ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Hello All,
This is something I've been working on for a while: I thought it would be funny if I posted my thoughts on politics while 100% drunk. Like, I've taken 12 shots of 50% alcohol drunk. If a drunk conservative is more coherent than an abstinent liberal, what does that say about liberalism?
Right now, I just took an amount of shots I have honestly lost count of. Here's my thesis: even while drunk, my ramblings are still more coherent than the policy's of most progressive liberals.
Really controversial take, isn't it? Hard for me to tell. I am, after all, intoxicated to the point of not being able to answer this question.
Starter take:
Most liberals take on the second amendment is incoherent.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
- The Second Amendment.
Ok, so my brain may be grasping on straws to make sure this rant on (unknown) number of shots of alcohol makes sense. But for a first political rant of a very drunk person? Its still pretty good!
Most liberals focus on the militia part. However, this misinterprets the meaning of militia in the 17th century.
According to Stanford Academic Gregory Ablavsky:
Ergo, militia applies to the entire community. Everyone. There's no "most people aren't in a militia so the second amendment doesn't apply" like some liberals try to pull.
The second amendment applies to everyone. Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms. This is because, without a militia of citizens, a government can frequently do whatever it pleases. With a militia, there are at least enforeceable limitations. I know that people talk about the reality of the fact that a militia can't realistically oppose tanks, but the fact is that those represent the fact that those represent the success of militias.
If a government sends tanks to fight its own citizens, a government shows just how much its own legitimacy and strength has been undermined. In doing so, it shows that its democracy has failed. This is the value of a second amendment: if the second amendment has become a common way of people showing the opposition to government, then unfortunately, government has failed us.
This has unfortunate implications for our government - at least, to my mind. If people feal the necessity to bear arms, the situation is truly dire.
Honestly, most people would rather do nothing. Given the opportunity, I would rather do nothing,
This demonstrates the rise of corporatism. The rise of corporations and entities that are able to oppose governments. In whatever capacity they can - social, political, environmental. The truth is, corporations exist, in a regulatory context, for regulatory capture. If controlling 80% of a corporation gives one 80% of control, than 80% will be influenced in that way,
Considering this, I would encourage you all to think of corporatism as an enemy. Instead, remaining faithful to the native populace makes you an ally, of whatever native populace you desire.
Defend America, whatever that means to you - the revolutionaries, the 1%, the government powers.
Anyway, I'll see you the next time I drunk post.
Fairwell,
Sincerely,
ParadiseLost
This is something I've been working on for a while: I thought it would be funny if I posted my thoughts on politics while 100% drunk. Like, I've taken 12 shots of 50% alcohol drunk. If a drunk conservative is more coherent than an abstinent liberal, what does that say about liberalism?
Right now, I just took an amount of shots I have honestly lost count of. Here's my thesis: even while drunk, my ramblings are still more coherent than the policy's of most progressive liberals.
Really controversial take, isn't it? Hard for me to tell. I am, after all, intoxicated to the point of not being able to answer this question.
Starter take:
Most liberals take on the second amendment is incoherent.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
- The Second Amendment.
Ok, so my brain may be grasping on straws to make sure this rant on (unknown) number of shots of alcohol makes sense. But for a first political rant of a very drunk person? Its still pretty good!
Most liberals focus on the militia part. However, this misinterprets the meaning of militia in the 17th century.
According to Stanford Academic Gregory Ablavsky:
- Stanford’s Greg Ablavsky on Law and the History of American Militias | Stanford Law School.
Ergo, militia applies to the entire community. Everyone. There's no "most people aren't in a militia so the second amendment doesn't apply" like some liberals try to pull.
The second amendment applies to everyone. Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms. This is because, without a militia of citizens, a government can frequently do whatever it pleases. With a militia, there are at least enforeceable limitations. I know that people talk about the reality of the fact that a militia can't realistically oppose tanks, but the fact is that those represent the fact that those represent the success of militias.
If a government sends tanks to fight its own citizens, a government shows just how much its own legitimacy and strength has been undermined. In doing so, it shows that its democracy has failed. This is the value of a second amendment: if the second amendment has become a common way of people showing the opposition to government, then unfortunately, government has failed us.
This has unfortunate implications for our government - at least, to my mind. If people feal the necessity to bear arms, the situation is truly dire.
Honestly, most people would rather do nothing. Given the opportunity, I would rather do nothing,
This demonstrates the rise of corporatism. The rise of corporations and entities that are able to oppose governments. In whatever capacity they can - social, political, environmental. The truth is, corporations exist, in a regulatory context, for regulatory capture. If controlling 80% of a corporation gives one 80% of control, than 80% will be influenced in that way,
Considering this, I would encourage you all to think of corporatism as an enemy. Instead, remaining faithful to the native populace makes you an ally, of whatever native populace you desire.
Defend America, whatever that means to you - the revolutionaries, the 1%, the government powers.
Anyway, I'll see you the next time I drunk post.
Fairwell,
Sincerely,
ParadiseLost
Last edited:
