Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • BUT CRISIS ISN’T A MATTER OF CONSUMPTION —“Alabama’s disaster preparedness pla

    BUT CRISIS ISN’T A MATTER OF CONSUMPTION

    —“Alabama’s disaster preparedness plan says that “persons with severe mental retardation, advanced dementia or severe traumatic brain injury may be poor candidates for ventilator support.” … https://propub.li/2JihhRY?fbclid=IwAR3z0jvNr2q0HNYHH9HcD0isBJuznmTOhPMq1hBuuUWymyFzeEr1yFo5mfA


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 23:32:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244407052258197506

  • The reason for law is to prevent people from doing what they want to that they s

    The reason for law is to prevent people from doing what they want to that they shouldn’t. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 16:15:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244297140706455552

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244288084247810049

  • NO, THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES> I didn’t say there is an end

    NO, THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES>

    I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I wasn’t searching for an idea. I’m claiming that european ancestral law is the reason for the unique success of western civlization. And that continu… https://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU&fbclid=IwAR1FXhq3yoPwJAn4xAKY96lGJlRhiU5VIj-Qf4BCuTCbdxDLe1EzI4X_eAo


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 11:32:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244225876008591360

  • I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I am merely adapting the law

    I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I am merely adapting the law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 19:07:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243978110581780480

    Reply addressees: @LorenzaTL @JFGariepy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243975451829207042

  • Constitution. Subject: Territory. Problem: Continents. Under the law one may use

    Constitution. Subject: Territory.

    Problem: Continents.

    Under the law one may use the kin group’s territory to produce preferred commons under the law.

    A group may not divorce the territory from the law.

    A group may not grant competing peoples territory.

    One may only exit the territory.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 16:58:00 UTC

  • THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES> I didn’t say there is an end to

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrUNO, THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES>

    I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I wasn’t searching for an idea. I’m claiming that european ancestral law is the reason for the unique success of western civlization. And that continuing the anglo tradition, we must periodically update our constitution and law to reflect innovations in irreciprocity. I am merely adapting the current constitution and law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science. The difference is that institutions change with greater difficulty than does un-institutionalized knowledge. 😉

    JFG – Love you man but you have a habit of declaring understanding when you are hypothesizing understanding, and cannot warranty your words. 😉 Of course, in P-Law, you would have to change your behavior, and say your understanding was such, but that you can’t warranty it as true. 😉 Otherwise you’d be liable for ten times the air time to correct your prior claims. 😉

    And yes, I know you run an opinion show. JFG opinion is entertaining. 😉

    youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU Updated Mar 28, 2020, 3:16 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 15:16:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER. (in res

    PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER.

    (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)

    —“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks

    If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err.

    PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 14:32:00 UTC

  • This is the difference between scriptural and legal interpretation (excuse makin

    This is the difference between scriptural and legal interpretation (excuse making) under an author’s anonymity, rather than testimony.

    Statment’s aren’t true or false.
    People speak incoherently, undecidably, truthfully, or falsely.

    (The disease of mathematics and platonism.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:45:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243715870070882304

    Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243715248529555456


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K But because both statements are written by human intention using incomplete (grammatically incorrect) statements, absent a subject, they deceptions. The deception is made possible by appeal to suggestion, requiring inference. All sophisms use this technique.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243715248529555456

  • Judges aren’t the problem. The problem is (a) the holes in the constitution (fou

    Judges aren’t the problem. The problem is (a) the holes in the constitution (foundations of the law, and resulting rights), (b) the 20th ((())) undermining of the constitution by those holes (c) the holes in the construction of law (strict construction), (d) legislature.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 13:48:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243535397210202113

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243532078744043525

  • Law is scientific (empirical). Legislation and Regulation are not. In simple ter

    Law is scientific (empirical). Legislation and Regulation are not. In simple terms – that’s the problem.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 12:28:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243515287732920321