Post: #26

(07-18-2015 12:36 AM)chagataev Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 09:34 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 08:24 PM)The Father Wrote:  The whole thing tells me we've reached a tipping point: Too many delusional people have the right to vote in this country. I seriously think if we restricted the right to vote to MEN, over the age of 25, with an IQ over 120, and a net worth of a certain amount (i.e., people with an actual STAKE in this society), we'd have a normal country again. Incidentally these voting requirements are similar to those in effect for the first 100 years of the country, except there was also an unnecessary racial element involved. Whatever your color, if you're smart and work (i.e. helping to pull the wagon, not be IN the wagon), I think you should vote. Otherwise...sorry.

No need. Just calculate the total amount of government expenditures in the trailing four years prior to a presidential or congressional election, then divide by the number of citizens.

If you contributed more than that in tax dollars for those four years, you get a vote.

Basically, you only get to vote if you bring more to the table than you take away.

This would also select positively for IQ and for middle-aged people (by excluding the young and the old).

It seems odd that if you are so discontent with society you should want a voting system specifically designed to change any given society as little as possible.

I could potentially get behind a system of voting restrictions based explicitly on IQ but never on wealth. Certainly if you are discontent with a society you wouldn't want to strongly select for people who would be *least* interested in changing it, those being established, tied-down, middle-aged people.

Post: #27

(07-18-2015 12:36 AM)chagataev Wrote:  I could potentially get behind a system of voting restrictions based explicitly on IQ but never on wealth.

IQ is worthless without common sense. I have met many supposedly smart people who believe the stupidest shit.

Give me a person with some values, a code and common sense. And who values his word and we have a good start.

Post: #28

(07-18-2015 12:36 AM)chagataev Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 09:34 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 08:24 PM)The Father Wrote:  The whole thing tells me we've reached a tipping point: Too many delusional people have the right to vote in this country. I seriously think if we restricted the right to vote to MEN, over the age of 25, with an IQ over 120, and a net worth of a certain amount (i.e., people with an actual STAKE in this society), we'd have a normal country again. Incidentally these voting requirements are similar to those in effect for the first 100 years of the country, except there was also an unnecessary racial element involved. Whatever your color, if you're smart and work (i.e. helping to pull the wagon, not be IN the wagon), I think you should vote. Otherwise...sorry.

No need. Just calculate the total amount of government expenditures in the trailing four years prior to a presidential or congressional election, then divide by the number of citizens.

If you contributed more than that in tax dollars for those four years, you get a vote.

Basically, you only get to vote if you bring more to the table than you take away.

This would also select positively for IQ and for middle-aged people (by excluding the young and the old).

It seems odd that if you are so discontent with society you should want a voting system specifically designed to change any given society as little as possible.

I could potentially get behind a system of voting restrictions based explicitly on IQ but never on wealth. Certainly if you are discontent with a society you wouldn't want to strongly select for people who would be *least* interested in changing it, those being established, tied-down, middle-aged people.

The voting system I proposed would be based on tax contributions. Income and wealth are both well-correlated with IQ, so they can function as very rough IQ tests.

Basing it off tax contributions would be much more politically feasible than IQ. It can be marketed to appeal to people's notion of fairness ("if you put in more money than you take out, you can help decide how it's spent") more so than a government administered IQ-test, albeit basing it off tax contributions would find robust opposition as well. IQ is very controversial in the United States, and I will leave as an exercise to any readers as to why.

Established, middle-aged people are interested in leaving a better country for their children. Even if they weren't interested in changing it for the better, a voting population interested in maintaining the status quo would be better than a voting population afflicted by dysgenic breeding and migratory patterns increasingly pushing for policies that result in continual cultural and economic erosion.

At the very least, voting rights based on tax contribution is a put option.

Post: #29

What's so disgusting about putting on a warm sweater and a pair of mittens? If that is what's preventing you to moving, then obviously your problem with the USA is not as significant as you claim.

Post: #30

Hmmm, yes. Let's give people with money absolute power over those without money. That shouldn't cause any problems.

The current problems the exist in the USA are there because the power has been taken out of the hands of the people. Corporations run the show, who you vote for has no real influence.

I don't know how any change in the voting system will change the fact that there is no checks and balances for the more influential powers in America.

