Enclavism
Enclavism is an alternative framework of government that we are currently designing. We’re continuing to build it and the community for it.
If you’re interested you can contact me here or simply bookmark this website and join in. I’m also writing a book on it.
Today I wanted to do a quick article with an overview of Enclavism for those who want to learn the basics, prior to the main release. Naturally, I am a bit of a dissident, so it shares dissident elements.
We’ll go over the goal(s) of Enclavism and how we intend to reach them.
Goals of Enclavism
The goal of Enclavism is simple:
- We want to create the essential tenants of an alternative government form that is resistant to anacyclosis.
Each modern government is destined to collapse given enough time. We need a new government form that addresses the issues leading to the cycle of collapse.
To prevent it from happening. To preserve our people and culture.
Obviously, we can’t create an entirely new government form and address all of its possible future problems and intricacies. So instead, our goal is to create a working, practical framework for a government designed to withstand the test of time.
This means it is a framework. Not a strict political manifesto. It’s being built to be utilized by many different people of different belief systems.
We don’t believe any of the current government forms can accomplish surviving the cycle of collapse [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. So, we need a new one. If the other forms of government (democracy, republic, monarchism, communism, etc) all work and collapse in a cyclical manner, there is no reason to support any single one of them.
Your contributions, at most, could only delay the cycle or temporarily turn it toward your own favor.
So, the goal is a framework that can stop the cycle. That is Enclavism. We call it that because it is “enclaved” from the rest of the worldwide governmental forms that will continue operating on the cycle. It is culturally and cyclically unique. Non-degenerative. Hence, enclave.
Yet, it also has a dual meaning. We want to form parallel Enclavist communities and Enclavist economies in current societies to help resist against decay. Hence, enclave (again).
We believe that the singular government styles, lackluster communities, centralization loopholes, and degenerative culture are the pinnacle reasons for the collapse, depending on the government type. So do the ancient philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius (whom originally coined the name “anacyclosis”). Along with plenty of more modern figures, like John Adams, John Glubb, or Machiavelli.
The enclaves, along with other changes to the modern forms, will help address the cycle of collapse. Thus completing the goal of the Enclavist framework.
How We Will Reach This Goal
Enclavism reaches this goal by controlling the downfalls of each other government form, thereby addressing the root causes of the cycle.
The idea is we can merge the governmental forms into one and address each component of their degenerating aspects through the use of a corrective measure of another. A sort of check and balance for an entire framework.
We can take the best of all the modern forms of government. Leave out the garbage that leads to decline.
We know that certain systems stand the test of time far better than others. We also can study how each of these better systems thrived for so long. Then, we can take these pieces and compile them into a framework for the future governmental systems.
There are very specific reasons why the cycle affects each modern form of government. Some are obvious; some not so much. If we address each version of these reasons in every government form, we could become cycle-proof.
We’ve addressed the issues of democracy many times [1][2][3][4][5]. We’ve addressed the issues of socialism too many times [1][2][3][4]. Same goes for communism (which is just a form of rule by one rather indistinguishable from fascism, dictatorship, etc) [1][2][3][4]. We reach the goal by fixing these problems.
Regretfully, these problems can’t be fixed within their own frameworks, because they are issues with the frameworks themselves. To fix them requires a new framework entirely. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of lengthening how long one of the deteriorating frameworks can survive.
The Basics: An Overview of enclavism
We have a lot in the making with Enclavism. It’s hard to round it down to a few key elements, but I’ll try here.
Our basis is a rule by many foundation with key elements from the others. This is because the rule by one and rule by few foundations are not sustainable (nor desirable) long-term. We address this issue here. The rule by many has the most potential for the safeguards we need in our framework. We don’t follow it exactly, but use it as a base to combine with the others.
