Starve the beast - solutions

[ozmirage]

Posted by Tiyaira (here)
Black's Law 9th ed:

• A system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives who exercise that power. It contrasts on the one hand with a pure democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign power of government, and on the other with the rule of one person (such as a king or dictator) or of an elite group (such as an oligarchy, aristocracy, or junta).

The key differentiator is the percentage of the population that manages the affairs of the society. The 6th ed. definition describes a democracy; the 9th ed. definition is more in alignment with The Law of Nations, but even then, it is not 100% correct either for it misallocates sovereignty.

FYI - the Law of Nations (Vattel) is NOT part of American law, and was written before the Declaration of Independence. (Plus, there are several different translations, which obfuscate things even more.)

And "republic" is not synonymous with a "republican form of government."

The term "republic" is ambiguous and can refer to many different things. Ex: The Peoples Republic of China is a republic but NOT a republican form.

In a republican form of government, the people are the sovereigns (born equal - none higher) with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass.
BUT
those who consent to be governed, as citizens, surrender those endowed rights, because mandatory civic duties abrogate them. Ex: militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die on command - is an obvious violation of any right to life and liberty. But since the duty only applies to citizens (who are volunteers), no harm - no foul.

The propaganda ministry has been diligently eradicating any memory of the republican form, and substituting socialist democracy wherever possible.

Remember, under American law, governments are instituted to secure the rights of the people - not the citizenry.

People with endowed rights are mutually exclusive with citizens who don't have them.

If "all men" are created equal and have Creator endowed rights, what kind of people are those who are "born citizens" with mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights? (14th amendment)
Connect the dots.
...

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
INFANTS CANNOT CONSENT.
Ergo, they cannot be "born citizens" with mandatory civic duties that abrogate the very endowment governments were instituted to secure.

[palehorse]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
Americans restoring sovereignty is a valid remedy for individuals.
But what about a group?
As mentioned in the previous post, a COMMUNITY of folks who barter, would generate prodigious prosperity because they're isolated from the MONEY MAD system.

IMHO, solo survival is not a good long term solution.

Under existing American law, people have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. There is no bar for people to mutually defend their persons, liberty and / or property from predators. You can build alliances composed of your family, your extended family, friends and neighbors. You can construct defensible fortified villages. You can cooperate and pool resources to accomplish projects that dwarf the capacity of any individual’s abilities.

And your intolerance of predators can range from opposing trespassers to shunning those who you find unacceptable, repulsive, repugnant or disgusting like socialist slavers. When you’re no longer compelled to participate in supporting evil (via socialism), they won’t have easy means to live at your expense, enforced by a predatory government and its stooges.


There are many examples of cooperative living throughout history : Kibbutz, Ashram, Monastery, Commune, Sacred Hoop, and so on.

My personal favorite : DUAL RING VILLAGE.

What is a "Dual Ring Village"?

Imagine a five story row of businesses (street level) and apartments above. Wrap into a ring. Do it again. Dual Ring Village.
Two ring buildings around a central park, separated by a ring road.

The characteristics that distinguish the Ring Village from other forms
of high population density mixed use development / housing are:

1. Non-linear ring (doughnut in a doughnut)
2. Stacked continuous balconies (think French Quarter, New Orleans)
3. Central park (Public round - not a public square)
4. Ground level reserved for enterprise, socializing, public access
5. Upper levels reserved for homes and small offices
6. Single gateway to control access (security option)
7. Close proximity to resources, parkland, social contact, and vocation
8. Ring street between the dual ring buildings (can't get lost!)
9. Rooftop garden and balcony planters, to add more greenery
10. Thick barrier exterior wall, providing protection from storm surge, flash flooding, mud slides, earthquake, snow drifts, ash fall, flying debris, stampedes, mutant zombie biker gangs, etc, etc.

Variations:
[] The central park can have enhanced security by limiting access from ground level enterprises - no doors facing the park. If access is limited to the gateway, there's a reduced threat to children left playing unattended. And if the inner gate is 180 degrees opposite of the main gate, the potential for a "snatch and run" is reduced.

[] Ring street can be configured as pedestrian mall... no outside vehicles allowed.

Engineering Benefits -

Curved wall - resistant to racking forces, earthquakes; encloses more area with less material; spills wind; increased strength.

A sturdy barrier wall can resist storm surge, floods, mudslides, flying debris, etc., further strengthened by partition walls between inner and outer walls. (Like Bamboo)

A high barrier wall protects from flash floods, and other unwanted intrusions.

A non-flammable wall protects from heat, fire, etc. (concrete skinned rammed earth, 2 meters / 6 feet thick)

The ring building, subdivided into apartments, provides more straight walls for more efficient use of space - unlike domes. And the ring has fewer exposed surfaces, reducing energy consumption for maintaining comfort.
A rectilinear building has six sides (4 walls, roof, floor). A ring building has four sides (2 walls, roof, floor). An apartment within a ring, may have as little as one surface directly exposed to the elements.

TO THOSE WHO THINK THAT GOING "OFF GRID" IN THEIR SOLO FARMETTES IS THE REMEDY
- - -
Though the stalwart solo family farm is a feature across America, it's actually not sustainable. Consider the simple fact that if the owners don't want to or can no longer farm, they're in trouble. The demise of the family farm and the rise of Agribiz is the consequence.

