Reply To: Fundamental Principles to be documented within our constitution

[Anonymous]

#1385

Hi all. I’m sorry I stuffed up and was late for the meeting, especially as I was meant to talk to you about Zim/SA + this constitution stuff that has come up.

My intention in putting the constitution together was to create trust between us so that we could put our differences aside and help each other grow and act together. I sensed at the first meeting that there were not different factions, but different temperaments. If I’m the only one feeling this please tell me.

But there were traditionalists, conservatives, Christians, atheists, individualistic and collectivistic types. So there’s a fair bit of opposition, but I thought we could make it far less dichotomous. I have no problem with differences, but people seemed a bit hesitant. Can I do this, say that, etc under the group banner. The 2nd meeting to me seemed like a lot of going over the first, obviously I can’t say anything about today. I hoped that if we could put differences aside we’d focus on what we have in common and there’d be more action and less arguing over our various politics. Obviously I failed big time and just added fuel to the fire. So I reckon we scrap the constitution I’ve written, and somebody will eventually put something together that is more straight forward.

In that spirit I was wondering whether there was anyone in the group not too concerned about anonymity who’d like to make some video content? Maybe something bi-weekly that we could post on PT’s and YouTube. I think conversation/video comes across better than writing – writing gives me the shits! Let me know if you’re keen! We might have to put in to get some gear etc. Maybe even start off as a podcast.

Nonetheless Carl offered genuine criticisms, so I owe it to do my best to answer them. Take them only as food for thought – consider the constitution fucked off. See [responses] below:

Hi Craig

I have to say that you and I think quite differently! [proof that we’re not in a cult -good!] I appreciate the effort you’ve put into the constitution, but I have to say there are several areas where I disagree, and others where I think we should have a bit more definition and clarity.

In essence, the disagreement lies in how much we choose to let Enlightenment concepts influence the group. [I’m almost certain that the Enlightenment came out of Christianity. David mentioned “The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilisation” by Vishal Mangalwadi at an Aus Cons meeting. It’s the best thing I’ve come across on the subject – but there’s plenty on the internet that takes the same tone. I’m pro-modernism. If you wrote an anti-modernism piece on the website, I’d maybe write a critical comment at the bottom – at worst I’d write a pro-modernism piece. Would that be acceptable to those who are anti-modernism? Would I have to explain myself, and to whom? This is what the constitution aims to address. Because, despite the group having rather a lot in common, it is far from monolithic – we have to address our differences in some manner, there’s no way around it. If I am to be held to an anti-modernism view then I’ll have to be on my way. If we can compromise with each other I’ll stick about no matter how much I disagree with people. I’ll stick around for what we agree on.]

For example, the idea that ‘all men are created equal’. Is this really true? [under the law, certainly – hence criminals] I have doubts – and even if people were created equal (i.e. equal at birth), after a few years of childhood, without doubt  any equality between persons no longer exists at all. [not in outcome, but in opportunity – how people exercise their free will, affects their and only their outcomes – they have free will just like anyone else. They can only try to blame their shortcomings on lack of free will – reality won’t have it!]

What is meant by a ‘more perfect Freedom’? [well Australia is more free than Canada (“islamophobia” is a hate crime there). Australia is far from “perfectly free” – it/we can do better] What are the blessings of Liberty? [do you eat bread? The fact that you can get a good loaf of bread for $4 is a miracle – the machinery used to grow the crops was incrementally improved year by year, model by model, and represents only part of an interconnected and unbroken stretch of freedom going back 200+ years. There’s a reason 3 employees can grow 7000ha of wheat in WA, whereas it’d take 50+ employees to grow a similar crop in Zimbabwe (that’s 50 Zims sharing the wages of 3 Aussies – during hyperinflation farm workers were only earning the equivalent of USD30/month – we had to grow food for our own labour force). The difference is productive capacity which can only be gained by increment, and which requires freedom for people to make the sacrifice. Also, isn’t the PT’s a blessing? Maybe freedom is an abstract concept if you’re born into it. But I feel free when I do such mundane things as walk along a cycle track – freedom is a very real, very concrete concept to me.] And what is the benefit of pursuing ‘greater Liberty’? [getting a good loaf of bread for $3 – prosperity, community, opportunity…it’s endless. If we help elect somebody to parliament we’ll have greater liberty. Do you want to celebrate Australia Day, or are you cool with ‘invasion day’? Do you want your kids going to school the way it currently is – socialised education? ‘Safe schools’? The benefits are truly endless.]

Are freedoms ‘inalienable’ in the true sense of the word, or are they just an invention of modern philosophers? [an invention? Christ no! You can put me in jail for speaking my mind, you’ll never rid me of my mind – the point isn’t that a dictator can’t put you in jail, he can! – the point is that you cannot make people happy/content to be living under a dictatorship, even one that’s ‘trying’ it’s absolute best to be benevolent.] The idea of ‘consent of the governed’ is very much an Enlightenment concept [“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?], and the idea of the social contract is not without its detractors. Shouldn’t we test this idea before adopting it? [this has got nothing to do with ‘the social contract’ or Rousseau – haven’t read him because I gathered that he believed people existed in a utopian natural state in the past – so nah to him. The US is the test. It’s constitution is the oldest still in use today. The US is a superior freedom to Britain or anything in the commonwealth. Although it’s such a complexity that I’m willing to have people try change my tune.]