The main components include:
- Preserve the stable majority-homogeneous culture
- Ensure accountability for all important societal actors
- Eliminate centralizers (The isolated class [financial elite], SCMs, the politburo, and the intelligentsia)
- Setup a form of stakeholder (contributor) voting
- Require community formation
- Remove degeneracy
- Enact strong law and order
- Protect real freedom
- Chain unrestricted capitalism
- Secure business in the interests of the nation
- Incentivize unification
- Restructure government
- Require strong, virtuous representatives
- Operate only on merit
- Provide checks and balances
- Have a final “nuclear” option safeguard in case the nation degenerates even with our protections
This is a massive topic, so we can’t expand on them all as detailed as we would like in only one article. But let’s break down some of these.
Culture
Culture drives politics. The cultural swing in the US is what directly preceded the political shifts we are seeing now (more far left and more far right). We must stabilize culture and cultural parameters in any country that is to be immune to the cycle. Degenerative culture will naturally provoke decline.
This isn’t to say that culture can’t change or evolve, but the people who “direct” the culture must at least be held accountable to the nation. In modern republic societies, this doesn’t happen. The chosen ones who determine culture are accountable to none. The financial and cultural elite decide your culture, not you nor your government. This must be corrected to have a sustainable nation.
A big factor in this is formulating a correct power cycle: The Power Cycle: When The Institutions Own The Government
Accountability
There exist numerous societal agents that are fighting for centralization in republics. Historically, the only one that existed were governments. In the modern day, that is not the case. Cultural elitists, the financial elite, and even the mob work in their own interests toward centralization.
Accountability is needed to ensure that the centralization by any type of societal actor, not just the government, does not occur. We need proper checks and balances to fend off each type of power struggle so no societal agent can ever gather too much control and push the country back on the path to full centralization.
Any large business, influencer, cultural marker, or politician must be held accountable. Currently, we aren’t able to control the majority of these… at all. Sometimes, we can barely hold politicians accountable. If this can’t be done in a rule by many, then it certainly cannot be done in a rule by few or rule by one. We need a new option.
The people in charge of different areas of society exert tremendous short-term and long-term influence on the nation. As they degenerate, they bring us all down with them. Why do unelected, greedy individuals (Hollywood) get to direct our culture, laws, and business? We can’t do anything to stop them under democratic (or even socialistic) nations. Under authoritarian regimes, the state just replaces them. No option exists to actually control them. That’s where we come in.
Instead, we need to ensure we hold these groups accountable to the public. No more free rein. If they can exert as much power as our politicians, we should hold them to the same accountability standards. Our justification requires this.
Elites
Cultural elites have tremendous power. Financial elites have power that most politicians will never match in their decade-long careers. Information elites hold power over our beliefs, income, and distributionary resources. Media elites control every narrative and story. The Intelligentsia are bought off by these other centralizer groups.
Yet, none of these groups are accountable to anyone. They have tremendous financial, cultural, distributary, and network power but no real oversight.
No society can survive when elites are present indefinitely. Eventually, oligarchs or aristocrats form. Hatred and resentment grows. Moreover, the resentment grows justifiably. This is how a rule by many falls into a rule by few.
We need a system where elites are not allowed free rein. Together, we will hold these individuals and organizations accountable for the actions they commit to the nation and to the world. We will also remove most of them from their positions of un-hinged, un-elected, and un-accountable positions of power. Part of this, is the absolute destruction of the “isolated class” of elitists at the very top.
Community
Every single great society was built around the idea of community. Community is an essential safeguard against anacyclosis, because it’s the foundation for what holds the nation together.
The Roman Republic was not founded by large swaths of diverse groups. Instead, it formed from independent, culturally similar, local communities uniting with one another. The Roman Empire thrived by instilling their homogeneous culture in all of its conquered territory. It fell only when it could no longer complete this mission.
Under nearly every modern day system, we have an awkward top-down approach. Our unity is supposed to come from the top. Even though we are horribly splintered at the top. We need to invert this. Community is what drives unification. Individualism has become a plague on Western Civilization, and may in fact be the final nail in its coffin. The individual can only be so free and prosperous as his community. Without it, the individual is nothing.
