Form: Excerpt

  • English Common Law

    ENGLISH COMMON LAW Common law developed after the Norman Conquest of England. In 1066 England was peopled with Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Danes, Celts, Jutes, and other groups who were suddenly ruled by French-speaking Normans. Most law at the time was customary law that had been handed down orally from generation to generation. In addition there were the legal code of Alfred the Great, which was biblical in nature, and the Danelaw of the Vikings and Danes. Most of the courts were communal courts (folk-moot), the hundred and shire courts, and baronial, or manorial, courts administering justice in the interest of the local nobility. Immediately after the Norman Conquest the king would hear cases coram rege (before the king) that involved royal interests. However, the king with the royal court tended to be on the move in England or away in France. Consequently the legal work was soon delegated to an appointed tribunal, the Curia Regis. From it came the three royal common law courts that were used to unify the kingdom. The first of the royal common law courts was the Exchequer. Originally concerned with the collection of taxes and the administration of royal finances, by 1250 it had become a court exercising full judicial powers. The second royal common law court to develop was the Court of Common Pleas (or Common Bench), which was probably established during the reign of Henry II (1154–1189). This court heard cases that did not involve the king’s rights. It was firmly established at Westminster after King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. The third royal common law court to evolve from the Curia Regis was the King’s Bench. Eventually this court heard cases involving the king’s interests, criminal matters, and cases affecting the high nobility. It also developed the practice of issuing writs of error for review of cases decided in Common Pleas. One factor promoting the development of the common law courts was their ability to settle land disputes. All of the land in England belonged to the king by right of conquest. He then awarded it to his vassals to hold and utilize in exchange for loyalty and for services. Because economic production was almost exclusively agricultural, title to the use of land was extremely valuable. Disputes over who was entitled to possess land created innumerable cases. As the justices in Eyre traveled their assigned circuits to hold court, they would decide cases using the Bible, canon law, and most especially reasoning applied to the customary law of that place. When the judges returned to London they would go to their places of permanent residence in taverns or cloisters. These residences of the judges, who were often monks or bachelors, eventually became the Inns of Court, where cases were heard and experts were trained in law. In the course of over 200 years the judges “discovered” the law common to all the people of England. The belief was that underlying the thicket of unwritten customary law was a common foundation that could be discovered by reason. In effect the judges were developing legal principles or laws as they made judicial rulings in particular cases. Among the principles of the common law are stare decisis (let the decision stand). Stare decisis means that a judge in deciding a case should look to similar cases from the past for guidance. The use of similar cases is itself a legal principle, namely, that like cases should be tried alike. However in the absence of a precedent setting rule the judge would in effect “legislate” and create a new rule. This meant that the common law was case law or judge-made law created by legal reasoning about legal problems. It was well established centuries before the rise of Parliament. The developing common law had the virtue of stability; however, it lacked flexibility. To bring a case into a common law court was often too costly for common people. The common law courts also moved slowly; that could mean that justice delayed was justice denied. To lodge a complaint in a common law court an appropriate writ had to be obtained. If the wrong kind of writ were used, of which there were eventually over 100 kinds, the case would be dismissed. In addition some of the rules of the common law were injurious to justice. For example before bringing a suit for an injury to a person or to property in a common law court real injury had to be sustained. The common law lacked a mechanism for preventing irreparable harms from happening. Since the king was believed to be the fountainhead of justice in England—that is, the person who ruled by divine right and through whom the justice of heaven flowed to the people—equity courts were established to restore fairness or equity to the legal system. People would appeal to the king for justice. In response the kings ordered the court chancellor to issue decrees of equity. Chancery courts developed to hear cases of equity and to correct the common law.

  • Intersectionality – as The Bait and Switch Between Frames

    INTERSECTIONALITY – AS THE BAIT AND SWITCH BETWEEN FRAMES By: Gearóid Walsh (via Brandon Hayes) Intersectionality – as the bait and switch between frames like ethnicity and class-construct – is largely what created the so-called “alt-right”. Intersectionality as a theory is a partiality within a partiality, and eschewing all counterpoint that would make it whole, trustworthy and reciprocal, means that it amounts to a folk theory for theft and soft forms of demographic warfare. There is a perfect symmetry to the way in which what is strategically unaccounted for became a form of rising opposition. And also in the way such opposition was framed when it did. These are not your grandfather’s “neo-nazis”. They are usually moderate, reasonable and sometimes very sophisticated people who realize the game that’s being played and refuse to be mugged by it so as to not appear “problematic”.