In the bulk of the world, farmers lived in villages, surrounded by their farmlands, to which they commuted. And you won't see too many corporate farms in those locations.

Check out Michelfeld or Bibersfeld, Germany, 49.096931° 9.677831°
on Google Earth to see an example of a countryside dotted with ag-villages. And as to "sustainability," I think you would agree that Europe has been sustaining itself for thousands of years.

Then compare that with a typical American agricultural area, dotted with isolated family farms.
For example, near the town of Hartsburg, IL. 40.249337° -89.440157°
You can see square after square of fields, with the isolated family farmhouse, each like a tiny island.

What happens if something goes wrong? If you were a farmer living in a farming village, you could get help - hire locals - or if you no longer wished to farm, you could find a new vocation in the village.

In short, the most effective long term remedy may be to form a cooperative community, housed within a fortified village, surrounded by fields, to which the farmers commute.

BUT how do you determine compatibility?

If you believe that what’s yours is yours, and what’s mine is mine, we may be good neighbors.
If you believe that what’s mine is also yours, we may not be good neighbors.
If you believe that what’s mine can be taken by government to give to you, you’re a socialist thief.


TOLERANCE OF PREDATORS IS UNMERCIFUL TO THEIR NEXT VICTIM.
That's all folks - - -


Mentioned here, too:
https://survivalblog.com/2013/04/24/letter-re-a-dual-ring-village/
https://survivalblog.com/2014/03/23/...-ring-village/
(The blog appears to have lost its cross links to the various blog posts)

https://www.survivalistboards.com/th.../post-19937754

Thanks for the links, much appreciated.

I took a good look into DUAL RING VILLAGE and they resemble those ancient settlement or fortress with layers of protection.

Something more or less like the ancient Arkaim



After taking a careful good look into it I found out a few downsides:

- it is a monolithic block, what if there is fire or infestation of some sort?
- it does not respect tenants' privacy due to wall on wall sort of separation of each living block, also it is very compact living style and it is supposed to everything happen inside the rings and in the long run it would probably look like a real ghetto. (not sure if it is a downside, but feels like specially if population in the rings grows).

I think the idea of have a thick wall like fortress is wonderful, but it won't work for a large space, unless someone build something like the great wall of china (just dreaming here lol), with one single point of entry/exit make sense from the security point of view.. but imagine walling 60 hectare of land, it is not an easy feat.

Using natural features would work in favor for the protection layer in my opinion. Imagine a scenario like the one in the celestine prophecy (wilderness/jungle/mountain), in Lost Horizon it is in a valley and the only access in through a cave entrance that is located on top of a mountain.. these are natural features used as a natural protection for the place. Japanese monasteries used to be located in very difficult places to reach, somewhere in the mountains where the climate allowed the people to grow food during certain period in the year.

Would make more sense to have separate natural built houses, for example from small simple cob houses to absolutely stunning earthship style architectures, but not limited to that, the commune idea is good too, everything should be looked at this point.

These are just a few ideas that could be more explored here, I like the concept to mimic nature and use it in our favor.

[palehorse]

Posted by All is one (here)
@ palehorse

Stop feeding the beast is already a very good direction to take.


I think the solution can also lie in, people themselves, coming together with ideas to create the new replacing systems.

Like the LETS (Local Exchange Trading) system is an example of how people can begin creating their own systems. (Although that system might still need some improvements here and there. But it is based on good principles. )

We would need more parallel systems opposite to all the different existing systems. This time the systems should all be made by the people for the people & based on good principles.

This will, I think, create the strongest foundation for any and all people trying to live different than the mainstream.
..

What I meant by that is literally to stop using anything that has a sensor to collect data, basically everything digital connected to the internet grid (specially the dumb-phones and dumb-teevee)

AI in order to survive needs data collection, without it just dies out or will fabricate fake data with what they already got. The principle is basic, and it is a double edge sword, it works both ways, the cabal want to starve people out (they look us all as beasts (cattle)), we just have to look at them the same way, no need confrontation or violence, boycott will do the work. Boycott ALL their "stuffs" and if we have to ride horses again, then be it. The 500 millions they had carved on those Georgia guidestones says it all, we are underway for that right now.

I am positive that it will be a long journey for us and the next generation at least to build the parallel infrastructure, I know it is possible to be done, we just need to get together, organize and start doing things, I mean by that, it has to be done in total reclusion/seclusion, (a total retirement of the world) we can have both worlds once a decision of that degree is made.

But who want that? My guess is just a few, people tend to not believe anymore in what they are capable of.

We are the change, but we must act.

Today was listening to this broadcast with Mike Adams and Steve Quayle, if they are correct and a lot of things they went through is correct.. we don't have that much time.

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/e5f84126-bc60-4148-98cb-2e8d887136aa

and here is the MP3 file for the audio

[Tiyaira]

FYI - the Law of Nations (Vattel) is NOT part of American law, and was written before the Declaration of Independence. (Plus, there are several different translations, which obfuscate things even more.)