Yet, we barely know our own neighbors in modern cities. Capitalism has wrecked us and pitted us against one another in an individualist fashion. Capitalism is a useful tool when used correctly. Damaging when used incorrectly. America was not originally based on individualism. But rather, personal community.
People and society work better when we think of our local communities first. When we have communities that we believe in. With people that we want to form a community with. Right now, we forcibly live in cities for a job or in the suburbs because of financial cost. When we should live with our own community; our own “tribe”.
There is a lack of community in every modern Western nation. We must address this. Enclavism does this by bringing the focus back on choosing and supporting your own community. The best way to help the nation is to help your own (chosen) local area, driving growth all the way to the top instead of the top down. Currently, we segregate living areas based on financials instead of segregating living areas based on communal desire. We aim to fix that.
All Governments Must Choose A Focus. We choose community.
Degeneracy
Degeneration and decadence can bring down even the strongest of nations. Once degeneracy hits a country, there is relatively no return to the previous normalcy. It will either stagnant or get worse.
Us here in the Western world have started ascending the peak. The depravity won’t be getting better from here on out. It’s either a change to a government form resistant to the effects of degeneracy (through the cultural methods we mentioned above) or the eventual depraved descent to a worse form of government.
Even if we fix the degeneracy with a collapse and re-installation of another form of government, it is only a matter of time before it returns in true cyclical fashion.
Any nation that wants to be resilient for the future must place stopping degeneracy as one of its primary goals.
Protection of Freedom
With these changes in mind, we also have to protect important freedoms. We have a lot of freedoms that we take for granted. Freedoms that aren’t offered in places like totalitarian China.
We have to balance out the need for sustainability with the use of authoritarianism.
What is the use of a government if it is miserable to reside under?
We must protect these essential liberties. Historically, the best method for this kind of protection is through a constitution. Both federal and state. We want to keep and expand the level of protections offered by the constitutions.
We also want to place the opportunity for freedom into the hands of the local communities, instead of the government itself. So, that individual people using their chosen communities can have leverage to defend and fight for their continuation. This requires strong, vanguard men. Something that is often destroyed in the latter stages of degeneration. And something that can only be retained through the proper upbringing of children.
Chained Capitalism
Capitalism has offered tremendous growth and poverty alleviation. We likely can’t develop an economic structure better than it in terms of growth potential. Socialism is simply no match. Yet, what worth is economic growth if the entire civilization is on a path doomed to collapse?
Is the economy the end or the means?
We see the economy as a means to help our people reach happiness and prosperity, not an end in itself. It is essential, certainly. But not at the cost of our people and our nation.
Minor economic gain will not offset the required economic price required to rebuild. Nor will it justify the tyranny that our children will have to go through because we desired economic growth, consumerism, and materialism over something actually meaningful.
Capitalism is a useful tool, but it provides a very easy avenue for negative societal agents to seize control and begin centralization. This is because of its very nature of decentralization.
This is because it is unchained. Monopolies, elites, and a nation dominated by those who accumulate the most capital is not the original intention of a capitalistic system. But it is the inevitable result of unrestrained capitalism. Capitalism, by its nature, will turn into a type of oligarchical socialism.
But both systems are at risk of degrading. Capitalism, through turning into oligarchic capitalism (a form of socialism ~ rule by few). Socialism, from turning from that base into pure centralization by the politburo over enough time (rule by few to a rule by one). So, what do we do?
Capitalism needs to stay in the economy, not in the politics or the culture. We want the economic benefits of certain aspects of capitalism without the political elite and business control it leads toward. Let them operate efficiently, but let’s remove their un-accountable, un-elected, and solely profit-driven nature.
We need a mixed approach to the economic. No government nationalization of the means of production, but no free lunch for oligarchs, either.
Business should work in the interest of the nation first; profit second.
