—“P-method disambiguates legal language by providing a single hermeneutic for interpretation; and rejecting all others.”–Andrew M Gilmour
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-23 08:56:00 UTC
—“P-method disambiguates legal language by providing a single hermeneutic for interpretation; and rejecting all others.”–Andrew M Gilmour
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-23 08:56:00 UTC
Always go with rights. They can’t fight rights. 2nd amendment is holy ground.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-20 23:13:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219397591676440577
Reply addressees: @Nalo_Nei @Nationalist7346 @EricLiford
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219384277298626560
IN REPLY TO:
@Nalo_Nei
@Nationalist7346 @curtdoolittle @EricLiford Exactly!
What Antifa starts, the good guys finish. With Antifa suppressed (deterred) there’s nothing to start or finish.
Question:
Do you think Antifa was authentically deterred?
Do you think the conspicuous lack of violence is a trick?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219384277298626560
You are a scumbag. The law accounts for mistakes and malfeasance on the part of the staff or the customers, as well as errors in printing.
Try not to confirm your stereotype with every display word and deed.
Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science.
Scum.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 19:28:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218978555641593859
Reply addressees: @David_Leavitt @Target
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218260304557158400
IN REPLY TO:
@DavidLeavitt
This @target manager Tori is not honoring the price of their items per massachusetts law https://t.co/7IYMjCcutZ
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218260304557158400
The point is to stop them, and to restore the ‘return to the legislature’ if it’s undecidable.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 01:43:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218710525846196225
Reply addressees: @EricLiford @probiotical
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218697238123372546
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218697238123372546
Judges have the finest record of any body of people in america other than perhaps – until the immigrant hordes – medicine (doctors). The problem is that the constitution was too weak in defining the theory of jurisprudence (something I’ve repaired). And so the left abused it.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 00:33:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218692929704931333
Reply addressees: @EricLiford @probiotical
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218643816795852800
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218643816795852800
THREE QUESTIONS ON RULE OF LAW – AND GOVERNING
by Caleb Mimnaugh
—“
Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful.
3 clarifications – if you have the time.
1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better?
2. If the former, how is it unnecessary?
3. If the latter, where can it be improved?
3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion.
“—-
1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.
2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.
3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.
3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority.
AS FAR AS I KNOW:
The organs of the state are limited to:
1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military)
2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts)
3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury).
4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State)
5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government)
6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy).
This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee.
There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 14:06:00 UTC
You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 13:59:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218170985737785345
Reply addressees: @KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680
Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man).
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 13:57:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680
Reply addressees: @KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218155976064479232
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218155976064479232
RESTORING MARITAL INCENTIVES
The reason men don’t want to get married is common property, alimony, child support – all of which are ‘rent-seeking’ (forms of corruption) – and lack of standing to suit for interference in the marriage: But All’s fixable.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 13:38:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218165659730923521
THAT’S NOT RULE OF LAW, AND ONE MAN IS NOT A MOVEMENT
—“Trump is a cancer, but it’s totally operable cancer. Remove him under the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Serve a purpose bigger than yourselves.”— Some Twitter Idiot
You’re wrong of course: a useful idiot for purveyors of the Alinsky method of personalizing political movements.
Trump is just a representative of half the population. Half the population that is getting very close to “cleansing” the country of the other half of the population.
Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man).
You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 09:01:00 UTC