Here is a search of the U.S. Code for the term "law of nations". There are 20 search results with common phrases such as:

• ...obligations of the United States under the law of nations...
• ...under Federal law or the law of nations...
• ...offenses against the law of nations...
• ...rights or obligations of the United States under any treaty or the law of nations...
• ...as defined by the law of nations...
• ...the Constitution confers upon Congress the power to punish crimes against the law of nations...
• ...in the United States, in accordance with the law of nations...
• ...entitled under the law of nations...
• ...violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States...

Not only does the United States operate under the law of nations (whether by Vattel or otherwise), it also upholds it, and must because that's how societies in international law work and is what is required to maintain the peace. The U.S. Code clearly has a dependency on the law of nations, even if it was written earlier (and logically, a dependency is usually written earlier). The law of nations IS part of American law, and cannot be otherwise.

And "republic" is not synonymous with a "republican form of government."

Generally, there are only three major types of governments, though they may have any number of forms. Rule by one (Monarchy), rule by some (Aristocratic Republic), rule by many (Democracy). Law of Nations: Book 1, Section 3. "Republican form of government" vs. "republic" is an argument without merit.

In a republican form of government, the people are the sovereigns (born equal - none higher) with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass.

Governments were created to manage the affairs of the society to which they belong. The people who hold the power in that government are the sovereigns. Law of Nations: Book 1, Section 1. That could be one sovereign (Monarchy), some sovereigns (Aristocratic Republic), or many sovereigns (Democracy).

Remember, under American law, governments are instituted to secure the rights of the people - not the citizenry.

This part is mostly correct, I want to be a bit more clearer because it affects the understanding of other statements. It's People, not people. As in, We the People of the United States..., which is the name of the legal entity that owns the United States and consists of the Founding Fathers, their families, and their descendants (posterity). That's why many U.S. Presidents are related to each other. If you are in this group, you are counted among the sovereignty as you say. Everybody else is a tax cow. When you say that Creator-endowed rights go the people, it's actually People, and they only go to the sovereign. Not to the citizens, which you did acknowledge. Everybody all over the planet who claim "We the people" are actually trespassing upon a compact to which they are not a party. Look out for Capitonyms, it's an important part of English language procedure.

What we think of as countries aren't that. They are microstates operating a slave plantation of ignorant, indigenous human beings. And they all work together.

With respect to "born citizens", I'll quote from The Law of Nations: Book 1, Section 212, though I agree that we should prefer a more conscious approach:

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

[ozmirage]

- it is a monolithic block, what if there is fire or infestation of some sort?

If the exterior barrier wall is rammed earth (see : Hakka Tulou), 2 meters (6 ft) thick, fire isn't going to be an issue.

- it does not respect tenants' privacy due to wall on wall sort of separation of each living block, also it is very compact living style and it is supposed to everything happen inside the rings and in the long run it would probably look like a real ghetto. (not sure if it is a downside, but feels like specially if population in the rings grows).

Acoustic privacy is easy to achieve with modern materials like SCIP. [Structural Concrete Insulated Panels].

Again, you might check out the Chinese Hakka Tulou. They built fortified ring buildings over 1000 years ago, and they're still standing.
The occupants commented on their superior performance - being warm in winter, and cool in summer. This is due in part to the minimal exposed area. [A modern version with insulation would perform even better]
Each room faces outward to a continuous balcony / walkway. Very convenient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulou

I lost the link, but there's a scholarly article on the inherent benefits of the Hakka Tulou structure, with respect to disaster resistance, as well as being used to repel Japanese pirate attacks. There is no benefit to having separate detached housing.

[ozmirage]

It is a common error to assume "The Law of Nations" is a reference to Vattel's treatise.
In fact, it's a reference to INTERNATIONAL LAW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

International law (also known as public international law and the law of nations) is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally recognized as binding between states. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights.

Furthermore, nothing in VATTEL's book deals with the sovereignty of the people, in a republican form.
. . . .
SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

- - -
In the republican form of government, the people are sovereigns (unless they consent otherwise) served by (not ruled by) servant government (composed of subject citizens). Their rights and liberties existed before constitutional government (which is why the republican form is NOT a constitutional republic - nor can a constitutional government institute a republican form).

There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. That is an oxymoron.

CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or SUBMITTED themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "SUBJECT" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
(Note: there is only one country with a "republican form" of government)

State Citizens

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
- - - Article 4, Section 2, United States Constitution

. . .
RELATED TO SOVEREIGN PEOPLE (non-citizen Nationals)

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
- - - Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)

__ “Free inhabitants” = sovereigns __

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. . .”
- - - United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.”
- - - Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

PEOPLE have rights and powers.
CITIZENS have privileges and immunities... but no endowed rights and powers.


= = = = =
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY

“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)

But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry. Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their [socialist] democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority... or tax the snot out of them.

It’s been part of the law since day one. Did you miss the part in the Declaration where they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”? All citizens are presumed to have made that same pledge. That’s how conscription / militia duty is 100% constitutional and not a violation of rights and liberties... “Volunteers” don’t have any.


Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (qualified ownership of estate, via ad valorem taxes, etc). .. by his consent to be governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.


Re: Vattel's "Law of Nations"
There ARE at least two different translations floating about.
The better version is by Charles G. Fenwick (1758)
Joseph Chitty (1883) is a hatchet job for the lawyers, with deliberate obfuscations.