We have since expanded on this idea in the terms of an economic system of “Dominionism”, where different economic dominions function separately within a society. It is neither capitalist nor socialist, corporatocracy nor corporatism; rather it is a type of fourth position. This will need to be further expanded in a future article in the interest of a reasonable-sized dialogue here.
Unification
Our nations need to become unified once again. Not unified as in Ayn Rand’s Anthem unified, but unified enough to form a cohesive partnership. Globalism will not accomplish this. We must have nationalism. Strong nationalism.
Nearly every form of government risks internal collapse. This is from the fall of the nation because of internal conflict. We’re on that path due to the nature of the two-party system and other in-fighting between people that should be on the same team.
A prime aim of Enclavism is the focus on nationalist unification. Tactics, strategies, and policies to unite groups of very different mindsets and beliefs. The people and the political class. The contributors and the institutions. We intend to do this through placing a more serious effort on community structures, incentive structures, and cultural norms.
A nationalist, stabilized culture can aid this.
Promote the nation. Do not tear it down.
Pyramid Government
We need a better government distribution. Not necessarily smaller, but more dispersed. We need the bottom-up approach.
The government should look and operate like a pyramid. Most of the action and people on the lower (local) levels with fewer on the state and even fewer at the federal. Right now, in the US, we have the opposite of this. Most of the government power is at the federal level. The pyramid is upside down.
The federal government does not have the power where it matters, but they have the power in every other avenue. It is truly a sight to behold when the federal government cannot enforce unfettered immigration but can enforce mask mandates. The entire power structure of degenerative systems is asinine.
We need to have a process for politicians to go up through the ladder of government instead of pay their way directly to the top. Also, we need to have laws move up from local communities, instead of the federal government deciding everything for everyone. We also desire to limit a lot of specific policies on a state level, to ensure they can not infest the federal level and cause degeneration, dis-unification, or regional disenfranchisement.
This high level approach is risking the entire fiscal health of a country on singular federal policies. The federal agents should not force minor topics on everyone else. We need more decentralization in the power structure to fight off federal centralization.
Instead, let’s let the communities decide. If it works at the lower levels, it will naturally keep spreading and growing. If it doesn’t, let it fail. One community failure is a lot easier to handle than the likes of entire countries failing from a single forced federal policy.
This is also the killer of authoritarian regimes. One bad policy and you get Mao’s great famine, which killed hundreds of millions. We need to test any new policy, belief, or procedure on the low levels first. We intend to provide this “sandbox” and “bottom-up” approach in Enclavism.
Stakeholder Voting
Let’s discuss voting while we’re on the topic of authoritarian regimes. The risk in any government is the possibility of a centralized control under the hands of one or the hands of a few.
We need to ensure this possibility is as far eliminated as possible. We intend to do this through constitutional protections, unified communities, and direct measures to take on every influential position.
But voting itself presents risks. When a nation learns it can vote itself free money, how much longer will that government be fiscally prudent? When a politician learns they can win office by buying out votes through welfare, how long will the nation remain in the hands of the virtuous? Instead, voting should remain in the hands of individuals whom are best suited to wield it.
Stakeholder voting is a system whereby we place voting more heavily into the hands of people who actually hold a stake in the nation. Less voting power for the welfare recipient who has accomplished nothing. Less voting power for the college student who has contributed nothing to the nation yet. More voting power for the employee with 20 years of experience that has 4 kids. More power for the small business owner of 10 years and the soldier.
We allow everyone the right to vote but splinter it based on stakeholder level. This allows everyone the opportunity to have higher voting privileges so no one is denied equal opportunity. But, it protects the nation against the lowest form of voters, voting in policies that would degrade the nation in the long-term.
Likewise, we can instill higher voting age requirements and other voting restrictions such as a history test required before receiving a voter ID. These things would ensure that voters were active, engaged, and knowledgeable enough to vote.
We can’t toss aside the importance of voting. But we can fix the voting system itself to favor stakeholders over freeloaders.
