greater prosperity, across all classes.

We've had a working formula for a very long time. Centuries. But there is an ongoing war between the biological reductionist, lateral/incremental thinkers, and those who understand the benefits of exponential development.

The form of government, known as the State, won out against genuinely free markets. The free marketers were forced out of open debate, and were met with fierce, violent resistence to going it alone to prove their system could get much better results.

This is why the advice: if you don't like the rules in your homeland, South Africa, then leave and go live someone where else... is trite.

The State is pretty much ubiquitous. There are only fledgling free market nations who are in the early stages of establishing themselves in the international community,

Funny - and sadly - enough, the US is one of the examples where secession resulted in 80 years of a booming economy.

That was until the Hamiltonian protectionists and their descendents, like Lincoln - the US forebears who Trump looks up to - ruined the US experiment. They put a massive stop on the general expectation that people should be free not only to join a political union but to leave it, too.

They instead tried to cover over their anti-market bias and the brutal war against their own fellow citizens, with care and interest for the slaves.

 

[Grant]

I watched a video a while back about an American town that got overrun by libertarians to the point where they could vote their own in with local elections. They dropped local rates and taxes to as low as they legally could go. Municipal services collapsed.

Everyone just did what they wanted. They started dumping their garbage wherever. Some people thought the local bears were cute and started actively feeding them. Eventually the place was overrun by bears because there was no money for proper waste disposal or animal control and nobody central to manage it in any coherent manner.

Total chaos. Total failure.

I spared a thought for our MyBB separatists while watching.

this one:

The Libertarian Town That Ruined Life for Everyone.​

"A libertarian experiment promised freedom in rural New Hampshire—until taxes vanished, garbage piled up, crime rose, and bears moved in. The bizarre true story of Grafton’s Free Town collapse project."

 

[ToxicBunny]

Afaik, the equality provisions, were included from the start.... so the constitution has effectively been broken from the start. At least in so far as positivist law is concerned, which violates private property rights because it places constraints on exclusive control of one's property and freedom of association.

p.s. I don't think it's changed from '96, but ironically it should be changed..... but only via a referendum.

As it stands, it is an example of supreme law that is ambiguous, which tends towards corruption through the artificial need for arbitration.

Conversely, the SA Constitution wouldn't need to change once the WC has seceded. Because there would be nobody left who didn't feel adequately represented by the Equality provision.

Why is equality a problematic bill of rights entry?

 

[lexity]

Why is equality a problematic bill of rights entry?

It's problematic in the same sense 'Democracy' is problematic.

There are 2 interpretations of 'equality,' as the concept of legally codified rights is generally perceived:

1) equality under/before the law: regardless of status, the courts turns a blind eye to status and material conditions of the participants, across the enforcement of the law and the performance of the justice system.

2) material equality, which some view as a prerequisite to #1. This is where (as is elaborated on in the 'mytheory' post) those of a hyper-materialist bent believe and work towards making everyone materially equal before they will accept the moral precept that all should be equal before the law i.e. #1.

The SA constitution deliberately blurs/conflates the two, in an apparent attempt to please everyone in the rainbow nation.

#2 is a fantasy. And it's the strongest indicator that two distinct groups of peoples should secede. The sooner the better.

 

[ToxicBunny]

It's problematic in the same sense 'Democracy' is problematic.

There are 2 interpretations of 'equality,' as the concept of legally codified rights is generally perceived:

1) equality under/before the law: regardless of status, the courts turns a blind eye to status and material conditions of the participants, across the enforcement of the law and the performance of the justice system.

2) material equality, which some view as a prerequisite to #1. This is where (as is elaborated on in the 'mytheory' post) those of a hyper-materialist bent believe and work towards making everyone materially equal before they will accept the moral precept that all should be equal before the law i.e. #1.

The SA constitution deliberately blurs/conflates the two, in an apparent attempt to please everyone in the rainbow nation.

#2 is a fantasy. And it's the strongest indicator that two distinct groups of peoples should secede. The sooner the better.

Tell me you have fsck all idea about the actual bill of rights without telling me.