[ozmirage]

It's a common mistake to assume "republic" = "republican form".

REPUBLIC is a vague term and can mean many things.

REPUBLIC - A commonwealth; That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302

A republic is not synonymous with a republican form of government.
The Peoples Republic of China is a republic but not a republican form.
Voting and holding public office is a privilege granted to subject citizens, not exercised by sovereign people.

We have a REPUBLICAN FORM of government served by a democratic form of government.

Heirarchy :
Sovereign People
Servant Government
Subject Citizens


READ the Declaration of Independence and pay attention to the TWO JOBS:
1. secure rights, and 2. govern those who consent.

IF YOU HAVE NOT CONSENTED, YOU ARE NOT GOVERNED.
...

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
...

GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

...
In other words, those Americans who did not consent to be subject of the government are sovereigns, directly exercising their rights and powers under their republican form of government. They did not institute nor submit to the charter that established the servant governments.

MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States...

Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Articles of Confederation, VI. (1777)
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
.....
If not involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, it must be VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. And militia duty is only obligatory on CITIZENS.
Connecting the dots - citizenship was and is 100% voluntary in the united States of America.
If government can impose citizenship upon infants, then the mandatory civic duties abrogate the very endowment that governments were instituted to secure.

THERE IS ONLY ONE NATION ON EARTH WITH A REPUBLICAN FORM. Ironically, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define the republican form, its source and origin.
(No, it's not the US Constitution)

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856

. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”

Need another hint?
Re-read LINCOLN's quote.
American republicanism (republican form) is based on "all men" being born equal (before the law - none higher) with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate, nor trespass.

What is the "source" of that endowment? The CREATOR.
What is the "origin" of the republican form? The Declaration of Independence, aka Statute #1 of the Statutes at Large of the United States of America.

And all states repeat the "self evident truths" of the Declaration, in their own constitutions and or statutes.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Article I Declaration of Rights [Section 1 - Sec. 32]
( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
Section 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...0&div=0&chpt=1

Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

"All men" have endowed rights, but
"All citizens" have mandatory duties that abrogate endowed rights.
D'Oh!

[ozmirage]

Don't fall for "Patriot Mythology." I've been aware of the mythologists since 1989. They're either ignorant of law or deliberately spreading disinformation.

The law specifies TWO statuses: _ _ sovereign (people) and _ _ subject (citizens).
Those who FOUNDED the nation's governments pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor... to do what? To form and operate the governments instituted to secure rights of the sovereign people.

If one has pledged away his endowment, he no longer has it!
Ergo, all the Founders, and subsequent citizens, have voluntarily surrendered their endowed rights to exercise civil and political liberty (privileges). That's how all taxes (on privileges) are 100% voluntary. As are the obligatory duties, including "the Draft."

99% of mythology is convoluted explanations that avoid the point that everything government does to us, is based on our consent.
The three major consents:

1) Citizenship
2) Enrollment into national socialism (FICA)
3) Opening a personal interest bearing account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve.

Coincidentally, no instrumentality of the FedRes will open an interest bearing account for an unnumbered American, bless their hearts.
(You do know that usury is a capital offense in the Bible - see Ezekiel 18:13 KJV)

[Matthew]

I almost missed this thread because I thought it was about dieting. The list in the opening post is good, and more from the following posts. I am still surprised when I hear friends take 'smart' in good faith; smart metres, smart motorways, smart TV's, smart phones, smart watches. They are anything but smart, smart motorways obviously so. Smart metres are a sad one.

Cash might be a debt token but cash is our best current weapon in the battlefront against digital id. Cyberpunk science fiction like William Gibson puts cash as the futures illicit currency, untraceable but uncommon since it's out of print. But, well... use of cash now makes it harder for them to take the next step towards tracked digital id(/CBCD). If they discontinue physical money debt tokens, and make them illegal or nonviable in favour of digital debt-currency, then cash might eventually become super valuable again if science fiction is anything to go by?

[ozmirage]

Though most Americans don't know it - America is the only nation with a republican form, wherein its people are sovereigns without subjects and social equals of all other monarchs on the planet. Which explains why Americans don't bow nor kneel to foreign monarchs and nobility. And why it's perfectly legal for Americans to marry foreign nobility in countries were marriage to "commoners" is not allowed. (Ex: Princess Grace Kelly)

And in case you thought no one else knew what Thomas Jefferson had wrought with his clever Declaration, wherein American people were the sovereigns and not the government, consider the FRENCH REVOLUTION, 1789, and how they DID NOT institute a republican form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declar...of_the_Citizen

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Article III - The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it.

NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EXERT SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. . . in France.

Whereas in America, we're all sovereigns without subjects... unless we consent to be governed as citizens. Of course, to exercise that prerogative one must have a domain - a domicile upon private property absolutely owned.

[ozmirage]

There are many many different forms of governments.
In general, governments are instituted to secure rights - whether belonging to a monarch, an elite, an upper class, or whomever.
All law is for the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent.
If one has no property rights, there is little for the law to protect.

