- The answer resides in the word “force”, which occurs 10 times in the Property Money essay, the 10th being:
Such citizens are “sovereigns” as they embody the force inherent in any society.
The ultimate answer – bearing in mind the destiny of technological civilization is not the surface of any planet – to this must entail a radical notion of the much-abused word “gender”:
Anyone not under a revocable mutual agreement with an Individual Sovereign to be “shielded” from challenge to a mutual hunt in nature.
Since people haven’t been living in the headspace that I have since my 1980s participation in both Space Studies Institute and the Sierra Club, I can’t expect them to view the above definition as sane – not even Jeff Bezos who pays lip service to O’Neill’s assertion about technological civilization and “Nature Preserve Earth”.
That’s why I look for operational definitions like "those who are registered for the draft (Militia.Money’s) that embody the our legacy of sexual being. However, I do recognize that this, too, is being subverted – most viciously by those who hold Israel up as an exemplar for the US to follow in addressing TFR. The US isn’t Israel. The Nation of Settlers in the US aren’t Jewish settlers in the Levant. US Jews aren’t Likuds in the sense of holding the border of the US as sacred as do the Likuds hold the border of Israel. US Jews are, in fact, generally hostile to the TFR of the Nation of Settlers and to US borders. Despite all that, US Jews hold sway over the most vital US policies and are in a conflict of interest with the Nation of Settlers regarding the allocation of the fertile years of what might be called “Farmer’s Daughters”.
Militia.Money’s specialization of Property Money leverages a legacy definition – those registered for the draft – that, almost as soon as I suggested Militia.Money, was under attack by That Unspeakable Thing In DC in the form of Biden’s attempt to subject women and illegal immigrants to the draft. That “coincidence” spooked the hell out of me as it should you. The result would simply be the sexual allocation of young women to a combination of illegal immigrant military age men and the politically selected virulent officer class of the US military.
- Short answer: The Foundation World Model That Might Have been:
Long answer: Yes I know I’m not considered “sane” by social pseudoscientists – including the machine learning industry’s approach to truth discovery (including Musk’s lip service to same) – so let’s attempt something that isn’t a so-called “non-starter”:
There are well documented correlations between what women prefer as the number of children and the number of children they actually can afford based on their household’s income. There are not-so-well-documented correlations between household income (relative to their proximate “cost of living”) and household TFR. These can be projected as estimates.
- Viewing women in their fertile years as economic units of labor subjects them to commodity pricing. This demand is a combination of their genuine direct value as labor and the occult value as office ornaments sustaining primate social status in corporate tribes. Either way, money is being paid to them to take them out of the reproductive pool.