Keep the high-level leaders directly accountable to ensure we prevent tyranny and revolution.
Our voting would not be strictly democratic nor would it be the dreaded “one person one vote”. But rather one of a contribution incentive. Those who contribute more, get a higher say. We did an initial foray into this thought with this article: Democracy Sucks: Let’s Return To Stakeholder Voting. But, we have since expanded on that idea and have a near fully-functioning version that is similar but not identical to it. A new article will need to introduce the concept at a later date. For now, it’s focused on in the book.
Checks and Balances
Every form of government needs another to balance it. Proper checks and balances ensures tyrants aren’t able to seize control.
The main balance is not another form of government but the citizenry themselves. If we elevate them to be the proper checks and balances, we could create the strongest oversight over government possible. This isn’t to say governmental structures shouldn’t also provide a balance, but it doesn’t have to be the only one.
Likewise, checks and balances must exist between the societal agents attempting to centralize the nation to ensure that no group is ever able to grab more of the power than others.
Wrap-Up: Overview of Enclavism
All the above comes from the recommendations of ancient philosophers, the study of governmental forms, common sense, and millenniums of governmental histories. Using what has worked and removing what has not.
Let’s make an entirely new governmental framework that can withstand the cycle’s effects. It all starts here.
You can also stay tuned for more articles on Enclavism or subscribe to my newsletter if you want to get a reminder when the book comes out. I would also be interested in your thoughts or amendments. Leave a comment or contact me here.
Thanks for stopping by.
Read More:
The Cycle of Collapse: How Governments Fall
What Is A Sensitive Cultural Marker (SCM)?
The Different Types Of Government Forms By Power Source
Want To Know Who Really Controls You?
If you enjoyed this article, give us a bookmark and check back often for new content. New articles every weekday.
You can also keep up with us on social media or by joining our monthly newsletter.
Help us fight the censorship – Share this article!
Finally, please consider supporting my work. Every donation is immensely helpful to keep us growing.
Monopolies, elites, and a nation dominated by those who accumulate the most capital is fundamental to a capitalistic system, not a result if the nation’s carelessness.
Good catch. Thank you. I will update it.
One other thing that’s bothering me regarding Enclavism; How can we protect against Jim Crow?
That is a policy question, not a framework question. That is akin to asking how a rule by many could prevent car accidents. It is far too granular of a subject to include in a framework.
The goal here is a framework, not necessarily an all-encompassing singular government type that can address every policy question. It can be hard to think in this terms, but useful once you get there.
Oh, thanks.
Hello there. Just a quick question regarding Stakeholder voting; How exactly is it not Oligarchy? Moreover, what separates it from an Oligarchy?
An oligarchy is a rule by few. Our framework will be (once we get there) a rule by stakeholder/rule by contributor type setup. So it would be more akin to a rule by “many” (majority) than a rule by few. But it would technically be neither. It’ll share elements from them all.
An oligarchy has a few select individuals that control the majority of the power in the nation. Usually they control financial/cultural/intelligentsia and some factor of the politburo. Such as America today. Our system would have this power rest with stakeholders based on their contribution to the nation. Not centralizers. An oligarchy also has unaccountable leaders. All of our representatives, even non-elected representatives (such as cultural elite, bureaucrats, appointed political representatives, etc.) would be accountable to this stakeholder group. Our leaders would also not be selected internally from some elitist power base, instead they would be selected by the contributors. Wherein, a nation does not have just “a few” contributors, but a lot. Being pedantic, you could say its a “many”. But traditionally, the rule by many has actually meant a rule by majority, as in democracy/republics. Which ours is definitely not.
That is a good question, however. Rule by many descends to a rule by few due to centralization (which is what an oligarchy is). So, the main point of our work here is preventing that from happening. So, we definitely don’t want to start there.
Excellent.