Post: #31

(07-18-2015 04:22 AM)Suits Wrote:  Hmmm, yes. Let's give people with money absolute power over those without money. That shouldn't cause any problems.

This is a silly characterization. Restricting the vote to positive net-tax contributors would not give them "absolute power" over non-voting negative net-tax contributors--just like men did not have "absolute power" over women pre-women's suffrage, and >=18 year-olds as a political unit do not have "absolute power" over <=17 year-olds. Citizens, regardless of voting qualification, would still have rights--just not the right to potentially vote themselves largesse from the treasury, as goes the supposed remark from Tytler.

(07-18-2015 04:22 AM)Suits Wrote:  The current problems the exist in the USA are there because the power has been taken out of the hands of the people. Corporations run the show, who you vote for has no real influence.

There are a lot of problems, many but not all due to corporatism. At the margins--while perhaps not as influential as one may like--the influence of voting, summed across all voters, is certainly non-trivially greater than zero. Thus, improving it would be a net positive.

(07-18-2015 04:22 AM)Suits Wrote:  I don't know how any change in the voting system will change the fact that there is no checks and balances for the more influential powers in America.

Maybe, maybe not. Any change in the voting system would not be a magic bullet to cure all ailments. However, to the extent that the marginal utility of an action is positive, including opportunity costs, it should be pursued. If your back and biceps could use some work, you wouldn't forgo doing chin-ups just because they don't also target your chest and triceps.

A shift to a greater reliance (or a shift to non-zero reliance, rather) on national referendums for legislation (and less reliance on Congress) could work well in conjunction with the discussed change in voter-qualification, ameliorating corporate cronyism. Would also improve transparency, and greatly simplify legislation.

Most importantly--national referendums would be kind of fun.

Post: #32

That video sure showed quite the double standard. So the tranny was able to get away with touching Shapiro repeatedly, making fun of his size, and then threatening to beat him up, but only because it was wearing a dress.

Post: #33

(07-17-2015 08:24 PM)The Father Wrote:  This video is ridiculous. After making objectively verifiable statements ("her chromosomes are male...every cell in her body is male, with the exception of some of her sperm cells"), Ben Shapiro is threatened with violence from the tranny panelist. I thought VIOLENCE against gays is one of the things they've been whining about. Now they think these conversations should be settled with violence??

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...ebate.html

The whole thing tells me we've reached a tipping point: Too many delusional people have the right to vote in this country. I seriously think if we restricted the right to vote to MEN, over the age of 25, with an IQ over 120, and a net worth of a certain amount (i.e., people with an actual STAKE in this society), we'd have a normal country again. Incidentally these voting requirements are similar to those in effect for the first 100 years of the country, except there was also an unnecessary racial element involved. Whatever your color, if you're smart and work (i.e. helping to pull the wagon, not be IN the wagon), I think you should vote. Otherwise...sorry.

But since we've hit a tipping point of tards, losers, women, freaks and other n'er do wells as our electorate, I don't see the U.S. EVER regaining a sense of normalcy. And, I fear it will only get worse, such that 20 years from now our old RVF posts will be dug up and our ID's ruthlessly pursued so we can be prosecuted by whatever Kangaroo courts our first Tranny president implements. I'm only half-joking.

It makes me think my retirement is better elsewhere. But where? Europe is a socialist mess. Lat Am is corrupt, and in some places violent. China is polluted and the women don't appeal to me. Maybe Singapore - I've heard good things about it. Thailand or Vietnam? I dunno. But the idea of getting away from this politically correct freak show in my retirement appeals to me. Just not sure where. Russia is one place where freaks aren't tolerated well, and the women are stunning. But I've spent a lot of time in eastern Europe - corruption and cold weather don't appeal to me.

I'm open to suggestions.

After being abroad for several months now, I have to say that the US is truly the greatest nation despite what seems to be its inevitable decline.

Thailand truly sucks as a nation. Yeah it's cheap and the girls can be good looking (although I not really into Asian chicks) but it's corrupt as all hell and only getting worse. I'm not really one for countries with such a huge peasant culture.

Singapore is a great example of a nation built ALMOST from scratch. Very transparent and very little corrruption although it's very authoritarian by western standards and can be very stale after a while. Not a place to be a slacker either and if you expect to pull top shelf tail, you'd better have serious cash.