  • Intersectionality – as The Bait and Switch Between Frames

    INTERSECTIONALITY – AS THE BAIT AND SWITCH BETWEEN FRAMES By: Gearóid Walsh (via Brandon Hayes) Intersectionality – as the bait and switch between frames like ethnicity and class-construct – is largely what created the so-called “alt-right”. Intersectionality as a theory is a partiality within a partiality, and eschewing all counterpoint that would make it whole, trustworthy and reciprocal, means that it amounts to a folk theory for theft and soft forms of demographic warfare. There is a perfect symmetry to the way in which what is strategically unaccounted for became a form of rising opposition. And also in the way such opposition was framed when it did. These are not your grandfather’s “neo-nazis”. They are usually moderate, reasonable and sometimes very sophisticated people who realize the game that’s being played and refuse to be mugged by it so as to not appear “problematic”.

  • Trust, Cooperation (reciprocity), and Decidability of Limits Are Vectors that Develop a Civilization’s Long Term Success

    TRUST, COOPERATION (RECIPROCITY), AND DECIDABILITY OF LIMITS ARE VECTORS THAT DEVELOP A CIVILIZATION’S LONG TERM SUCCESS by Lucas Cort (Flawless – CD) The idea that everyone is equal appears to be a good rule for cooperation (when people share similarities) but it neglects full accounting in terms of differences in specialization, incentives,actions, and abilities. Individual: Morphology, cognition, incentives, preferences, morals, culture Genders: Morphology (bodies: bone structure and density, reproductive organs, endocrinology, brain structure distributions), reproductive strategies (incentives, preferences, morals, temperament) Races: Morphology (bodies: bone structure and density, reproductive organs, brain structure distributions), neoteny (rates and duration of sexual maturity), distributions of reproductive strategies, (incentives, preferences, morals, temperament) and group evolutionary strategies (cultural, organization and applications of violence) Classes: Rates of production, consumption, distributions of proceeding categories: (individual,genders,races) If we don’t address differences, we distort the measures that lead to decidability through full accounting and disambiguation. Differences in all these categories can be seen as specializations in the acquisition of genetic, social-cultural, and economic capital. They affect the way we act in the environment with others due to differing incentives. The result of demonstrated property (property-en-toto) shows that people invest and are willing to defend against the impositions of costs. Differing incentives, cognitive biases, reproductive and group evolutionary strategies show that people value property differently. Understanding that differences between the golden rule and the silver rule: Golden rule – “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” Silver rule – “Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.” And

    Tolerance and forbearance:

    Tolerance – “I use Tolerance to mean allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs” – Luke Weinhagen Forbearance – “Forbearance includes tolerance AND limits (until the cost one was willing carried has been exceeded), AND active participation – its a choice which one can boycott/defect based on the cost carried.” – Bill Joslin Clarifies limits, and aids in decidability to in and out group disputes. By disambiguating differences we can address the constant relations across and between these groups, and their interactions allows us to accurately measure transfers between them. Measuring violations of reciprocity under rule of law makes us equal before the law. We are not all equal, but if we insure each other against parasitism, we can preserve cooperation. That way, we don’t shift costs, and we identify group conflict so that we can focus on real solutions to incentivize cooperation. (CD: I can’t tell I didn’t write it myself. It’s flawless. it’s very difficult to get to this level of competency. color me impressed. thank you Lucas. )

  • Trust, Cooperation (reciprocity), and Decidability of Limits Are Vectors that Develop a Civilization’s Long Term Success

    TRUST, COOPERATION (RECIPROCITY), AND DECIDABILITY OF LIMITS ARE VECTORS THAT DEVELOP A CIVILIZATION’S LONG TERM SUCCESS by Lucas Cort (Flawless – CD) The idea that everyone is equal appears to be a good rule for cooperation (when people share similarities) but it neglects full accounting in terms of differences in specialization, incentives,actions, and abilities. Individual: Morphology, cognition, incentives, preferences, morals, culture Genders: Morphology (bodies: bone structure and density, reproductive organs, endocrinology, brain structure distributions), reproductive strategies (incentives, preferences, morals, temperament) Races: Morphology (bodies: bone structure and density, reproductive organs, brain structure distributions), neoteny (rates and duration of sexual maturity), distributions of reproductive strategies, (incentives, preferences, morals, temperament) and group evolutionary strategies (cultural, organization and applications of violence) Classes: Rates of production, consumption, distributions of proceeding categories: (individual,genders,races) If we don’t address differences, we distort the measures that lead to decidability through full accounting and disambiguation. Differences in all these categories can be seen as specializations in the acquisition of genetic, social-cultural, and economic capital. They affect the way we act in the environment with others due to differing incentives. The result of demonstrated property (property-en-toto) shows that people invest and are willing to defend against the impositions of costs. Differing incentives, cognitive biases, reproductive and group evolutionary strategies show that people value property differently. Understanding that differences between the golden rule and the silver rule: Golden rule – “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” Silver rule – “Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.” And