Another Question regarding Stakeholder voting; what advantages does Stakeholder voting have over 1 person 1 vote, and vice versa? This is because I hear tell of Stakeholder voting being tantamount to voter suppression, and you don’t mind clarifying, do you?
One person one vote leads to the system we have today. Mob rule. It’s inherently unsustainable long-term. Plato/Polybius/Rome/Greece figured this out 2000 years ago and 2000 years of history since then only cement that fact. You can’t have people who only care about themselves, welfare voters, low information voters, and the likes voting or else the entire nation is lead by individuals who appeal to these people. The elected reflect the electorate.
The idea with contributory voting is that everyone can still vote, but the vote is based on your contribution. It’s not “suppression” (which is just a leftist talking point, anyway) if you still have a vote and have the capability to contribute more but choose not too. It would only be suppression if one of those two were halted, which isn’t a factor here.
Oh yeah, thanks.
By the way, I just think that socialism needs to stay within the community, just as capitalism needs to stay within the economy.
Best part about Enclavism is, as a framework; the community doesn’t have to adopt any one system on a nationwide basis.
Well then, if the community wants socialism, it’s going to have to vote for it.
Better still, It’s gonna have to vote for it via contributory voting, which shuts out degeneracy (selfishness, greed, envy), and incentivizes contribution (generosity, empathy, responsibility) by design in making your vote count more, either through hard work, making honest money, studying up your history, lifting others up out of poverty, giving decent housing to the homeless, offering welfare recipients, racial minorities, college students et cetera a chance to better themselves, any form of active participation will do as long as it serves the nation.
The best part about contributory voting of all is that you don’t even have to give them any money, but rather a chance to brush up on the nation’s history, study as hard as they can, letting them know that their voices will be heard more clearly in exchange for serving the nation.
Plus, their voices can still be heard so it doesn’t even count as voter suppression, and even if they dredge up long debunked leftist strawmen, whining about voter suppression, the other voters can simply remind them that if they want to make their voices heard they’d best make an honest effort to serve the nation. After a while, fewer and fewer people will find themselves complaining, while a far more substantial majority will have in the very least, put at least some modicum of effort to make their personal votes count more.
The Contributory voting system couldn’t be further removed from the centralizing forces of oligarchy, being fundamentally based on 1 vote per person and US citizens, while also disallowing for any sort of mob rule shenanigans to take root. there might be a few perpetual whiners here and there, but people will have gotten so used to them by now they’d just as soon dismiss them as crazy.
Hitting the nail on the head. That’s the idea.
It’s never been tried before. We went from qualification voting (must be upper class as in ancient Rome or landowner or some other qualifier) to one person one vote. Both systems which are less than ideal. Contribution voting solves most of the problems with these two voting systems, while keeping power in the hands of people more responsible to use it justly.
You may be surprised that many of your elements of Enclavism were novelized in Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic books.
I agree with much of what you say here. There is a problem, I don’t see your argument for why capitalism is the only answer for Enclavism. You simply say that socialism is garbage. How do you back this up? I think that the decadence and subsequent decline that we see in our culture right now is due in part to capitalism, because it makes money the main objective. What if family were the main objective? Or community? Couldn’t social-democracy support these objectives even more effectively? Why not?
Also, the framers of the Constitution did not all think one thing. They argued laboriously over how to write it, and over what it should stipulate. To say that you know what the framers of the Constitution were thinking beyond what is written is an overreach. The people who wrote the Constitution used their basic belief in free speech to discuss the Second Amendment, and their choice of words, “regulated militia,” was chosen carefully. We need to follow the edicts of the Constitution, and regulate gun ownership. This isn’t taking gun ownership away. It is a common sense way of monitoring what guns are being used for and who is purchasing them.
I completely agree with you that the police state has become normalized. When I went to my sister’s graduation from Columbia University, the airline had completely bumped many people off of their flights, and police showed up in combat gear and semi automatic weapons to offset what may have become a riot. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. And everyone acted as if it was normal.