Russia? Too fucking cold and, yes, very very corrupt. Eastern Europe? Hot chicks, yes. But too unstable.

Although I sometimes feel like leaving my country permanently for better pastures, I can't. My forefathers came to the new world and settled on the land now known as the United States of America in the 1700s. They fought in the Revolution and Civil War. They fought for a better life and for ideals which I feel ashamed for having not lived up to thus far in my life. They were much better men than I and I feel the pull to go back and really help other men of virtue and create a country built on the vision of men that gave their lives for God and Country. Am I being a bit dramatic? Maybe. But after having lived in other countries, I see how nations all over the world, to varying degrees follow the U.S. even if they simultaneously hate-on it and despise it.

I've spoken with expat men who have lived abroad for several decades. They go on about how they U.S. and Westerners who were once valued and men held in high esteem are now viewed as jokes and fat bafoons. It drives me mad to think that I could possibly be contributing to this perception by just indulging my base instincts.

I'm a firm believer in changing myself rather than changing other people or "changing society." I continue to develop myself and drop crumbs of red-pill truth on those I believe are willing to hear it.

Post: #34

Why is he a troll Red_Pillage? There is such a thing as a "troll-calling troll" too you know.

Anyway, all the talk about 'who gets the vote' is missing the point: why should you be able to vote to control and loot other people? If they're not in a jail people should be free. It is precisely the looting and lack of individual freedom that is exacerbating these things. The loot is used to fund ideological weapons to wage the democratic 51% factional carving battle, and one result is the individual freedom to purge freaks out of one's workplaces, dwellings and schools etc being abridged.

Well-structured self-enforcing mixed constitutions are much more important than who has franchise in the democratic aspect. I wrote a bit about this elsewhere: /thread-48430.html .

Also OP, maybe Hungary?

Post: #35

(07-17-2015 10:16 PM)Dusty Wrote:  My prediction is that the USA is going to break apart in a cold civil war. I'm talking decades away. I think the "red states" will just start ignoring federal laws that they don't like and start living how they want. The liberals won't be able to get the military or law enforcement to enforce federal law on the red states. People will gravitate to the blue states or red states based on their preferences to live in an SJW type world, or something more conservative.

You are more right already than you know. A few will miss the significance of this which is that historically, since the Fed's existence, no one has been able to challenge it. In fact, challenging it could bring harm to an individual or business (I know there was a gold-money company that tried and got in trouble), but now we see an entire state - and a very productive state - doing just this. Make no mistake, this is Texas flipping the bird at the Federal Reserve and there's further discussion about allowing the bank to use bitcoin with gold, so that people could transact in bitcoin, but have a set amount of gold backing up their bitcoins.

Point being, your post is already true and will become more and more obvious to some people. We should all welcome this because local governments represent us all better than some national (or worse, global) government anyway. Do you honestly think Washington DC knows what's best for Omaha Nebraska or Cheyenne Wyoming?

No, local people and governments know their people and communities the best.

(07-18-2015 04:22 AM)Suits Wrote:  The current problems the exist in the USA are there because the power has been taken out of the hands of the people. Corporations run the show, who you vote for has no real influence.

Then become the competition. Myself and others have done this: we don't like what one corporation is doing, so we begin taking their business away from them. Look everyone, corporations are easy to compete against because of all the bureaucracy they have. Plus, you know - since they exist - that someone needs their services. It's just a matter of learning the market and competing.

Enough of this victim-beliefs. This is capitalism; you don't like something, build the competition.

Post: #36

(07-18-2015 07:57 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(07-18-2015 04:22 AM)Suits Wrote:  The current problems the exist in the USA are there because the power has been taken out of the hands of the people. Corporations run the show, who you vote for has no real influence.

Then become the competition. Myself and others have done this: we don't like what one corporation is doing, so we begin taking their business away from them. Look everyone, corporations are easy to compete against because of all the bureaucracy they have. Plus, you know - since they exist - that someone needs their services. It's just a matter of learning the market and competing.

Enough of this victim-beliefs. This is capitalism; you don't like something, build the competition.

I did you one better. I left North America altogether.

That being said, it's really not a realistic path for most people.

Post: #37

If you want to include net worth. It would have to be self made. Well, shit even then there are problems.

I just think a person is wealthy through their parents and has never worked would not understand the importance or understand the seriousness of voting.

