Egregoros

Random thought:
I think basically nobody agrees with my political perspectives because:

1. The left has a very narrow orthodoxy, and if you don't agree with it 100% then they claim to think you're a not-see. To anyone outside of the leftist bubble, this is self-evidently garbage.

2. The right has a tenancy to over-simplify problems and is attracted to "big hammer" solutions - like as if everything will be utopia if we just send the blacks back to Africa, take away women's vote, evict the jews, etc. The problem with these "simple" ideas is that if things were so simple, somewhere at some point in history, some country would have accidentally stumbled on them, thrived, and made them a universal standard.

If you approach things from a first principles perspective based on the assumption that governance is a hard problem and the best countries to live in today are already solving it as best we know how - conclusions and proposals end up being a lot different from anything that is typically discussed in the political arena.

> a simple idea like Send Them Back

I'm not going to argue that it's BAD because MUH EQUALITY, that's leftist/emotionalism nonsense. That which produces better outcomes for more people is better - and it's uncontroversially true that the benefit to the 99% from the exclusion of the 1% violent criminals outweighs the interests of said criminals.

> you have got to start somewhere

I would however argue that this is a compromise, and it's not even a compromise with the left per-se, but rather a compromise with simple people who cannot understand complex topics and need simple slogans to rally around. I don't think you could even claim that it's *optimal*, so for me it's passé.

> Like we're not going to dump Justice Clarence Thomas in amongst the savages

I don't think that's obvious at all. As we saw recently, the slogan "Deport All Illegals" gave us the rapid and violent deportation of Europeans who didn't have their visa paperwork in order, whilst Salvadorian gangsters who simply jumped the border illegally were released by corrupt judges using the excuse of human rights.

Every political program is a deal with the devil, and if you are not very precise in what you mean, you will find it used against your interests.

Hard Problems are hard, if they were easy they'd have been solved already...

You don't get the benefit of an idealized world where things just work. If a proposal is to take flight, it has to work in reality, and reality is messy.

There are SO MANY ideas out there which would work beautifully if only the justice system was free of corruption. Even Communism would probably work, because the courts would weed out all of the corrupt officials from government.

But honest courts don't exist, they've never existed and they never will exist - because judges are people, and people are biased and subject to corruption.

But lets imagine you're going to bypass the judges and do this under martial law... You still have a problem because you have to decide exactly who you're throwing out.

Lets imagine (for argument) that you want to throw out blacks, jews, and everyone who came after 1964. That's probably like 100 million people. Those 100 million people are going to be VERY motivated to fight you. I mean like, they'll fight to the death. Then they probably have another 50 or so million friends who will be willing to arm and/or hide them (Will Stancil running guns). Don't laugh, throwing a box of AKs in the back of your Honda Fit and driving them somewhere is absolutely within the capabilities of the average libtard.

Now you've got 100-150 million people that are against you, so where are you going to find 100 million people who are willing to die fighting for you? The average white guy just wants to be left alone and raise a family, nobody wants to die for an idea of what might possibly be a new country. The math says no, the math says your idea flops. And this is why when you look through history, you find nobody has ever done anything like that before.

And the tragedy is, there are ideas that would have largely the same impact but very few people would seriously object to them. But nobody talks about them because they're complex, which means they're boring. Everybody prefers to just watch the same video clip of ICE deporting the same guy over and over again like as if watching it enough times is going to mean ICE is having some kind of meaningful impact (it's not).

Anyway, that's my rant... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That does have historical precedent, but I don't think solutions even need to be this hard.

If you're clever, a lot of this stuff can be done at the city scale. You know I bang the drum all the time about criminal mischief insurance, but that's not the only solution.

Just look at what the Hasidic Jews are doing in that video by the Indian Poo Guy. I'm sure they're not actually violating the Equal Housing Act, it's just that anyone that's not a devout Jew is really not going to enjoy living in that town.

Here's a dumb idea: A town in the middle of nowhere and no grocery store except a private member-only cooperative. Anyone can live there, but they have to truck in their own food...

When you start thinking solution-oriented, solutions kind of just grow on trees...

@cjd @Humpleupagus @MCMLXVIIOTG
Delegated voting should work similar to naming a beneficiary on a piece of land, so yes, most likely legal.

As for Pinkertons operating in major cities, that would be wild and I would suggest using the proper corporate structure to avoid liability when Pinks inevitably beat someone to death.

An example would be an LLP partnering with an LLC who hires the security team of your choice. I may have the exact legalese wrong, but that's where elephant lawyerman comes in.