“A Well Regulated Militia” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/a-well-regulated-militia/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:45:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264990893024649216
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
“A Well Regulated Militia”
Jan 24, 2020, 10:32 AM Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is paid for by the state’. The discussion at the time was that given the vastness of the territory, the sparsity of the population, and the limited funds, that they could not at the time afford to pay for it, and that men might not show up given the cost of travel to staging areas, and that they would need to wait until such training was affordable, and therefore they must trust that the men will do it themselves (which they largely did). The english did this with the longbow in that every sunday after church boys were required (and did) spend three hours shooting the bow. This what (like the Russians are doing) we need to restore again – schools or churches or town halls where men practice regularly at the local level. By the regimental period the regiments were paid for and self sustaining in England. And this is my suggestion going forward – restoration of the regiments and the fraternal order that comes from them. (My suspicion is that we can reform religion and civil society by working through the regiments as much as through school systems.) The purpose of a trained militia is to (a) prevent the need of a standing army because (b) standing armies had been used to oppress the people. So, in keeping with european tradition a small number of professional warriors (the aristocracy) would command a large number of unprofessional riflemen (soldiers, footsoldiers). Which would balance the power between the people and the state ensuring that the state didn’t get out of hand, and insuring that the men were invested in the sense of control of their government.
-
“A Well Regulated Militia”
Jan 24, 2020, 10:32 AM Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is paid for by the state’. The discussion at the time was that given the vastness of the territory, the sparsity of the population, and the limited funds, that they could not at the time afford to pay for it, and that men might not show up given the cost of travel to staging areas, and that they would need to wait until such training was affordable, and therefore they must trust that the men will do it themselves (which they largely did). The english did this with the longbow in that every sunday after church boys were required (and did) spend three hours shooting the bow. This what (like the Russians are doing) we need to restore again – schools or churches or town halls where men practice regularly at the local level. By the regimental period the regiments were paid for and self sustaining in England. And this is my suggestion going forward – restoration of the regiments and the fraternal order that comes from them. (My suspicion is that we can reform religion and civil society by working through the regiments as much as through school systems.) The purpose of a trained militia is to (a) prevent the need of a standing army because (b) standing armies had been used to oppress the people. So, in keeping with european tradition a small number of professional warriors (the aristocracy) would command a large number of unprofessional riflemen (soldiers, footsoldiers). Which would balance the power between the people and the state ensuring that the state didn’t get out of hand, and insuring that the men were invested in the sense of control of their government.
-
Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts
Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/masons-citation-of-ancient-law-of-facts/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:25:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264985947046678528
-
Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts
- That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause & nature of his Accusation, to be confronted with the Accusers and Witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted Counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his Vicinage, without whose unanimous Consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the Land and Naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself.
That no Freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or desseized of his Freehold, Liberties, privileges or Franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his Life, Liberty or Property, but by the Law of the Land.
That every Freeman restrained of his Liberty is entitled to a remedy, to enquire into the Lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such Remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.
That in Controversies respecting Property, and in Suits between Man and man, the ancient Trial by Jury of Facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest Securities to the Rights of a Free people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.
That every Freeman ought to find a certain Remedy, by recourse to the Laws, for all Injuries or wrongs he may receive in his person, property or Character: He ought to obtain Right and Justice freely, without sale, compleatly and without Denial, promptly and without Delay; and that all Establishments or regulations contravening these Rights are oppressive and unjust.
That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted.
That every Freeman has a Right to be secure from all unreasonable Searches and Seizures of his Person, his papers, and his property; all Warrants therefore to search suspected places, or to seize any Freeman, his Papers or property, without Information upon Oath (or Affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an Oath) of legal and sufficient Cause, are grievous and Oppressive; and all General Warrants to search suspected Places, or to apprehend any suspected Person, without specially naming or describing the Place or Person, are dangerous and ought not to be granted.
“17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.” In other words, a militia takes precedence in preservation of liberty over the standing military.
-
Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts
- That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause & nature of his Accusation, to be confronted with the Accusers and Witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted Counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his Vicinage, without whose unanimous Consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the Land and Naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself.
That no Freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or desseized of his Freehold, Liberties, privileges or Franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his Life, Liberty or Property, but by the Law of the Land.
That every Freeman restrained of his Liberty is entitled to a remedy, to enquire into the Lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such Remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.
That in Controversies respecting Property, and in Suits between Man and man, the ancient Trial by Jury of Facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest Securities to the Rights of a Free people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.
That every Freeman ought to find a certain Remedy, by recourse to the Laws, for all Injuries or wrongs he may receive in his person, property or Character: He ought to obtain Right and Justice freely, without sale, compleatly and without Denial, promptly and without Delay; and that all Establishments or regulations contravening these Rights are oppressive and unjust.
That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted.
That every Freeman has a Right to be secure from all unreasonable Searches and Seizures of his Person, his papers, and his property; all Warrants therefore to search suspected places, or to seize any Freeman, his Papers or property, without Information upon Oath (or Affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an Oath) of legal and sufficient Cause, are grievous and Oppressive; and all General Warrants to search suspected Places, or to apprehend any suspected Person, without specially naming or describing the Place or Person, are dangerous and ought not to be granted.
“17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.” In other words, a militia takes precedence in preservation of liberty over the standing military.
-
Defense Is Not Substitutable
Defense Is Not Substitutable. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/defense-is-not-substitutable/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:13:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264982895682367488
-
Fixing Court and State
Fixing Court and State https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/fixing-court-and-state/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:02:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264980209566134275
-
Fixing Court and State
Jan 28, 2020, 8:58 AM (important)
–“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy
This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare. HOW DO YOU FIX IT? You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it. And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system. In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.
- Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
- Our supreme court is a far better solution.
- Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.
A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.
A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.
A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.
The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense
My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.
There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.
However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.
That should provide you with a bit of understanding.
-
Fixing Court and State
Jan 28, 2020, 8:58 AM (important)
–“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy
This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare. HOW DO YOU FIX IT? You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it. And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system. In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.
- Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
- Our supreme court is a far better solution.
- Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.
A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.
A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.
A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.
The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense
My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.
There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.
However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.
That should provide you with a bit of understanding.