I heard Pluto is nice this time of the year some pretty nice pics the other day.

Post: #38

(07-18-2015 12:36 AM)chagataev Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 09:34 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 08:24 PM)The Father Wrote:  The whole thing tells me we've reached a tipping point: Too many delusional people have the right to vote in this country. I seriously think if we restricted the right to vote to MEN, over the age of 25, with an IQ over 120, and a net worth of a certain amount (i.e., people with an actual STAKE in this society), we'd have a normal country again. Incidentally these voting requirements are similar to those in effect for the first 100 years of the country, except there was also an unnecessary racial element involved. Whatever your color, if you're smart and work (i.e. helping to pull the wagon, not be IN the wagon), I think you should vote. Otherwise...sorry.

No need. Just calculate the total amount of government expenditures in the trailing four years prior to a presidential or congressional election, then divide by the number of citizens.

If you contributed more than that in tax dollars for those four years, you get a vote.

Basically, you only get to vote if you bring more to the table than you take away.

This would also select positively for IQ and for middle-aged people (by excluding the young and the old).

It seems odd that if you are so discontent with society you should want a voting system specifically designed to change any given society as little as possible.

I could potentially get behind a system of voting restrictions based explicitly on IQ but never on wealth. Certainly if you are discontent with a society you wouldn't want to strongly select for people who would be *least* interested in changing it, those being established, tied-down, middle-aged people.

Why do you assume that fewer dumb people and "takers" voting would result in less change? The U.S. "Founding Fathers" had voting restrictions similar to what I've proposed above...and they implemented massive change. I think the U.S. now is a like a big fat woman who can barely get off her couch. She's too morbidly obese to get up and exercise, and has no energy to improve her life. So she just sits there, like a fat blob, watching the home shopping channel and waiting for the government to give her free stuff. A leaner, smarter electorate might have more energy to change their lives.

As for the part about being against wealth restrictions...as the old quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville goes, ""A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." We're at that point. In addition, if someone has been relatively unsuccessful in his life, I don't see why I want him to have some say in my life. And since women consume more than they produce, I see no reason they should get a vote in sustaining society - they are by definition not sustainers of anything; men provide for them. Men who build, and should run, societies.

Post: #39

The communication challenges in the hispanic countries seem to be a much lower hurdle than the asian ones. Most places that are already well-off require a bit of money before they will take you in. I imagine Russia has a difficult process to gain admittance, never researched it though.

My brother is dating a hungarian girl, she isn't incredibly beautiful or anything (butterface) but she is the loyal ride or die type.

I had a great time in Slovenia and Croatia a couple years ago.

It is hard to tell somebody what place they should invest all that effort into moving into, you have a language to learn, a career to set up, a completely different popular mindset to adapt to. If you are serious about it then you ought to at least visit the places first. I would't leave over this reality tv nonsense, its easier to just stop watching.

Post: #40

(07-18-2015 08:46 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  If you want to include net worth. It would have to be self made. Well, shit even then there are problems.

I just think a person is wealthy through their parents and has never worked would not understand the importance or understand the seriousness of voting.

I agree that inherited wealth implies no ability or judgment on the part of the person inheriting. But some combination of IQ, wealth, or some other indicator of a STAKE in society and ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENT should be a requirement for voting. Maybe you need 2 of the 3: High IQ, success and productivity as demonstrated by tangible accomplishment, or service to one's fellow man (military service, other forms of service etc). And I'd set an age limit of 30 to 80 if it were up to me. When voting was set at 21, people lived on average to 45. So a 21 year old was middle aged, typically well into his career, settled in life, etc. Today's 21 year olds in the West are still picking their noses! They don't have the life experience to vote in the MLB All-Star game ballot! Also, I believe each voter should own a penis. This is based on 10,000 years of history and observation as to who typically builds, creates, and dies defending societies. Would this exclude some competent women? Yes. It is nonetheless a good general rule that would have prevented some disasterous presidents from being elected in the U.S.

Such a society doesn't exist. Maybe when space colonies are established, one will be established with a constitution that sets out to restrict the ability of takers such as women and the lazy to unduly influence society. This is, after all, what the original U.S. constitution did.