I think you are really on to something here, but to cling to your ideas of what you interpret the Second Amendment to mean, and to cling to your idea of capitalism as the be all and end all for America is misplaced. It seems like you, at your core, are a republican, and that these are your pet beliefs that you are not challenging or reconsidering.
The debauchery and decline of which you speak, I see these as remnants of capitalism because the focus is on money above all else. What if money were the tool we use to create and sustain community, and no more? Could we call that something other than capitalism, and wouldn’t it be helpful to do that?
Devonee, thank you for the thoughtful comment. It’s very insightful. It gave me a lot to consider.
I would like to address some of your questions and comments:
First, we need to give some definitions so this article makes a bit more sense. I need to reword some things in it as strict “capitalism” is not exactly what we are discussing. The capitalism I am referencing is an incentive-based but elitist-restricted economic capitalism (IE: we are not nationalizing the means of production such as socialism or benefiting oligarchs). It is not the political capitalism we tend to think of, such as a democratic/republic state. I believe that capitalism, as an economic tool, is essential for the economic benefits it provides to nations, which has been demonstrated pretty obviously throughout history and which I have written on in depth in many articles around HD. The full nationalization of industry, to me, is far too problematic. It inhibits the incentive to produce, earn income, and strive to be better.
However, your criticism of general societal capitalism is not without merit. The degenerate nature we see today and the the greed evident in our culture holds clear relation to capitalism. Does this mean we should dismiss the economic side of the theory entirely? Some could argue yes. I would argue no. Capitalism is the best economic policy but we should find a way to make it work without the side effects mentioned. IE: A “chained” form of capitalism. Then we can have the economic benefits without the total state control of industry. I am not against some forms of socialism. Quite the opposite, I recognize that some of it is essential. It’s just finding the balancing line. I agree that an objective such as family, community, or national unity would be far better than money as an objective. That’s something I hope to aspire toward, but it is difficult because of the appetite desires of us. It also holds little relevance what we hold dear as objectives if we can’t put food on the table, such as in the case of the USSR who exhibited a prime example of a socialistic economy (nationalization of means of production). Of course, homogeneous countries such as Sweden have made it work (albeit with a deterioration in production, work ethic, and a reduced defense position), but we don’t have that luxury on this side of the ocean. And they won’t have it in ten years, either. So we can reconvene on their success then.
As for the constitutional framers, luckily we don’t need to consider what we think they meant when arguing their points. Most of them argued publicly many times over in many different formats. So we can take their words. The “regulated militia” does not mean exactly what we interpret it as today. That is well documented. One could argue for or against gun monitoring but in my opinion I just don’t think it would actually accomplish anything so I fail to see the point. It certainly wouldn’t stop gun deaths or prevent a massacre, so what benefit does it provide rather than adding a level of government bureaucracy and fiscal expense? And with our modern politicians I could only envision it getting worse. All it does is create a nation of weak, pathetic mean. Let men stand up for themselves, and their communities. The reason we are in so many messes today is because of a lack of courage. Taking away tools to let people defend themselves will not fix that problem, it will only worsen it. Likewise, too, if we are to create a system that is somewhat more “authoritarian” in terms of cultural preservation, the people need some means to counter-balance the risk that presents. Enter communities, militias, and guns.
I do agree that it is insane how much of a police state has occurred and the fact that no one even notices anymore. As you said though, when we change from lovers of family and community to lovers of money it changes everything around us. Including the culture, the people, and everything else. We put our safety in the hands of the state instead of ourselves. What do you think would happen? This directly ties in with your position against guns: A nanny state wouldn’t reduce this, only increase it.
I believe you are right in moving away from the labeling of it as “capitalist”. My idea wouldn’t be strictly capitalist by any means. Sadly, we just don’t really have any terms to refer to it as. Maybe that will be the next goal: renaming the economic policy to something other than socialist or capitalist so a clear distinction exists. Not a bad idea I think you are onto.
Thanks again for the comment!