/confederate/ - Confederate

>>485

This. We need to build fury and indignation, and get out of this Godless union.

>>524

>So you want to do the reverse of the CSA?

The good men who founded the CSA didn't plot out their ideas for a government on an imageboard with 10 people.

>>525

>The good men who founded the CSA didn't plot out their ideas for a government on an imageboard with 10 active posters and 30 lurkers and one drunk guy who's really paranoid about the fbi

fixed that for ya.

>>528

Well the latter was implied.

>>524

Southerners won't go along with your shit. We'll write a strong Christian constitution when the time comes, decentralize permanently, and be done with it.

>>484

OP, you are over-complicating things. You need only one criteria: Taxpayers.

If you are a net benefit to society, you get to vote. If you go on the dole, you lose the vote. Leaches can't vote themselves more of your lifeblood, and would be leeches will think twice.

Your criteria fail because:

1.) any tumblrite can set up a "Free lance writing" business

2.) Property would be broken up in 1footx1foot plots and sold as voting rights.

3.) This is actually good. I'd be willing to wave the taxpayer requirement for this

4.) Good

5.) PhD in women's studies

6.) B.S. in women's studies until they start up their freelance blogging "business"

7.) has potential, but feel would be unneccessary if we based voting on taxpaying

>>576

>We need a minimum two courts.

You only really NEED one, but since this is a confederacy, I think that's just one for every state. I think more than one court could be useful for interpreting different types of law, but in practice I think it would at best, be more bureaucracy and at worst, just be redundant.

>SCOTUS was only meant to convene on very, very fucking important matters

Actually it wasn't, the Supreme Court was always meant to review and interpret the Constitution and by that logic, overturn lower courts' decisions. And this theory wasn't anything new when Justice Marshall came up with his opinion in Marbury, the Federalist Papers pretty much spell out that this was the idea all along. The fact that SCOTUS retained its original jurisdiction for "very very fucking important matters" was because those matters were serious federal or foreign policy matters that the states or inferior courts shouldn't decide anyway.

>You don't want a single supreme court because

>A) It implies the states can't tell them to fuck off (if they can, then what's the point of a supreme court?)

The states actually can tell the courts to fuck off, its happened before, and kind of happening right now. Enforcement of court orders is at the discretion of the executive branch. Again, the courts just interpret the law, its up to the states to decide whether they want to follow it.

>B) You get sodomite marriage and the likes.

I don't see how that's going to happen if the Supreme Court is stacked with racist rednecks, so rest assured, you'll be okay here.

how about this

if taxes >= used.social.services

then

vote

if taxes.paid < used.social.service

then

voteban

end

>>616

Since there's no separation of church and state, we might as well add one more line:

if jew

then voteban

end

>>616

What is that disgusting shit, C?

>>686

He's saying if you pay more/the same in taxes than money you receive from the government you can vote, and if you receive more money than what you get from the government you cant vote.

>>687

I know what he's saying, I was just making a nerd joke/whatever.

>>620

how about no jews in the country at all

>>720

Just deport all Jews to Israel and make it so Foreign entities cant lobby the government.

>>721

How about illegalizing lobbying in general.

Jews who are not Christian or loyal to the South absolutely need to be removed. Not killed, mind you, but certainly told to gtfo. Up north, to Mexico, free tickets to Israel, anywhere but here. Their tribe has made us THE target for cultural genocide.

>>484

>1) Own a Business (plus five years if it closes down)

>2) Own Property (same parameter as #1)

>5) Procure a Doctorate (Masters and Bachelors need not apply)

>6) Graduate from College (applicable for up to a year after graduating since it's assumed you'll be attempting 1, 2, or 3)

These all disproportionately favor Jews. It seems like you rewound time to the point where shit started to go wrong and picked the groups then that you wanted to have the vote. Think about the people you want voting in today's population.

>>484

>Roughly 67% of the population owns homes

Really, no. The vast majority of them there are owned by large banks who permit them there 67% to reside in them for making regular good goy mortgage payments.

Very very few people actually own property.

>>753

Factor in the fact that the government can take your property through Eminent Domain, really only the State owns property, and simply lets citizens rent it out.

>>752

Jews make up ~1-5% of the population here in 'Murrica, even if it disproportionately favors them, they have less political influence than one might think at a glance since the decrease in the total voting pool encourages them there left with a vote to actually go out and vote on shit. I'm willing to concede #6 though. This is ignoring the massive number of Jews who live in the North The only southern jews I've ever met either live in the big cities or happen to be pretty damn orthodox.

Today's population are intent on being good goy, basing anything around them would probably not end well. We need ideals to follow in order to conjure up a spirit of good faith in the first place. The younger generations are increasingly understanding this in their failed movements.

>>753

I'm well aware of the bank's influence and I don't agree with it. That being said, once again, like the Jews the bank's influence is mostly focused in the North and big cities. We're obviously trying to avoid another Nevada in which 95% of the state is owned by the government. Don't be a defeatist.

>>755

Eminent Domain has always been an issue because no one uses it for its original purpose, at this point I'd say get rid of it entirely since no one can play nice with it.

>>726

If there's no regulations to pass, there wouldn't be lobbying in the first part. Britain gained its image of posterity and loyalty among politicians during free trade when there were few regulations in place. E.G. there's no reason to bribe law enforcement to smuggle something in when the smuggling isn't banned in the first place.

Illegalize regulations.

>>768

>Illegalize regulations.

Oh yeah, I don't see how that could be a problem.

>>752

None of these disproportionately favor Jews. Unless you consider 5~8% of the population disproportionate.

Even if they did, I doubt it would matter. You need intelligent people voting and making decisions. You have to understand that if this whole Confederacy thing is going to work out, then you're gonna need allies. Mexico and Cuba are not sure things. Remember during the Civil War, what killed the Confederacy was inability for the economy to grow, mostly because of the fierce economic sanctions and blockades of the South. It also helped that they had no allies and nobody even recognized the Confederacy for that matter.

Lack of allies also destroyed Rhodesia and South Africa. Smart people that know how the world actually works have the capacity to make friends outside of the country.

>>779

>>779

>Oh yeah, I don't see how that could be a problem.

Almost all regulations today have been lobbied into existence (under the guise of helping the people) in order to drive out some form of competition or another.

Take for instance electronic cigarettes. E-cig companies lobbied for laws that required testing. Not because vegetable oil and nicotine (something a chem undergrad can put together) are dangerous, but because testing drives out small businesses that steal away cash via cheaper prices/localized goods.