Post: #41

Calamity shapes our country's culture, values, and does other things like kill off large parts of the population. I think one is coming. All this media bullshit will vaporize in the aftermath and people will be hitting facebook to find food, water, ammo and to identify the.lost.
Billionaires are jumping into huge tracts of ranches and beef. Why? Food is going to be where the money is.
Just my own opinion. History repeats itself and she is a cruel bitch.

Post: #42

(07-18-2015 09:46 AM)rpg Wrote:  Calamity shapes our country's culture, values, and does other things like kill off large parts of the population. I think one is coming. All this media bullshit will vaporize in the aftermath and people will be hitting facebook to find food, water, ammo and to identify the.lost.
Billionaires are jumping into huge tracts of ranches and beef. Why? Food is going to be where the money is.
Just my own opinion. History repeats itself and she is a cruel bitch.

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Rudyard Kipling

Post: #43

It sounds like you want to go to a more conservative society. Does one exist without a heavily oppressive fascist dictatorship? Sort of a conservative/libertarian mecca of minimal government intervention, low taxation, free commerce, free speech and moral standards? Does this really exist somewhere on the globe? Or is all this completely meaningless when you turn off your television set and create your own reality.

Post: #44

(07-18-2015 10:00 AM)Vaun Wrote:  It sounds like you want to go to a more conservative society. Does one exist without a heavily oppressive fascist dictatorship? Sort of a conservative/libertarian mecca of minimal government intervention, low taxation, free commerce, free speech and moral standards? Does this really exist somewhere on the globe? Or is all this completely meaningless when you turn off your television set and create your own reality.

No. Not meaningless at all. If I were to say at work "I don't think gays should be allowed to marry" I'd be politely escorted off the premises. It's easy to say "just turn off your tv". But TV is just a popular medium of the day. Did the founding fathers say "Sick of King George's taxation without representation? Just don't read the newspaper". As if that made the reality of everyday life go away. I suppose if you wanted to lock yourself in your four walls and talk to yourself, you could define your own reality. Those who actually work and pay taxes and like to interact with some of the other 7 billion people on the planet don't have it so easy. What about those of us who want to date normal, feminine women...and found we had to go thousands of miles away to do it? I met feminine, lovely 21 year olds in eastern Europe that were far more mature than the 33 year olds I left behind in the U.S. Something is wrong with that.

Sorry, I've just heard the "turn off your TV" trope one time too many. I don't watch TV. It hasn't made government-enforced tyranny of SJWs go away. If i said "I think men are pretty much the leaders and producers and women consumers", I'd be fired, ostracized from society, etc. I said "I think gays are horny freaks who can't help who they are, but should be kept at the fringes of society and NEVER allowed to adopt", the same would happen. When your livelihood or freedom can be taken away for "thought crime", you live something approaching an Orwellian nightmare. TV's got nothing to do with it, son. Just because you aren't aware of what's going on around you doesn't make it not exist. Retards are happy, blissfully unaware of their surroundings. But their surroundings are what they are just the same.

Post: #45

(07-18-2015 06:35 AM)mrbiggs Wrote:  After being abroad for several months now, I have to say that the US is truly the greatest nation despite what seems to be its inevitable decline.

Thailand truly sucks as a nation. Yeah it's cheap and the girls can be good looking (although I not really into Asian chicks) but it's corrupt as all hell and only getting worse. I'm not really one for countries with such a huge peasant culture.

Singapore is a great example of a nation built ALMOST from scratch. Very transparent and very little corrruption although it's very authoritarian by western standards and can be very stale after a while. Not a place to be a slacker either and if you expect to pull top shelf tail, you'd better have serious cash.

Russia? Too fucking cold and, yes, very very corrupt. Eastern Europe? Hot chicks, yes. But too unstable.

Although I sometimes feel like leaving my country permanently for better pastures, I can't. My forefathers came to the new world and settled on the land now known as the United States of America in the 1700s. They fought in the Revolution and Civil War. They fought for a better life and for ideals which I feel ashamed for having not lived up to thus far in my life. They were much better men than I and I feel the pull to go back and really help other men of virtue and create a country built on the vision of men that gave their lives for God and Country. Am I being a bit dramatic? Maybe. But after having lived in other countries, I see how nations all over the world, to varying degrees follow the U.S. even if they simultaneously hate-on it and despise it.