A brief list of government types

1. Socialism / Collectivism / Communism (slavery to the State)
2. Totalitarian Police State (exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people)
3. Plutocracy / Banker rule (based on money madness and usury)
4. Theocracy / Religious dictatorship (zealots R us)
5. Dulocracy / rule by slaves
6. Oligarchy / rule by a small faction
7. Democracy (direct or indirect), where a majority can legally persecute a minority
8. Aristocracy / hereditary rule by elite or privileged upper class
9. Tyranny / unjust exercise of power, no respect for individual rights or property
10. Kakistocracy / rule by the most unprincipled
11. Republic - political rule by a body politic (indirectly)
12. Republican Form - A government in which the individual is the sovereign, and is served - not ruled - by government instituted to secure rights (Often confused with "republic"). People are endowed with rights by their Creator, not by government. Government can only grant privileges and immunities.
13. Monarchy - an individual who is sovereign over all property and subjects
14. Meritocracy - leadership based on individual ability or achievement
15. Technocracy - A government or social system controlled by technicians, especially scientists and technical experts.

[palehorse]

Here is a chapter from The Green Book by Muammar al-Gaddafi

Chapter: The Family (page 73)

"To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race is the individual and the family, but not the state. The human race has neither relations nor anything else to do with the state, which is an artificial political, economic, and sometimes military, system. The family is like a plant, with branches, stems, leaves and blossoms. Cultivating nature into farms and gardens is an artificial process that has no relevance to the plant itself. The fact that certain political, economic or military factors tie a number of families into one state does not necessarily link this system or its organization with humanity. Similarly, any situation, position or proceeding that results in the dispersion, decline or loss of the family is inhuman, unnatural and oppressive, analogous to any procedure, measure or action that destroys a plant and its branches and withers its leaves and blossoms.

Societies in which the existence and unity of the family become threatened due to any circumstance, are similar to fields whose plants experience uprooting, drought, fire, weathering or death. The blossoming garden or field is one whose plants grow, blossom and pollinate naturally. The same holds true of human societies. The flourishing society is that in which the individual grows naturally within the family and the family within society. The individual is linked to the larger family of humankind like a leaf is to a branch or a branch to a tree. They have no value or life if they are separated. The same holds true for individuals if they are separated from their families – the individual without a family has no value or social life. If human society reaches the stage where the individual lives without a family, it would then become a society of tramps, without roots, like artificial plants."

and from here you tap into tribes, nations and so on..

[palehorse]

Posted by ozmirage (here)

- it is a monolithic block, what if there is fire or infestation of some sort?

If the exterior barrier wall is rammed earth (see : Hakka Tulou), 2 meters (6 ft) thick, fire isn't going to be an issue.

- it does not respect tenants' privacy due to wall on wall sort of separation of each living block, also it is very compact living style and it is supposed to everything happen inside the rings and in the long run it would probably look like a real ghetto. (not sure if it is a downside, but feels like specially if population in the rings grows).

Acoustic privacy is easy to achieve with modern materials like SCIP. [Structural Concrete Insulated Panels].

Again, you might check out the Chinese Hakka Tulou. They built fortified ring buildings over 1000 years ago, and they're still standing.
The occupants commented on their superior performance - being warm in winter, and cool in summer. This is due in part to the minimal exposed area. [A modern version with insulation would perform even better]
Each room faces outward to a continuous balcony / walkway. Very convenient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulou

I lost the link, but there's a scholarly article on the inherent benefits of the Hakka Tulou structure, with respect to disaster resistance, as well as being used to repel Japanese pirate attacks. There is no benefit to having separate detached housing.

The rammed earth building techniques are very similar of what people call cob or mud building, except that cob you have 3 main ingredients, and rammed earth builder also add gravel and silt as extra ingredients to the dough, cob uses straw instead or gravel and no silt. Also interesting fact, what they call stabilizer in rammed earth, was often used animal blood or just pure lime stone crashed and made into fine powder, in cob some builder still uses the animal crap as stabilizer, but it seems that is not what really helps stabilize the dough, it is quality of the clay and sand combined that does the magic, not every soil is suitable for such developments.

Well, if it is not too much to ask, do you have any sort of "blueprint" for the Tulou buildings or even for the Ring Village?

I am very interested in this subject, I think this sort of knowledge and skills may be very important in the not so long future, for those who will not consent anymore with the tyranny out there and want to pursue happiness on their own.

If I am not wrong sections or the entire great wall of China was built using rammed earth, it is a great example of how solid this method is, old farm houses in Europe also used to be built on rammed earth, in UK I think they still have those ones in the country side, in France too..

What you wrote is very welcome I know it will be very useful for everybody interested in make a change.

[ozmirage]

Posted by palehorse (here)
Well, if it is not too much to ask, do you have any sort of "blueprint" for the Tulou buildings or even for the Ring Village?.

