Pretty much agree with everything @macwright.com said here. (I went to look for a review after reading Ch.2 thinking I can’t be the only one with this reaction.) Just so disappointing and I don’t know what I can learn or trust from the rest of the book.
And please don't start ex post factoing or bill of attaindering me. My entire point is that the payback part of reconstructionism *cannot be bound by existing constitutional rules or norms.* Payback must proceed as a recognition that the constitutional order has failed and now does not bind us.
Reading Golumbia’s “Cyberlibertarianism” right now and wow, I don’t remember the last time I’ve been so frustrated by a book that I expected to really like. I’ll prob agree with 90% of his top level points, but there’s so much angry guilt by association that he undermines his arguments.
Between spurious claims of fraud and the "race-based districts" line they've latched onto since Callais, it's increasingly obvious they are not going to accept losing the House. We need to prepare for that eventuality, up to and including a possible confrontation for literal control of the chamber.