    Tolerance and forbearance:

    Tolerance – “I use Tolerance to mean allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs” – Luke Weinhagen Forbearance – “Forbearance includes tolerance AND limits (until the cost one was willing carried has been exceeded), AND active participation – its a choice which one can boycott/defect based on the cost carried.” – Bill Joslin Clarifies limits, and aids in decidability to in and out group disputes. By disambiguating differences we can address the constant relations across and between these groups, and their interactions allows us to accurately measure transfers between them. Measuring violations of reciprocity under rule of law makes us equal before the law. We are not all equal, but if we insure each other against parasitism, we can preserve cooperation. That way, we don’t shift costs, and we identify group conflict so that we can focus on real solutions to incentivize cooperation. (CD: I can’t tell I didn’t write it myself. It’s flawless. it’s very difficult to get to this level of competency. color me impressed. thank you Lucas. )

  • Group Nationalism Is Another Form of Mindfulness We Must Provide in Education

    Oct 27, 2019, 12:15 PM

    —“What distinguishes China’s military training, apart from how cursory it is, is that it is blended into students’ academic careers, rather than existing as a separate track of the Chinese education. As such, military training is central to the national education system and the state’s increasingly ambitious ideological goals.”—

    (Via Don Miguel)

  • Group Nationalism Is Another Form of Mindfulness We Must Provide in Education

    Oct 27, 2019, 12:15 PM

    —“What distinguishes China’s military training, apart from how cursory it is, is that it is blended into students’ academic careers, rather than existing as a separate track of the Chinese education. As such, military training is central to the national education system and the state’s increasingly ambitious ideological goals.”—

    (Via Don Miguel)

  • PACK VS HERD

    PACK VS HERD by Bill Joslin INWARD: Life in a herd – “You’re a member to become a target to reduce the relative risk of all members – your survival depends upon your ability to compete for resources with ingroup members without generating retaliation. The herd is gregarious but if you deviate, or if you require defense, you(and your offspring) will be abandoned.” – the mob – conform. OUTWARD: Life in a Pack – “You’re a member because you fulfill a role within a division of labor. Your survival depends upon your success at this role and how it contributes to the group’s ability to compete with outgroups and external pressures (benefit scales with success). If you deviate, we’ll not abandon you, but suppress your potential for causing damage by reassigning your role (even if as nothing more than an outlet for our tensions)” – the family – be good for something, even if it’s just to be laughed at.

  • PACK VS HERD

    PACK VS HERD by Bill Joslin INWARD: Life in a herd – “You’re a member to become a target to reduce the relative risk of all members – your survival depends upon your ability to compete for resources with ingroup members without generating retaliation. The herd is gregarious but if you deviate, or if you require defense, you(and your offspring) will be abandoned.” – the mob – conform. OUTWARD: Life in a Pack – “You’re a member because you fulfill a role within a division of labor. Your survival depends upon your success at this role and how it contributes to the group’s ability to compete with outgroups and external pressures (benefit scales with success). If you deviate, we’ll not abandon you, but suppress your potential for causing damage by reassigning your role (even if as nothing more than an outlet for our tensions)” – the family – be good for something, even if it’s just to be laughed at.

  • Incentives at The Bottom

    Nov 3, 2019, 9:39 AM (Michael Churchill ) There is no incentive for the people on the sub-optimal side of the curve to voluntarily go along with the extinction of their own DNA line. There is declining incentive for the people at the top to enforce laws to prevent reproduction of those who are on the sub-optimal side of the curve. And there are strong IN-centives for both capital and fifth-columnists to encourage reproduction on the sub-optimal side of the curve. Overall human DNA is weakening in western societies, and the effect is cumulative over generations. (Curt Doolittle) The Incentive for people on the sub-optimal side of the curve is compensation NOT to reproduce, as well as prosecution IF they reproduce. (Martin Štěpán) I do see that. We’ve let it go too far. But if we isolate from the left though, I’m pretty sure there won’t be that many on the sub-optimal side of the spectrum. And ones that are, what can you really do with them besides paying them to obey the law and not reproduce, at least not more than one kid? If that’s not okay and they still commit crime, they need to be disposed of. And if we keep doing that, we’ll slowly keep improving. I advocated for the same thing in healthcare as welfare, actually. You either pay your own or you use the tax-subsidized healthcare but in the latter case, you submit to one-child policy too, at least unless you manage to pay the money back. (Curt Doolittle) Yes. That’s the correct Incentive and policy.