Thought Experiment

Using the 10 acre square equivalent for a “city block,” we can inscribe a dual ring village within.
Square Block . . . . 10 Acres . . 4.05 Hectares
Side Length . . . . 660 Feet . . 201.17 Meters
Road Width . . . . . 18 Feet . . . . 5.49 Meters
Ring2 Width . . . . . 40 Feet . . . 12.19 Meters
Balcony2 Width . . 6 Feet . . . . 1.83 Meters
Circle St. Width . . 18 Feet . . . . 5.49 Meters
Balcony1 Width . . . 6 Feet . . . 1.83 Meters
Ring1 Width . . . . . 40 Feet . . . 12.19 Meters
Balcony0 Width. . . 6 Feet . . . . 1.83 Meters

Dependent Variables
Road Radius. . . . . . . 312 Feet . . . . .95.10 Meters
Ring2 Radius . . . . . . 272 Feet. . . . . 82.91 Meters
Balcony2 Radius. . . . 266 Feet . . . . 81.08 Meters
Circle St. Radius . . . .248 Feet. . . . . 75.59 Meters
Balcony1 Radius . . . .242 Feet . . . . .73.76 Meters
Ring1 Radius .. . . . . .202 Feet . . . . 61.57 Meters
Balcony0 Radius . . . .196 Feet . . . . . 59.74 Meters
Park Area . . . . . . . . 2.77 Acres . . . . 1.12 Hectares


Ring Area = (pi x rad1^2) - (pi x rad2^2)
Rad1 = 312, Rad2 = 272; Rad3 = 242, Rad4 = 202
RESULT = 129,182.29 sf per level
For this simulation, the model dual ring village is home to 462 inhabitants (800 sf per capita),
spread over 3 apartment levels, at a density of roughly 40 per acre.

Parkland density of Ring Village

Central Park area = 2.77 ACRES for 462 people,
166.78 people / park acreage
(the approx size of 2 football fields)

In contrast:
New York City = 38,147 acres parkland for 8,274,527 people,
216.9 people / park acreage

(Ring Villagers can change specifications, and adjust the DRV to fit their particular requirements.)


As to livability, it compares well with the many suggestions stated in "A Pattern Language".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language

[ozmirage]

A town or city composed of hexagonally packed dual ring villages, surrounded by ring roads that connect via roundabouts (traffic circles) have inherent safety built in to the design by virtue of the radius of curvature.

http://www.state.nj.us/transportatio...EqualTo50.shtm
Examples:
• For an outer ring road of 75 ft radius, the safe speed is 14 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 150 ft radius, the safe speed is 19 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 300 ft radius, the safe speed is 27 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 600 ft radius, the safe speed is 37 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 900 ft radius, the safe speed is 44 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 1200 ft radius, the safe speed is 50 mph.

By design, a city of dual ring villages and unidirectional ring roads would have inherent speed limitations - especially if roundabouts / traffic circles form the intersections between rings. The urban road system would be a mesh, with no need for stoplights, a moderate average velocity, and fault tolerant in the event of a blockage.
And the meandering path from curve to curve, prevents excessive speed, without the need for speed bumps, stop lights, etc, etc.

[ozmirage]

APPLE RING
Apple Park is the headquarters of Apple Inc., located in Cupertino, California. It opened to 12,000 Apple employees in May 2017. Nicknamed 'the spaceship' because of the scale of the circular building, it measures 1 mile in circumference, with a diameter of 461 m (1,512 ft).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Park

[ozmirage]

Good Idea - Bad Implementation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
Khrushchyovka is an unofficial name for a type of low-cost, concrete-paneled or brick three- to five-storied apartment building which was developed in the Soviet Union during the early 1960s, during the time its namesake Nikita Khrushchev directed the Soviet government.

During January 1951, an architects' convention, supervised by Khrushchev (then the party director of Moscow), declared low-cost, quick technologies the objective of Soviet architects.

During 1954–1961, engineer Vitaly Lagutenko, chief planner of Moscow since 1956, designed and tested the mass-scale, industrialized construction process, relying on concrete panel plants and a quick assembly schedule. During 1961, Lagutenko's institute released the K-7 design of a prefabricated 5-story building that became typical of the Khrushchyovka.

64,000 units (3,000,000 m2 (32,000,000 sq ft)) of this type were built in Moscow from 1961 to 1968. The Khrushchyovkas were cheap, and sometimes an entire building could be constructed within two weeks.

Planners regarded elevators as too costly and as too time-consuming to build, and Soviet health/safety standards specified five stories as the maximum height of a building without an elevator. Thus almost all Khrushchyovkas have five stories.

Typical apartments of the K-7 series have a total area of 30 m2 (323 sq ft) (one-room), 44 m2 (474 sq ft) (two-room) and 60 m2 (646 sq ft) (three-room).
{A 400 sf (20' x 20') efficiency apartment is approximately 38m2}

I could find no specific tally of the number of Khrushchyovkas built across the Soviet Union. Vague references to millions having been built - and nothing more.
Of course, they are considered an embarrassment and now thousands are being demolished, due to their limited lifespan. If one “flies” via Google Earth, the big boxy apartments are ubiquitous, across Russia and the former satellites. Today, many have been converted into mixed use buildings, with offices and businesses on the ground floor, and apartments above.

Coincidentally, the American version - the Federal Housing Project - didn’t learn from the mistakes of the Soviet version. And many “Projects” have since been demolished or renovated into something totally different.

What lessons can we take from both models?
1) High density population doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be under the worst possible conditions, plagued by nuisances (noise, smells, environment, and over crowding).
2) High rise luxury apartments are desirable, whereas high rise “projects” are not. What distinguishes them?
3) Mixed use (businesses, etc) is an essential part of any urban development, providing convenient access to the goods and services for the neighborhood. Added benefit for the owners who can live above their businesses, minimizing commute time.

