RT @AnnCoulter: Robert Bork to AP: Congress has constitutional authority to refuse U.S. admission to, or selectively deport, Iranians or an…
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 17:45:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674283652994482176
Retweeted Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter):
Robert Bork to AP: Congress has constitutional authority to refuse U.S. admission to, or selectively deport, Iranians or any nationality.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 12:45:00 UTC
NOMOCRACY: RULE OF LAW AND MARKET GOVERNMENT ARE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE
Markets in everything: A Market for Goods and Services(“Capitalism”), A Market for Commons (“Government”), A Market for Dispute Resolution (“Rule” – and independent judiciary under the one law of property).
The care-taking of the unable and the requirement of self support for reproduction. Imposing costs upon others is antithetical to civilization – eradication of it is the purpose of civilization. While insurance against the vicissitudes of nature is necessary for risk, the guarantee of dependence is mere theft by intention not accident.
Communism Fails (authority). Democratic Socialism Fails(democracy). Libertinism Fails(individualism).
The only solution is MARKET GOVERNMENT. And market governance requires rule of law.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 05:11:00 UTC
I DON’T DO ANTI-SEMITISM. I DO TRUTH AND RULE OF LAW.
Again. Please do not go all anti jewish on me. I dont do racism. it’s tedious and useless. I know how the germans failed. i know how the french failed. I know how we anglos failed. I don’t think the jews of the 19th and 20th centuries knew what they were doing any more than the Germans, French and Anglos knew what they were doing. We all work with the frames of reference we get from our cultures.
I want to know how to accomplish the elimination of lying in the social sciences, and law, what we accomplished with the elimination of mysticism and the elimination of rationalism.
To do that I must understand the technique. Did Plato know what he was doing? I am not sure. Did Socrates? I am not sure Did Aristotle = I think he did. Did Smith and Hume? I think they did. Did Jefferson, yes. Did Marx, I don’t think so. Did Adorno and crew? I have no idea but according to him, not really. Did Rand and Rothbard – rand maybe, rothbard I don’t think so.
The technique of the talmud is quite simple. The question is, why does it work so well?
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 17:39:00 UTC
GAAP(RULE OF LAW) VS IFRS(NAPOLEONIC LAW)
(h/t Johannes Meixner )(From elsewhere)
This is the material difference in the origins and persistence of the different accounting systems. All anglo-american policy is traditionally implemented under rule of law that approaches formal logic as much as possible.
The general rule of american GAAP is pretty simple “represent the truth”. This varies from the Napoleonic countries where there is less suspicion of government involvement and less tolerance for discretion.
Some of this is terribly important given that in many countries that use Napoleonic law and it’s descendants, the bureaucracy tends to be staffed professionally. Whereas in the states the bureaucracy is staffed by ‘those unfit for real productive work’.
Hence the general believe that there must be no room for discretion in american law and accounting, and arguments must be decidable by a judge using logical means.
Just to provide context, this is also the difference between the economic schools of thought:
1) The conservative ‘Austrian’ branch seeks rules of natural law such that institutions can be improved in order to reduce frictions in the economy.
2) the classical liberal ‘american’ (or freshwater) branch seeks extensions of rule of law that allow intervention in the economy only under predefined rules as to eliminate political discretion and allow private sector planning without ‘losses’ incurred by government exercise of discretion.
3) the ‘Saltwater’ or ‘American Jewish’ branch seeks to understand the limits of discretionary action in order to give the government the freedom to interfere in the economy with maximum discretion.
The Debate over GAAP and IFRS is one of RULES vs JUSTIFICATIONS. the USA differs for this reason. Although you would very likely be hard pressed to find many people able to explain this deep difference between the american (equalitarian) experiment and the continental (authoritarian) experiment.
As such it is a non trivial difference that reflects the difference in cultures. The principle of ‘going concern’ is a mathematical relationship determined between the creditor and the company officers. It is not a matter for ‘interference’ by the state.
Hence higher risk organizations in america, and the bigger stock market in america, and the more developed tech and research sector in america, and the bond market in london, and the heavy industrial superiority of germany, and the military superiority of russia.
Risk increases as we move westward.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 14:14:00 UTC
THE CONTRACTUAL SOCIETY: SOCIAL CONTRACT, OATH, JURY, JUDGE
—“At the heart of the tenth-century law was the oath, taken by all freemen from the age of 12, to abstain from and denounce any major crime.
This common oath enshrined the sense of social community and responsibility that underpinned the law. In this light, theft was seen as an act of disloyalty. If you had broken your oath and committed a serious crime your entire kin could be punished.
King Athelstan, is reported saying to his councillors that he was concerned about the number of young people being executed under the death penalty, ‘as he sees everywhere is the case’.
The death penalty could be enforced on anyone 12 years old or over, but the king raised the age of criminal responsibility to 16 because, as he said simply, ‘it is too cruel’.
That, was around 930. But as late as the early 19th century there are cases of ten, nine and even eight year olds being executed for sheep stealing.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-04 02:59:00 UTC
(In response to news that Duarte will reinstitute the death penalty and hold weekly hangings, I’ve reluctantly agreed that this is an important tradition) [T]he death penalty is probably one of the most positive influences of all traditional institutions when used aggressively against violent career criminals. Particularly if they are young and have not reproduced. Sterilisation of females is probably even better since their constant ‘invisible’ crimes are moral and indirect thefts rather than ethical and direct thefts. So whether we hang or sterilize we make the world a better place. And the way to prevent hanging and sterilizing is to control reproduction by upward redistribution of rates of reproduction, rather than the downward that we have been conducting for the past century and a half – thereby losing a standard deviation in IQ. Hang early and often.
—“You’re psycho.”—Todd Saunders
Actually I have been forced to change to and hold this opinion by the evidence. Sorry. I’m a scientist not a priest.
(In response to news that Duarte will reinstitute the death penalty and hold weekly hangings, I’ve reluctantly agreed that this is an important tradition) [T]he death penalty is probably one of the most positive influences of all traditional institutions when used aggressively against violent career criminals. Particularly if they are young and have not reproduced. Sterilisation of females is probably even better since their constant ‘invisible’ crimes are moral and indirect thefts rather than ethical and direct thefts. So whether we hang or sterilize we make the world a better place. And the way to prevent hanging and sterilizing is to control reproduction by upward redistribution of rates of reproduction, rather than the downward that we have been conducting for the past century and a half – thereby losing a standard deviation in IQ. Hang early and often.
—“You’re psycho.”—Todd Saunders
Actually I have been forced to change to and hold this opinion by the evidence. Sorry. I’m a scientist not a priest.
[T]here is a very great difference between government and rule.
I am not sure all peoples can easily generate judges capable of rule by rule of law. Although wth sufficient training it appears largely possible. I do not think other peoples should participate in the selection of a commons for a people, only in the prevention of privatization of commons, or the socialization of losses into commons. In this sense, colonialism is very different from adjudication. And my feeling is that most nations would benefit from hiring judges. And most would benefit from not being colonized. Rule of law works over time. Law is a science. The production of commons is an extension of the family. It can only grow with the people themselves.
[T]here is a very great difference between government and rule.
I am not sure all peoples can easily generate judges capable of rule by rule of law. Although wth sufficient training it appears largely possible. I do not think other peoples should participate in the selection of a commons for a people, only in the prevention of privatization of commons, or the socialization of losses into commons. In this sense, colonialism is very different from adjudication. And my feeling is that most nations would benefit from hiring judges. And most would benefit from not being colonized. Rule of law works over time. Law is a science. The production of commons is an extension of the family. It can only grow with the people themselves.