TWO QUESTIONS
1) Yes, we are at a tipping point but Americans go through this process regularly. Yet this is the worst intersection of multiple cycles in our history. The few geostratists we have point to the same spectrum of outcomes, and none of them are terribly bad for north America. But most are bad for everyone else. And it’s hard to see that we won’t return to the wars of empire the USA tried to prevent in the postwar period.
2) Cooperation decreases as boundaries of immorality expand. Limiting expansion of immorality is the purpose of the law. Unfortunately there is a hole in the law that assumed but does not state the priority of the intergenerational family in policy and legislation, even if the law only must apply to individuals.
*Laws protect what capital they measure*
We don’t protect social capital.
That said for context, let’s discuss the virtue of the common law and concurrent legislation.
The common law really has only one foundation (tort). And so it accumulates empirical evidence of dispute resolution in multiple courts and multiple regions (commonality) so common law is an evolutionary, empirical, method of continuously constraining increases in immorality made by advancements in cooperative complexity, trade, and technology. The common law does not require authorities or legislative or state action to continuously suppress innovations in immorality.
Likewise, concurrency requires all classes across all regions to agree before legislation can pass.
So in this way, American law is the most empirical system of government ever invented. And the most evolutionary system of law ever invented.
And ‘progressives’ don’t like it. Because there is an ever-present presumption among the credentialed but lacking demonstrable competency in practic, that they should decide on behalf of the people, rather than struggle to convince the people by the survival of their ideas in open debate.
The British system doesn’t really have a constitution, they have parliamentary sovereignty. The US has the Constitution, and the people are sovereign, and only the people can alter the constitution thus limiting the government within it. Both claim they operate under rule of law. But that’s not a statement of equality. The American constitution is very close to a science of natural law cooperation which requires individual sovereignty, reciprocity, and proportionality, limiting us to courts under this rule of law of natural law, commonality in dispute resolution (negatives) and concurrency in legislation (positives). (FWIW: there are six holes in the constitution that were assumed by readers of the day (see Blackstone) that if plugged converts the constitution to a statement of the social science of cooperation.
Meaning the people cannot even violate the laws of nature if they wish to – because that would violate all reasons to for cooperation: since any violation of the natural law means a violation of sovereignty and reciprocity. (this is a bit difficult to grasp and for me to illustrate it here enough to grasp it, might take more than the space allowed.)
So, in summary, the reason we are ‘in trouble’ at present isn’t that complex, but the answer might be unpleasant:
1) The positive law pseudoscience of Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin at all, to undermine our law.
2) The influence of the prussian, socialist, communist managerial state, and its import into the west and the states beginning with Roosevelt explicitly, but Even Wilson more indirectly.
3) The postwar demand for education in order to compete with the communists.
3) The marxist-to-woke cult of pseudoscience brought to american in the postwar era, and their deliberate use of credentialism to march through the institutions of western cultural (‘responsibility’) production during a time of extraordinary windfalls that created the illusion of the end of scarcity in the postwar period.
3) The inclusion of women into the voting pool. The suppression of adversarialism in
Reply addressees: @shuter_marian @SRCHicks