A dual ring village composed of five story ring buildings, featuring mixed use development, provides convenience, reduced time and distance, and a ready pool of shoppers for the enterprises and businesses located there. In fact, with a little forethought, the DRV can be configured to provide champagne lifestyle with a beer budget. Ex: home delivery / room service. Laundry service. Community pool. Prewire bedrooms to allow for remote monitoring of vital signs by the village polyclinic (or anxious parents), providing a low cost alternative to hospitalization. House calls could be like doing “rounds” in a round.

Khrushchyovka in videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCsFITNT5d0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83DFGFBG-IM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN-419d7vt4

Interesting observations: In one video, the woman mentioned that she could spend months not ever leaving her immediate neighborhood, since everything was nearby - grocery store - hospital - school - and a nice wooded park.

Music Video :
Stilyagi (Hipsters)
https://youtu.be/YGZFzm86oe0?t=598

[shaberon]

I understand the non-citizenship argument.

The difficulty is that it was never a cause, there was no common understanding based on this, and if not then it is hard to say it was the intent of the Founding Fathers. There was no such thing as an American National:


Far from a historical relic, noncitizen national
remains the status of people who are born in American Samoa today.


Judicially constructed in
the 1900s, and codified by Congress in 1940.

...congressional, judicial, and executive
actions between 1898 and 1940 that led to the invention and codification of
American nationals in U.S. nationality law.


In fact, all of these laws are based on the prevention or difficulty in gaining citizenship. Moreover, it appears the Revolution was fought to break British subjection, and presume you are a citizen of a State, according to an article on Early Naturalization:


The framers of the Declaration of Independence included among their list of grievances that the King had prevented the peopling of the United States by obstructing “the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners” and by refusing to pass laws to encourage immigration. The Constitutional Convention empowered Congress under the new government to “establish an uniform rule of Naturalization.”

White persons living in the thirteen colonies on July 4, 1776, became citizens of their states by virtue of their residence in the rebelling colonies. The Articles of Confederation implied that citizens of one state had rights in other states as well, and Article IV of the United States Constitution, ratified in June 1788, created a national citizenship, but it remained vaguely defined until after the Civil War.


In the first Congressional election cycle, American voters sent nine “naturalized” citizens to the Senate and House of Representatives; four of them had signed the new U.S. Constitution, and one, Robert Morris, had also signed the Declaration of Independence.


In current law, one is generally presumed a citizen at birth by 8 USC 1401:


The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


If I argue that I am in a State, not in the United States, I am afraid it will quickly catch me with:


(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States


Although the phrase "republican form of government" says you are endowed with sovereignty until giving it away by electing a representative, the phrase itself does not seem to have any special meaning, and it expects citizens, from other areas in Black's Law:

Commonwealth

...generally designates, when so
employed, a republican frame of government,—
one in which the welfare and rights of the entire
mass of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a class or the will of
a monarch; or it may designate the body of citizens living under such a government.


For the Grandfather Clause:


...persons of good
character who understand the duties and obligations of citizenship under a republican form of
government.


You can just use the "real dictionary" if you like:


...a monarchical government, a republican
government, etc. Webster.



The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Under the Gurantee Clause for a republican form of government, it was somewhat indeterminate what this was in 1849 when:


Chief Justice Roger Taney held that the political branches of government, and not the federal courts, should decide such questions: it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.


See Deborah Jones Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 23 (1988) (Even today, the outer boundaries of the guarantee clause remain murky; no single scholarly work can capture the full meaning of ‘republican government.’).


In the Constitution's Meaning of its own term, there are no books on it until 1972, with some examples given on their own.

James Madison emphasizes popular sovereignty and majoritarian control as among the distinctive characters of the republican form:

[W]e may define a republic to be...


1891:

...the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration...

The Court paraphrased Daniel Webster’s masterly statement of the American system of government as one where the people are the source of all political power, but that, as the exercise of governmental powers immediately by the people themselves is impracticable, they must be exercised by representatives of the people; that the basis of representation is suffrage.


So when you elect a representative, you have surrendered sovereignty.

You were apparently born a citizen of a State.

There could not possibly have been a cause about being a non-federal citizen, instead there was the Naturalization Act of 1790, because the issues had been that the British were preventing "new citizens" of the colonies. No one was quite going around wondering how to get the federal government off their back. Certainly, originally, The Constitution had nothing to do with it:


The unamended Constitution grants Congress power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization as to foreigners, but did not otherwise speak directly to who is a citizen of a state or of the United States. A common view at the time was that national citizenship was derivative of state citizenship, and that the latter could be conferred by birth within a jurisdiction, as under the English common law.


I understand that a National status clips a boat load of statutory law, but, I just don't see anything like this in terms of the "cause of freedom" or any explicit purpose in revolting against Britain. It seems more that "a republican form" presumes to take on more and more citizens. I haven't seen anything recommending to preserve your sovereignty by failing to vote, for example; rather, they did this so that they could vote.

On "subjects", Black's Law says:

The term is little used, in this
sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of
government.


Implying multiple countries have this, or "a republican form" is not different from "a republic". Neither Black's nor The Constitution clarifies it.

I might be missing something still. But it seems like in terms of law, National uses 1940 legislation which is still appurtenant to Samoans as a birthright. That seems to be who has common knowledge and enjoyment of Sovereignty as is not particularly expressed in the rest of history.

