@All_bonesJones @amerika @bajax @contrapunctus @dcc @dj @sun @yomiel

> So you're saying

Always really excited to see a message that starts with this.

> ...If this is a correct summary of your stance, this is just kicking the can down the road, you've shifted the power struggle into the definition of appropriate scope, thereby made whoever defines scope the true sovereign.

I begin to think this is deliberate: you're attempting to find fault in the manifestly obvious and that is why you've got so much trouble understanding.

To address that concern, I have not kicked any cans anywhere, no. It is absurd. "If you don't accept a dictator, you've just turned someone else into a shadow dictator!" Who has authority over whether or not you jerk off before bed? Who are you willing to listen to if they tell you which you have to do? It seems like a personal decision: how you feel that day, your general personal preferences, your religion, anyone that has to share a room with you, you know. Who decides your religion? Who has the authority to tell you what to believe?

> It's a nice-sounding philosophical conclusion devoid of practical implementation.

The "practical implementation" is "all of goddamn human history until we built the mass media and the surveillance state".

> Any sovereign who defines their own overreach as within the scope

In the US, historically, we have used the constitution and separation of powers for this. These have not stood up to the persistent onslaught of the psychopaths once mass media existed, and this is why they have insisted on the internet becoming a mall: they want the "misinformation" censored, they want the official story pushed. You think this is fine? You think it's okay to have wrongthink? You think there should be no limits on authority? You think the limits on authority require an authority-authority rather than a manifestly obvious line between what is others' business and what is your own? I don't know (or don't remember) where you're from but I hope they don't let serfs vote.