At some point we must, as a society, decide that there's more to life than being entertained. What's called MSM today, got it's cue from Fox News long ago. MSM was struggling to stay afloat reporting The News, but Fox News, with alien babies and conspiracies, stole the limelight and made millions. MSM just followed the crowd to stay alive. Who's fault is that (he asked knowingly)?
If there's one positive thing that's come out of the last 10 horrid years, it's that America has been forced to look at it's ugly self in the mirror. We'll see the outcome of that soon.
Yeah the bigger concer is capital flight than them themselves and these particular people are quite openly trying to remake society in their horrifying vision
I believe we have an immoral system that functions more efficiently as morals are beaten down and inured to make way for more immorality. However, Americans don't want to be immoral as a people, so we have a system that boils the worst among us to the top. Those that are the most immoral are the most rewarded. It's an unconscious acknowledgment that the immoral are necessary to keep our immoral system running, and especially keep the ugliness out of sight.
I appreciate the attempt in this essay to propose an ostracization regime remaining faithful to the Constitution, but unfortunately, the proposal to have the U.S. House issue “public indictments” and conduct a non-judicial “public trial” to uphold the “public good” would fail on multiple independent grounds under the Constitution.
Indeed, the plan would constitute a bill of attainder forbidden under Article I, Section 9. The Constitution prohibits any legislative act that singles out specific individuals (or an easily identifiable group) for punishment without a judicial trial. Historically, this ban covers not only death sentences but also “bills of pains and penalties” such as banishment, exile, or restrictions on political and commercial activity, which are the exact sanctions proposed here. The House’s own non-judicial proceeding focused on “public good” rather than a defined crime is precisely the “trial by legislature” the Framers sought to prevent.
Additionally, the House of Representatives simply lacks the unilateral power to do this. Its disciplinary authority under Article I, Section 5 is limited to its own Members (including expulsion by a two-thirds vote). It has no constitutional authority to invent a freestanding system of public trials and forced exile for private citizens or non-Members. Any real coercive effect would require actual legislation, which the proposal deliberately avoids because it would require approval of the Senate and the President.
Further, the scheme would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Forced exile is a severe deprivation of liberty, and due process requires genuine judicial process with the full constitutional safeguards, not merely a legislative inquiry into the “public good.” Relatedly, U.S. citizens have a fundamental right to remain in the country. The government cannot banish or exile citizens as punishment (temporary or otherwise). Supreme Court precedent treats such measures as incompatible with citizenship and, in analogous contexts, as cruel and unusual.
Moreover, the proposal runs afoul of separation of powers by having the legislative branch assume core judicial functions. Even if the exile were temporary, reversible, and left property untouched, those features would not cure the constitutional defects, as milder legislative punishments without judicial trial have repeatedly been struck down.
While the goal of checking undue influence is understandable, the specific mechanism described cannot be reconciled with the Constitution’s text, structure, or settled case law.
you would certainly have to pass a law setting up the general process, which would not be targeted at any individual.
Regardless, punitive exile is much more difficult to justify, ostracism itself is very specifically not a punishment though, and we're well passed having normal constitutional protections regarding international travel. Dropping someone off in Costa Rica and taking his passport is not particularly far removed from random crazy shit the government does all the time.
Our overall unwillingness to change the Constitution based on the actual challenges our country faces will be the end of us anyway, I have an entirely different article I've been meaning to write about a wide variety of necessary amendments I am just yet to get there.
There's a cart-before-the-horse thing with exiling Elon Musk to the Chagos - human minds must be altered to no longer view Elon Musk as, at the very least, a demi-god. This is where the problem get's tricky. How to you convince the enraptured and adoring hundreds of millions of people that they have to stop being that way? That their adoration is for a scumbag hiding in sheep's cloth? Mother's handed Michael Jackson their little boys to take and play with all by himself...
"It must be added here that though I have focused on tech oligarchs, this was perhaps a better solution to what to do with Donald Trump in 2021... "
It's amusing to be reading and enjoying your article, and seeing the value and possibilities in ostracism and exile as you lay it down, and then coming to, and stopping on, the sentence above. Wow! What would've happened to the US if ostracism existed and Trump was ostracized? I'm only guessing, but I think J6 may have turned into a hellscape, an entire country ablaze. Could something like that even have happened in ancient Athens? How would the Athenians deal with a state-wide riot?
Well, it certainly would have been after that, but following the first term Trump retiring to an island to shitpost would have been ideal, which he may have done if they didnt oh-so-cleverly ban him from social media
How about this one: Peter Sellers once kicked his young son out of the house because Sellers forced the boy to tell him who he liked better, mommy or daddy, and the boy said he liked "mummy" better. Sellers' slightly older daughter was there too, but she was smart enough to say she like them both the same. Nice guy, huh?
Blake Edwards has been quoted saying that Sellers was "certifiable" by the 2nd Pink Panther movie. Isn't Hollywood just a career for the very, very insane?
What idiocy. Billions of people have chosen to buy products and services from those you want to ostracize. Why not have them dismantle what they built as a result of being shunned and all who voted should live without those devices or services.
Count the vote then.
In the day, people were ostracized for what they said. Now it’s for what they built.
At some point we must, as a society, decide that there's more to life than being entertained. What's called MSM today, got it's cue from Fox News long ago. MSM was struggling to stay afloat reporting The News, but Fox News, with alien babies and conspiracies, stole the limelight and made millions. MSM just followed the crowd to stay alive. Who's fault is that (he asked knowingly)?
If there's one positive thing that's come out of the last 10 horrid years, it's that America has been forced to look at it's ugly self in the mirror. We'll see the outcome of that soon.
