Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • FOR YOUR RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN (via Michael Pattinson) Fight for your ancient rig

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uep7GA9hCKM#t=455FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN

    (via Michael Pattinson)

    Fight for your ancient rights. The law is the master of the state. The individual is the master of the government.

    Without the rule of law, we are no longer americans, we revert to our fragmentary tribes.

    Which is what we are in the process of doing.

    I prefer my rights as an englishman.

    I demand my rights as an englishman.

    I deny you the right to deny me my rights as an englishman.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-01 06:32:00 UTC

  • legacy: disregard for rule of law

    http://shar.es/UJn7GObama’s legacy: disregard for rule of law.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-23 03:04:00 UTC

  • NON-CASE ACTUALLY (well written)

    http://americanfoundingprinciples.com/2013/11/02/the-case-against-secession/THE NON-CASE ACTUALLY

    (well written)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-10 13:31:00 UTC

  • is NOT protected under “Free Speech”? Libel – Slander – Defamation

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/8/court-rules-yelp-website-must-identify-seven-negat/#.Us-0os-LXrg.facebookWhat is NOT protected under “Free Speech”? Libel – Slander – Defamation


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-10 03:58:00 UTC

  • If a man must pay for a child at great personal cost to himself, and a woman and

    If a man must pay for a child at great personal cost to himself, and a woman and the child have a right to the standard of living prior to divorce, and he cannot export this expense to the state, then why does a woman have the right to export the cost of her single motherhood to the state?

    A man cannot chose whether or not he is to father a child. Women are no longer economic victims, but have both saturated their distribution in the economy, and forced men out of the economy such that more women are both voters and workers than are men. So we cannot say that women are disadvantaged. Just the opposite. It is true that men dominate the upper margins, but men dominate nowhere else in society.

    This is an inequality of justice. A double standard. Given the dissolution of the family, and our emphasis on individualism, it is only jus that men export their children’s cost to the state just as women export their children’s cost to the state. No?

    I don’t really see any moral case for child or spousal support. There isnt any evidence that it’s necessary. It is disproportionally more punitive to men, who have shorter working careers, and endure disproportionate economic risk.

    I mean, if we have universal socialized health coverage, why not universal socialized child coverage. Why not a minimum guaranteed income?

    In that world, men can contribute to a household or not, but they carry their productivity with them. So any woman whose nest he shares, gains from his productivity, but loses at his departure. His income is a luxury. A perk. A benefit, not a necessity.

    The point of my argument is that property rights in a world where the individual, not the family, is the rule, and where all costs are highly socialized, will be one in which it will be increasingly difficult for us to treat evolutionary norms and morals dependent upon previous economic political and social means of production and reproduction, as criteria for predicting human behavior.

    I wouldn’t mind a world where women could not become vampires on males, and where all rights were in fact, equal.

    I also realize that this is the only way to restore male-female relations. But I suspect it is too late. And that the more likely development will be a caste system like we see in the northeast, with white/jewish/asian elites and mixed and brown everyone else – with token representatives of those groups permitted into the upper castes as a means of preserving the illusion of meritocracy.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-30 15:13:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN ONLY ORIGINATE IN A CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGE – therefor there ar

    PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN ONLY ORIGINATE IN A CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGE – therefor there are limits to those rights.

    If you fail to state the limits of those rights in that contract, then it is quite possible to abuse them. But the moral use of property – meaning the ban on involuntary transfers – does not include such uses as rent seeking on property rights THEMSELVES. That would mean a contradiction.

    I hope that logic is as clear as it is to me. Maybe not.

    Human moral code illustrates that we expect that if you profit, that you profit by contributing something to the agreement.

    This intuition is what confused us over interest. Interest is a necessary property of inter-temporal production. It’s not a convenience. Its a necessity. We can’t function without it.

    And it is moral, because interest is an opportunity cost paid for by the lender, to the borrower.

    However, that does not mean that you can take advantage of human suffering as a lender. That violates the principle of involuntary transfer.

    This topic is exceptionally rich turf for libertarian reformation. Because by solving it, we solve the problem of placing limits on property rights such that they are acceptable to high trust societies.

    Profound if you grasp it.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 12:37:00 UTC

  • END OF THE RULE OF LAW : STUFF NIXON WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE “The Imperial Senate

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-democrats-outbreak-of-lawlessness/2013/11/28/3184b6f2-579b-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.htmlTHE END OF THE RULE OF LAW : STUFF NIXON WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE

    “The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 09:09:00 UTC

  • HIDE SYSTEM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS “for a good part of the medieval period, then, f

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)THE HIDE SYSTEM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    “for a good part of the medieval period, then, frisian society continued to be based on clans rather than nuclear families. the frisians had been christianized, which is important in breaking down tribes and clans, but they weren’t manorialized, which seems to be another key in getting to an “atomized” society based on the individual and the nuclear family.

    The hide system meant that the lord of the manor would lease out (on a long-term lease — like lasting a life-time) farms to married couples. not to extended families. not to clans. just to a married couple (and their kids). manorialism and the hide system, therefore, also broke down the clan connections, along with the loosening of the genetic ties via all the outbreeding. so in places where people converted to christianity (and, therefore, stopped inbreeding), but DIDN’T have manorialism, extended family systems and even clans could — and did — survive for longer, since the clan system wasn’t also broken down by the hide system.” — HBD_chick

    See wiki:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 16:21:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANCE OF SIMPLE RULES: COMMENSURABILITY=LEGITIMACY “Our present-day Western

    http://blogs.elpais.com/atomium-culture/2013/11/the-power-from-below-understanding-europes-historical-institutional-diversity.htmlTHE IMPORTANCE OF SIMPLE RULES: COMMENSURABILITY=LEGITIMACY

    “Our present-day Western society is highly regulated and institutionalized: formal agreements are made at various levels within society to make things run smoothly, from driving a car, to disposing waste, to taking part in local and national elections. Breaching a rule usually carries a sanction.”

    **”However, if rules are simply added without attention to the internal coherence of the regulations, contradictory situations may emerge within the regulations and the rules may become ineffective: they may no longer be understood by the stakeholders or they may simply be ignored (leading to freeriding), with sanctions no longer being applied.”**


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 15:29:00 UTC