The other day I called the Great @Dan names, and I feel really bad. For a society to function discord should be properly addressed. Thus in good faith, I will read his book and reference excerpts that will be widely unpopular. Maybe the issue is how to articulate a point that will capture the mass. I don't know, but we will see.

Tyranny of the Status Quo

1.*It seems to me that a legitimate government would trend toward a 70% approval rating or more.* *Given a long-term average 30% approval rating, the conclusion is obvious, our constitution and the system of government it has established has failed.* In reference to Congress's low approval rating, one must ask when was the last time anyone thought congress did things in a timely manner? There are specific details in bills presented that are not politically biased but lobbied that affect a subgroup of the population regardless of their political affiliation. This happens a lot and gives many people reasons to disapprove. Their low approval rating suggests displeasure of their process, but that does not make it illegitimate. Saying a 70% approval rating or more proves the legitimacy is dangerous wording. You are setting a standard that has only been achievable in dictatorships. Thus you are baiting people to demand 70%, which would be hard to achieve in a true democracy. Take a look at variables that gave rise to the AfD party in Germany. 2.*The mere fact that many people fear a new constitutional convention is evidence that they believe their values are not held by the masses or that the politicians they elect are irredeemably corrupt.* Followed by *those who resist building a new consensus aim to impose a tyranny of the status quo.* No. It could be that they don't believe the current one needs replacing, and for most, it probably doesn't have anything to do with fear. Something you are going to have to learn to respect or convince them otherwise by some other means. 3.*You cannot “outlaw” political parties, you must design a system that makes them impossible to form in the first place.* Impossible. That is like saying don't allow people with similar interests and beliefs to congregate together or do anything to advance their interest. 4.*But why should we limit the team to the president and vice president? Why not replace the whole government with the loyal lapdogs of the winning party? Do the people really intend to put a president in charge of a disloyal bureaucracy? The common belief is that this creates “checks and balances” and forces the two parties to compromise. One has to wonder how can Lucifer and Christ compromise? How can “good” compromise with “evil”? If they do compromise is it for the benefit of us humans or just the “Divine Spiritual Beings” (aka the ruling class)? If the people elect Christ, should Lucifers lackeys do the best to undermine him? Should Lucifer be put in charge of heaven or Christ in charge of hell?* You are suggesting that bipartisanship does not and could not exist. You are also suggesting that your point would be proven stronger if certain things were practice. This paragraph worries me the most. 5.*If the red and blue teams were really interested in the country and voters were really interested in the country, then voters should be able to vote in both primaries.* All this would do is extend game theory... Politics would become a whole lot more complicated. 6.*“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” -JFK* This is why I don't buy your nonviolent mumbo jumbo. It seems to me you are just biding your time before it is feasible to make the switch. You know it is a long way out, but you will do anything to help the process. While reading this chapter I kept thinking "more like the subtle art of true subversion." In the end, you list 7 strong factors. Hope to see them in more detail. Hopefully, you don't mind criticism as a new author. I know you like books so I'll recommend one that will help my writing tremendously. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn

btcmillennial