[palehorse]

Posted by ozmirage (here)

Posted by palehorse (here)
Well, if it is not too much to ask, do you have any sort of "blueprint" for the Tulou buildings or even for the Ring Village?.

Thought Experiment

Using the 10 acre square equivalent for a “city block,” we can inscribe a dual ring village within.
Square Block . . . . 10 Acres . . 4.05 Hectares
Side Length . . . . 660 Feet . . 201.17 Meters
Road Width . . . . . 18 Feet . . . . 5.49 Meters
Ring2 Width . . . . . 40 Feet . . . 12.19 Meters
Balcony2 Width . . 6 Feet . . . . 1.83 Meters
Circle St. Width . . 18 Feet . . . . 5.49 Meters
Balcony1 Width . . . 6 Feet . . . 1.83 Meters
Ring1 Width . . . . . 40 Feet . . . 12.19 Meters
Balcony0 Width. . . 6 Feet . . . . 1.83 Meters

Dependent Variables
Road Radius. . . . . . . 312 Feet . . . . .95.10 Meters
Ring2 Radius . . . . . . 272 Feet. . . . . 82.91 Meters
Balcony2 Radius. . . . 266 Feet . . . . 81.08 Meters
Circle St. Radius . . . .248 Feet. . . . . 75.59 Meters
Balcony1 Radius . . . .242 Feet . . . . .73.76 Meters
Ring1 Radius .. . . . . .202 Feet . . . . 61.57 Meters
Balcony0 Radius . . . .196 Feet . . . . . 59.74 Meters
Park Area . . . . . . . . 2.77 Acres . . . . 1.12 Hectares


Ring Area = (pi x rad1^2) - (pi x rad2^2)
Rad1 = 312, Rad2 = 272; Rad3 = 242, Rad4 = 202
RESULT = 129,182.29 sf per level
For this simulation, the model dual ring village is home to 462 inhabitants (800 sf per capita),
spread over 3 apartment levels, at a density of roughly 40 per acre.

Parkland density of Ring Village

Central Park area = 2.77 ACRES for 462 people,
166.78 people / park acreage
(the approx size of 2 football fields)

In contrast:
New York City = 38,147 acres parkland for 8,274,527 people,
216.9 people / park acreage

(Ring Villagers can change specifications, and adjust the DRV to fit their particular requirements.)


As to livability, it compares well with the many suggestions stated in "A Pattern Language".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language

Thanks for the thoughts, I will do some drafts and try to build a 3D model for it.

Regarding the type of the material used in the construction, I read it was usually cut granite or just fire bricks, these materials alone are most cost effective than traditional building, in order to keep a project as such in as low as possible budget, I was wondering if rammed earth for at least the construction of the walls of the rings would be a good idea, or using things readily available like straw bale or hay bales (for insulation if necessary) with framed walls.. also earth bag could work for such a project.

What are your thoughts regarding materials?

and thanks again for the measurements.

[ozmirage]

Posted by palehorse (here)
Regarding the type of the material used in the construction, I read it was usually cut granite or just fire bricks, these materials alone are most cost effective than traditional building, in order to keep a project as such in as low as possible budget, I was wondering if rammed earth for at least the construction of the walls of the rings would be a good idea, or using things readily available like straw bale or hay bales (for insulation if necessary) with framed walls.. also earth bag could work for such a project.

What are your thoughts regarding materials?

In general, anthropogenic stone (concrete) is the most inexpensive, and durable material. Rammed earth is "dirt cheap" (and / or cement stabilized rammed earth)

One possibility is rammed earth packed within laminated ferrocement (fiber reinforced cement, 1 inch / 25mm) skins. That way, the rammed earth is protected from water, etc.
For the massive 2m (6 ft) thick barrier walls, one might use formworks, that have laminated ferrocement skins built up, then earthen mix is tamped between the skins.
_ _ A large slip form could be re-used, saving on costs.

For thinner walls, a SCIP panel is probably best : (skin + EPS foam + skin). The insulation cuts heat transfer as well as dampens noise pollution.

Though curved forms would be ideal, it is not out of the question to use flat panels (or tilt up panels), due to the large radius of curvature of a dual ring village.
Tilt up panels have the advantage for optional textured mats to enhance the surface of the ferrocement skin. And one can use a texture stamp on the exposed surface, too. In fact, concrete / cement can be colored, stained, acid etched, and or textured to look like anything imaginable - wood, stone, brick, limestone blocks, etc.

Re: Laminated Ferrocement, invented by Martin Iorns (R.I.P.)
http://ferrocement.net/flist/index.php?topic=161.0

Texture mats & stamps
https://www.amazon.com/GlobMarble-Te.../dp/B01MCZL47Q

Another improvement is helix wire reinforced cement / concrete. Galvanized twisted wire replaces rebar, forms a mechanical bond via the spiral shape, and enhances the strength by 25% or more.
https://www.helixsteel.com/

Smog eating additive to concrete and cement - Titanium Dioxide
https://theconstructor.org/concrete/...llution/57052/
When concrete infused with titanium dioxide is exposed to UV light, it breaks down pollution. In addition, it also prevents unsightly staining of concrete.