What is meant by ‘salvation’ [depression would be a lack of salvation, great satisfaction in being alive the opposite] and personal sovereignty? [you get to make your own decisions, so long as they don’t prevent me from making my own decisions, and then we each bear the weight of the consequences. If we each have free will, then we each get different consequences. When I dropped out of uni there wasn’t a single friend or family member who approved – that’s sovereignty, but if I done fucked up, it’s my cross to bear.] If the ‘Consent of his sovereign peers’ cannot be obtained (e.g. SJW’s), do we resort to violence? [no, law enforcement will get you. The fact that law enforcement is failing somewhat in Berkley for example, means we need to win greater Liberty.] In which case, how can the SJW still be said to have individual sovereignty? [nihilism (no salvation) if law abiding, law enforcement/justice if not. Lefties tend to be sad wankers – literally! If somebody can’t convince themselves that life is fuckin’ great, then what chance do others have?]

Why is Modernism acceptable? [what did you type this on? Not anything that came out of the Muslim world for sure.] Modernism is generally considered [I know you think it is, generally I’m not sure people agree. Maybe it’s the people you know who agree?] to be an era where culture and society rebelled against tradition, simply for the sake of it [depends on how wide your category for modernism is – if you include Rousseau/the French Revolution, then yes. I don’t like loose categories because you then have to accept that a man can be a women because gender is fluid, but you’re then also not allowed to treat him like a man (because gender is fluid) – and then chaos breaks out! A lot of modern figures not only worked within tradition, but strengthened it against secular pseudo intellectuals. What’s more is far more efficiently than theological types quoting the Bible could’ve done!] It sought to change the status quo and find different ways of doing things [yeah the cunts – why don’t I get to harvest wheat with a sickle!], not because they were better, but simply because they were novel. Modernism is the essence of the mindless ‘progressivism’ that we see today. [surely it has more to do with post-modernism? no? Lot’s of folks who were born into freedom and prosperity, and through free will choose to be anti-religion, then anti-capitalism, then anti-law and order, thus anti-you and me. They’ve never even heard of Foucault – but they’ll holler if somebody quotes him. (+ they’ll boo if you quote JS Mill/Locke and other proper modern figures) That’s just psychology – and we can and should try to improve the cultural environment. I think the question is how modern presuppositions can support pre-modern presuppositions (and visa versa), and contrast them with their post-modern equivalents. e.g. on human nature; modern = we are tabula rasa and have free will + pre-modern = we are subject to God’s will and have original sin (which I’d say are both true to some extent, and thus not a dichotomy as appears on the surface) VS post-modern social construction (BLM bullshit for example). Consider this fact…every successful entrepreneur failed 7 times on average before their success – yes you have free will, you can start 8 businesses, AND you can’t force others to accept you as a success because you have original sin (ignorance/lack of knowledge) to overcome. VS some social construction justification of claiming entitlement to welfare/reparations]

Finally, I feel the constitution has too much focus on the individual [this is a dichotomy interpretation. Individualism/collectivism can be, but doesn’t necessarily have to be either or – hence consent based collectives, or individuals voluntarily working together – the PT’s are an example]. We are trying to form a brotherhood [why would individualism stop this? – I think it would strengthen the brotherhood.], and sometimes, the rights of the individual must be subservient to the rights of the brotherhood. [if I and others choose to work with you, does that make us totally subservient, or only to a degree? I refuse to be totally subservient to anyone – I won’t do something I don’t believe in, nor would I want to put somebody else in that situation. Plus, if what I’m doing is so great, why would I need people to be totally subservient? Businesses don’t even need their employees to be totally subservient – quit if you want.]. Great cities and nations were built by the sacrifice of many, for the benefit of their fellows and for those that followed [why must everything be monocausal? Why can’t I do things for a dozen and one reasons that separately don’t matter, but together mean the world. Why can’t I do what’s good for me, for my family, for my community, for my city and country? What sort of things are we going to be doing that are only good for others? I don’t believe that people are purely altruistic. Altruism comes about because we can stop thinking about ourselves – we’ve got enough, now we’d like to help others not so fortunate]. But this individualist tone seem too…cold. It has too much of capitalism and self-interest [maybe you’ve bought into the ‘inequality’ narrative. Say my employer ‘only’ pays me 50K and spends 800K on a new harvester. Inequality? Maybe, but who benefits? The farmer? Sure, his cost side is improved = better margins. Me? Sure – easier to drive/air con on a hot day. People who eat bread? Definitely. People who own machinery construction businesses? People who work there? We all benefit from capitalism. You, your family, your workers, your customers, your suppliers, everyone. Pretty altruistic I’d say. Sure there is a disparity between the labour share and capital share of output. But that disparity also exists between the shares of input. Marx was wrong – labour gets it’s fair share of the surplus value produced. It’s only cold depending on how you understand it.]

So I would want to iron out all these questions before we proceed with a constitution. The devil is in the details, as they say. And once we’ve got a constitution, we’re pretty much stuck with it, so there’s no need to rush things. [agreed as stated above]

I don’t intend this to be taken harshly, but I’ve no doubt that you’ll be fine with the criticism.[likewise] What do you think?