Faith_Bubbles

2mo ago

Tree overgrowing cell tower

nature is healing

3mo ago

Live updates: Trump announces sweeping tariffs

Some of the architects who helped win the second American civil war say yes:

Firstly, it is essential to squash the democratic myth that a state ‘belongs’ to the citizenry. The point of neo-cameralism is to buy out the real stakeholders in sovereign power, not to perpetuate sentimental lies about mass enfranchisement. Unless ownership of the state is formally transferred into the hands of its actual rulers, the neo-cameral transition will simply not take place, power will remain in the shadows, and the democratic farce will continue.

So, secondly, the ruling class must be plausibly identified. It should be noted immediately, in contradistinction to Marxist principles of social analysis, that this is not the ‘capitalist bourgeoisie’. Logically, it cannot be. The power of the business class is already clearly formalized, in monetary terms, so the identification of capital with political power is perfectly redundant. It is necessary to ask, rather, who do capitalists pay for political favors, how much these favors are potentially worth, and how the authority to grant them is distributed. This requires, with a minimum of moral irritation, that the entire social landscape of political bribery (‘lobbying’) is exactly mapped, and the administrative, legislative, judicial, media, and academic privileges accessed by such bribes are converted into fungible shares. Insofar as voters are worth bribing, there is no need to entirely exclude them from this calculation, although their portion of sovereignty will be estimated with appropriate derision. The conclusion of this exercise is the mapping of a ruling entity that is the truly dominant instance of the democratic polity. Moldbug calls it the Cathedral.

The formalization of political powers, thirdly, allows for the possibility of effective government. Once the universe of democratic corruption is converted into a (freely transferable) shareholding in gov-corp. the owners of the state can initiate rational corporate governance, beginning with the appointment of a CEO. As with any business, the interests of the state are now precisely formalized as the maximization of long-term shareholder value. There is no longer any need for residents (clients) to take any interest in politics whatsoever. In fact, to do so would be to exhibit semi-criminal proclivities. If gov-corp doesn’t deliver acceptable value for its taxes (sovereign rent), they can notify its customer service function, and if necessary take their custom elsewhere. Gov-corp would concentrate upon running an efficient, attractive, vital, clean, and secure country, of a kind that is able to draw customers. No voice, free exit.

4mo ago

Law Prof. Katherine Franke Accuses Columbia of Empowering Trump by Agreeing to $400M “Ransom Note”

Jump

"Columbia sells students to forced labour camp for $400M"

4mo ago

How much of a risk is it for naturalized US Citizens (or those with Derivative Citizenship) to protest against the US government, compared to the risks of natural-born US Citizens doing the same?

Jump

What about people who can't relocate because they're poor, don't have dual citizenship, have nowhere to go, have felonies, etc?
We know it will get worse. Our persons are already owned by the US. We know the history and we've read their playbooks.
There's no organization, no real solidarity, no strategy for opposition.
The people who think they'll be safe from it won't help us entrench, and people who already got out won't help us get out.