I've spoken with expat men who have lived abroad for several decades. They go on about how they U.S. and Westerners who were once valued and men held in high esteem are now viewed as jokes and fat bafoons. It drives me mad to think that I could possibly be contributing to this perception by just indulging my base instincts.

I'm a firm believer in changing myself rather than changing other people or "changing society." I continue to develop myself and drop crumbs of red-pill truth on those I believe are willing to hear it.

Dude exactly.

Where do people think is a better place to start a family than the US - Thailand?

Right ..

In the US you have the opportunity to do what you want, surround yourself with the people you want & be successful with it.

Jenner is living the American dream - she's a freak, is going all out & I'm sure is making enough money with it. I think that's great.

You can be a freak too & do your shit. And when I say freak I mean red pill & find a community of like-minded people. Not everyone in the US is a weak ass pussy. Far from it.

Before getting all depressed about the US and thinking about expatriation, put some more time into thinking about how you can change your lifestyle & situation here in the US. Maybe you can even make a business out of it.

Post: #46

Ok, so you want to leave. But if you believe in conservative values, where else are you going to find that in the world minus a heavily oppressive fascist/religious state? With high taxation and no freedom of speech? I don't think it exists. Life in a barren country doesn't appeal to me. The founding fathers were fighting against violent governmental oppression that limited commerce and freedom. Correct me if Im wrong, but you can say those things in the US and not go to jail. I can only imagine that in a retirement phase, you would have even more opportunity to tune out the popular society and focus on your own self created world within the US. Who cares if you dont have to work anymore?

Post: #47

(07-18-2015 10:30 AM)Ice Wrote:  Jenner is living the American dream - she's a freak

Dude there's nothing "she" about Bruce Jenner.

Post: #48

(07-18-2015 10:30 AM)Ice Wrote:  Jenner is living the American dream - she's a freak, is going all out & I'm sure is making enough money with it. I think that's great.

Post: #49

(07-18-2015 07:57 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 10:16 PM)Dusty Wrote:  My prediction is that the USA is going to break apart in a cold civil war. I'm talking decades away. I think the "red states" will just start ignoring federal laws that they don't like and start living how they want. The liberals won't be able to get the military or law enforcement to enforce federal law on the red states. People will gravitate to the blue states or red states based on their preferences to live in an SJW type world, or something more conservative.

You are more right already than you know. A few will miss the significance of this which is that historically, since the Fed's existence, no one has been able to challenge it. In fact, challenging it could bring harm to an individual or business (I know there was a gold-money company that tried and got in trouble), but now we see an entire state - and a very productive state - doing just this. Make no mistake, this is Texas flipping the bird at the Federal Reserve and there's further discussion about allowing the bank to use bitcoin with gold, so that people could transact in bitcoin, but have a set amount of gold backing up their bitcoins.

Point being, your post is already true and will become more and more obvious to some people. We should all welcome this because local governments represent us all better than some national (or worse, global) government anyway. Do you honestly think Washington DC knows what's best for Omaha Nebraska or Cheyenne Wyoming?

Yeah, Pat Buchanan wrote an article predicting an era of civil disobedience from the right. The left has a long history of civil disobedience which is hailed as heroic by the media and academia (and some of it was - but current acts of disobedience like sanctuary cities that ignore federal immigration law, indeed running interference against it, not so much). The right does not have this history so much, so this is going to make heads explode in the media and academia. Suddenly "progs" are going to be hailing the rule of law.

Things will really accelerate if we get a couple more dykes or wise Latinas on the supreme court (isn't about time we had a tranny supreme court justice??) and they suddenly see something in the constitution that guns need to be confiscated.

Quote:If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce, and the children would go their separate ways.

Something like that is happening in the country.

A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural, and political views and values, is taking place.

America is disuniting, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote 25 years ago.

And for those who, when young, rejected the views, values and laws of Eisenhower’s America, what makes them think that dissenting Americans in this post-Christian and anti-Christian era will accept their laws, beliefs, values?

Why should they?

Post: #50

There is no ideal country, at least I haven't been to one.

To quote Andrew Henderson from the Nomad Capitalist, go where you are treated best.

Minimize your taxes (ideally to 0) and become location independent. That way you can live in a country like Thailand, take advantage of the positives and not have to deal with the negatives. Doesn't have to be Thailand, whatever floats your boat, but the key is not to be a slave to any government.