One of the arguments you hear again taxing the rich, is that they will leave. I've always thought, "good riddence".
So maybe we just pass a painful tax on billionaires that is collectible unless they give up their citizenship/passport. Self-exile, as you mentioned.
They will try to keep doing what they're doing somewhere else but will be a lot easier to manage as non-citizens.
Yeah the bigger concer is capital flight than them themselves and these particular people are quite openly trying to remake society in their horrifying vision
I believe we have an immoral system that functions more efficiently as morals are beaten down and inured to make way for more immorality. However, Americans don't want to be immoral as a people, so we have a system that boils the worst among us to the top. Those that are the most immoral are the most rewarded. It's an unconscious acknowledgment that the immoral are necessary to keep our immoral system running, and especially keep the ugliness out of sight.
I appreciate the attempt in this essay to propose an ostracization regime remaining faithful to the Constitution, but unfortunately, the proposal to have the U.S. House issue “public indictments” and conduct a non-judicial “public trial” to uphold the “public good” would fail on multiple independent grounds under the Constitution.
Indeed, the plan would constitute a bill of attainder forbidden under Article I, Section 9. The Constitution prohibits any legislative act that singles out specific individuals (or an easily identifiable group) for punishment without a judicial trial. Historically, this ban covers not only death sentences but also “bills of pains and penalties” such as banishment, exile, or restrictions on political and commercial activity, which are the exact sanctions proposed here. The House’s own non-judicial proceeding focused on “public good” rather than a defined crime is precisely the “trial by legislature” the Framers sought to prevent.
Additionally, the House of Representatives simply lacks the unilateral power to do this. Its disciplinary authority under Article I, Section 5 is limited to its own Members (including expulsion by a two-thirds vote). It has no constitutional authority to invent a freestanding system of public trials and forced exile for private citizens or non-Members. Any real coercive effect would require actual legislation, which the proposal deliberately avoids because it would require approval of the Senate and the President.
Further, the scheme would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Forced exile is a severe deprivation of liberty, and due process requires genuine judicial process with the full constitutional safeguards, not merely a legislative inquiry into the “public good.” Relatedly, U.S. citizens have a fundamental right to remain in the country. The government cannot banish or exile citizens as punishment (temporary or otherwise). Supreme Court precedent treats such measures as incompatible with citizenship and, in analogous contexts, as cruel and unusual.
Moreover, the proposal runs afoul of separation of powers by having the legislative branch assume core judicial functions. Even if the exile were temporary, reversible, and left property untouched, those features would not cure the constitutional defects, as milder legislative punishments without judicial trial have repeatedly been struck down.
While the goal of checking undue influence is understandable, the specific mechanism described cannot be reconciled with the Constitution’s text, structure, or settled case law.
you would certainly have to pass a law setting up the general process, which would not be targeted at any individual.
Regardless, punitive exile is much more difficult to justify, ostracism itself is very specifically not a punishment though, and we're well passed having normal constitutional protections regarding international travel. Dropping someone off in Costa Rica and taking his passport is not particularly far removed from random crazy shit the government does all the time.
Our overall unwillingness to change the Constitution based on the actual challenges our country faces will be the end of us anyway, I have an entirely different article I've been meaning to write about a wide variety of necessary amendments I am just yet to get there.
There's a cart-before-the-horse thing with exiling Elon Musk to the Chagos - human minds must be altered to no longer view Elon Musk as, at the very least, a demi-god. This is where the problem get's tricky. How to you convince the enraptured and adoring hundreds of millions of people that they have to stop being that way? That their adoration is for a scumbag hiding in sheep's cloth? Mother's handed Michael Jackson their little boys to take and play with all by himself...
How do you fix that?
"It must be added here that though I have focused on tech oligarchs, this was perhaps a better solution to what to do with Donald Trump in 2021... "
It's amusing to be reading and enjoying your article, and seeing the value and possibilities in ostracism and exile as you lay it down, and then coming to, and stopping on, the sentence above. Wow! What would've happened to the US if ostracism existed and Trump was ostracized? I'm only guessing, but I think J6 may have turned into a hellscape, an entire country ablaze. Could something like that even have happened in ancient Athens? How would the Athenians deal with a state-wide riot?
Well, it certainly would have been after that, but following the first term Trump retiring to an island to shitpost would have been ideal, which he may have done if they didnt oh-so-cleverly ban him from social media
"Augustus relegated his own daughter Julia to an island for little more than being a slut, and relegated her lover to a different island."
I think I read somewhere many years ago that Warren Buffet dis-owned and dis-inherited his daughter because she criticized him publicly.
If that is true I dont remember hearing it
I'm not sure. It was decades ago, but I usually don't get stuff like that wrong. Stuff like that sticks in my brain.
How about this one: Peter Sellers once kicked his young son out of the house because Sellers forced the boy to tell him who he liked better, mommy or daddy, and the boy said he liked "mummy" better. Sellers' slightly older daughter was there too, but she was smart enough to say she like them both the same. Nice guy, huh?
that is a crazy ass thing to do. King Lear-esque, at least
Blake Edwards has been quoted saying that Sellers was "certifiable" by the 2nd Pink Panther movie. Isn't Hollywood just a career for the very, very insane?
What idiocy. Billions of people have chosen to buy products and services from those you want to ostracize. Why not have them dismantle what they built as a result of being shunned and all who voted should live without those devices or services.
Count the vote then.
In the day, people were ostracized for what they said. Now it’s for what they built.
That’s not progress.
I would love to see AI dismantled