—“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosophy, would the poor get adequate justice?”— THE CORRECT ANSWER Police investigations already are capitalistic. They balance the market for tolerance with crime rates with the market for taxes to pay for the suppression, prosecution, and punishment of crimes. The cost of the externalities of physical crimes are far smaller than the cost of the externalities of clerical and informational crime. The distrust produced by physical crime is greater than the distrust created by clerical and informational crime. The problem for the poor is that they have worse ABILITIES and worse PERSONALITIES, and even worse HABITS than their working, middle, and upper class peers, and therefore low sexual, social, economic, and political value to other people. Hence, they are poor. They have nothing to trade. And worse, even interacting with them forces others to bear the cost of doing so. We ended the period of stagnant human capital by the middle of the last century. That is why IQ’s are declining. We are now reversing gains of modernity by increasing the rates of reproduction of the underclasses by suppressing the rates of reproduction of the middle classes through tax extraction.
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
“Here’s how a typical speeding ticket (in this case a ticket from Indiana that w
—“Here’s how a typical speeding ticket (in this case a ticket from Indiana that we paid though our Traffic Justice Program) is divvied up:
State Courts: $49.00
County Courts: $18.90
City… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=289059141690983&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 17:41:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035583481919811589
-
“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosophy, would the poor get
—“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosophy, would the poor get adequate justice?”—
THE CORRECT ANSWER
Police investigations already are capitalistic. They balance the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=289010425029188&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 15:05:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035544022125821952
-
BRITISH VS AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEMS I think the open question is between the briti
BRITISH VS AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEMS
I think the open question is between the british model of professional litigators of the court, and professional advocates for the individual, and the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=289004565029774&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 14:51:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035540683317305344
-
CAPITALIST POLICE? —“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosoph
CAPITALIST POLICE?
—“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosophy, would the poor get adequate justice?”—
THE CORRECT ANSWER
Police investigations already are capitalistic. They balance the market for tolerance with crime rates with the market for taxes to pay for the suppression, prosecution, and punishment of crimes. The cost of the externalities of physical crimes are far smaller than the cost of the externalities of clerical and informational crime. The distrust produced by physical crime is greater than the distrust created by clerical and informational crime.
The problem for the poor is that they have worse ABILITIES and worse PERSONALITIES, and even worse HABITS than their working, middle, and upper class peers, and therefore low sexual, social, economic, and political value to other people. Hence, they are poor. They have nothing to trade. And worse, even interacting with them forces others to bear the cost of doing so.
We ended the period of stagnant human capital by the middle of the last century. That is why IQ’s are declining. We are now reversing gains of modernity by increasing the rates of reproduction of the underclasses by suppressing the rates of reproduction of the middle classes through tax extraction.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 11:05:00 UTC
-
BRITISH VS AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEMS I think the open question is between the briti
BRITISH VS AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEMS
I think the open question is between the british model of professional litigators of the court, and professional advocates for the individual, and the american model without the intermediary position.
It is much harder to ‘pull bullshit’ in court in the british model. It is much easier to ‘pull bullshit’ in legislation in the british model. I am not yet sure if the house of lords is superior to the supreme court or not, but there is good reason to think it might be. Or, that the lords AND a supreme court would be superior to either condition.
American constitution is better given the fact that our founding documents (declaration, constitution, bill of rights) are written, and consistent, if not as consistent as we could make them today – and aside from the fact that one requires all three documents to make sense of the constitution or the bill of rights becuase the natural law of reciprocity is not stated, and instead states men are equal rather than must be equal for the law of reciprocity (natural law) to fulfill it’s purpose of harmony.
Conversely, the american model is far more common law (meaning permissive – less regulation) than the british model (meaning impermissive – more regulation).
So this means that while americans have a superior juridical presumption (optimistic leading to more innovation, but more court disputes to resolve) while the british have less litigation to resolve because of higher regulation. I think the impact on the cultures is vast and the regulation culture in the uk has led to the feminization of the british male in less than eighty years.
The optimum is probably the mixture of the two systems, with near zero regulation in america, and adding the intermediary between the lawyer and the court so that less nonsense occurs in court.
It can be embarrasing to listen to young lawyers speak for their clients in court, rather than tell them “there is no fking way this is goonna fly so I won’t take your money”.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 10:51:00 UTC
-
Operationally Constructed Law Ends Pilpul and Talmudism
—“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred
-
Operationally Constructed Law Ends Pilpul and Talmudism
—“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred
-
Talmudism: Pilpul (Sophism) In Law
by Steven Jackson Talmudism is a method of exploiting the human error in the letter of the law to escape the spirit of the law. As law is a part of culture, within a homogeneous society peers can be relied upon to judge each other with regards to social norms. Hence the success of the Anglo jury of peers system. Laws do not need to be codified under such a system as the jury judges how reasonable the plaintiff’s actions were by comparing them to what their own would be given the circumstances. Talmudism is the codification of law and a strict adherence to exactly how it is written or how the bureaucracy is performed. This allows individuals to escape justice through loopholes and human error. This codification is only necessary when society is composed of various cultures. Within cultures there are different classes. So maybe underclass is the wrong and outgroup is the right word. Talmudism begins when several cultures interact in a single society and laws have to be codified to accommodate cultural differences. The abuse of the codification arises when pilpul is used to argue the letter of the law against the spirit of the law to escape justice. Law does not lead to talmudism, disregard for the host culture does
-
Talmudism: Pilpul (Sophism) In Law
by Steven Jackson Talmudism is a method of exploiting the human error in the letter of the law to escape the spirit of the law. As law is a part of culture, within a homogeneous society peers can be relied upon to judge each other with regards to social norms. Hence the success of the Anglo jury of peers system. Laws do not need to be codified under such a system as the jury judges how reasonable the plaintiff’s actions were by comparing them to what their own would be given the circumstances. Talmudism is the codification of law and a strict adherence to exactly how it is written or how the bureaucracy is performed. This allows individuals to escape justice through loopholes and human error. This codification is only necessary when society is composed of various cultures. Within cultures there are different classes. So maybe underclass is the wrong and outgroup is the right word. Talmudism begins when several cultures interact in a single society and laws have to be codified to accommodate cultural differences. The abuse of the codification arises when pilpul is used to argue the letter of the law against the spirit of the law to escape justice. Law does not lead to talmudism, disregard for the host culture does