Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • What is Enough?

    NO. LAW – A VIA NEGATIVA – IS NOT ENOUGH. BUT WHAT RELIGIOUS STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, GRAMMAR, AND DEBT ARE ENOUGH? (important) [O]f the spectrum of Grammars I know of, including but not limited to: Supernatural, Mythical, Literary, Ideal, Magical, Pseudoscientific, Fictional, Ordinary Language, Written Language, Testimonial Language, Legal, Economic, Mathematic, Economic (Models), Algorithms, Engineering, Medical Protocols, Accounting, Finance, Logic, Mathematics and Arithmetic: a) Both Law and Morality evidentially reflexive and coevolutionary not hierarchical. b) Compare: Commodity Money (Proper) and Fiat Money,Credit Money, Money Substitutes -vs- Law(proper), and Command, Legislation, Regulation, Arbitrary Ruling -vs- Morality (Proper), and Institutionalized Morality, Normative Morality, Individual Morality. …. and by disambiguation, question just which ‘law’ or ‘morality’ or ‘money’ one is talking about when one makes an argument about the SERIES’ of law, morality, or money. empirically speaking international law is reciprocity, including oath, truth, duty to perform. Because there are no other requirements between those who are neutral or enemies. While within a polity we are cooperating to produce a portfolio of rights(income, credit) and obligations(expense, debt) the disambiguation of which is beyond the abilities of ordinary people other than a vague sense of ‘proportionality’. c) People require a group strategy, and a means of reinforcing it a binding narrative for cognitive decidability (altruistic punishment, non conflict, cooperation, signaling). This binding narrative radically decreases the burden of intuitionistic calculation of trust and standardizes ethical(interpersonal) and moral (extrapersonal) permissible and impermissible display word and deed. Without these SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT they will continually conflict (as we see with ‘multiculturalism’ as a means of undermining government, culture, tradition, and civilization) and fracture into races, cults, tribes, and clans decreasing group competitive ability (survivability). d) As far as I know, Organized religion vs Traditional Religion, evolved to SEPARATE macro (Politically Organized) groups, so that they could separate and compete (Iranic vs Indo Iranic). In other words, just as warfare has moved from military to economic to religious to propaganda in the modern world, warfare moved from military to economic to religious in the age of Transformation. e) As far as I know Political Law versus Customary Law evolved in response to governance of heterogeneous people (Middle east), beginning with normalizing punishments to prevent retaliation cycles between clans and tribes with different traditional standards of punishment. In other words, we are more sensitive to differences in punishment (altruistic punishment, especially) than we are to the content of proscribed norms themselves. f) As far as I know Historical Mythology serves as mythos (binding narrative) for successful peoples Ancient Europeans and all East asians (and arguably egyptians). Given our new understanding of the origin of middle eastern religion as an evolution of the burial, and it’s nexus as a trade route between the continents, it is easier to understand how pilgrimage, heavens, supernaturalism and authoritarianism evolved in that region amid the continuous wars between so many non-kin. Both christianity and buddhism were forcibly imposed by the governments after multiple failures in order to create a docile populace. In other words, those who need false gods are those who have no worthy ancestors, and have not obtained sufficient control of territory via organization, economics, culture, tradition, and warfare to create an historical mythos and their binding narrative institutions, while those of us who have need no fictitious myths and their binding narrative institutions. g) So the question is that given the spectrum of inherited debt-respect from 1- nature, ancestor, hero, founder, nation, in a binding narrative, producing knowledge wisdom and correspondence to reality to 2- Idealism, Literary characters in Character and Role Archetypes and Anthropomorphic Archetypes, to 3- Fantastical, supernatural, non-rational, authoritarian, ignorance-inducing non-correspondence with and active denial of reality. h) And so Territorial, Political, Economic, Demographic, Genetic Differences all generate Demand for a Binding Literature of the WEAK, the Powerless, the ABLE, and the POWERFUL – but in no case does this appear to be other than a portfolio of literatures except islam and judaism. In western civilization we have, as most have, relied upon Our ancient Heathen myths (childhood, family), Traditional Myths, Political Religions (formal Myths), Law (social and economic rules), Literary (temporary myths), and Fashions (ever expiring myths). And in western civilization and to a lesser degree in eastern civilization we have done so. The major difference being that the southeast and east were not conquered by Semitic Heterogeneous Political Religions, and preserved their natural religion (and justifiably consider us foolish for ours). i) And I cannot tell the difference between the addiction response by a herd of people practicing ritualizing a falsehood despite reality, and a tribe of people and their addiction response TO ONE ANOTHER AND THEIR HISTORY. Other than … that drugs sedate us, and drugs that escape from reality are desirable even if destructive. j) As such I will continue my efforts to create the optimum Science, Law, Tradition, Religion for my people and mankind that are the least infected by falsehood and the production of submission, ignorance, vulnerability, and dysgenia. 😉 Do you see that it’s disambiguation and testimony I practice, and that the outcome of doing so is Natural Law – but what trades and portfolios we construct within that Natural Law’s requirement for reciprocity within the limits of proportionality are infinitely malleable.

    In response to: Culture Precedes Law by Troy Camplin https://medium.com/@troyc…/culture-precedes-law-183763eaa861

  • What is Enough?

    NO. LAW – A VIA NEGATIVA – IS NOT ENOUGH. BUT WHAT RELIGIOUS STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, GRAMMAR, AND DEBT ARE ENOUGH? (important) [O]f the spectrum of Grammars I know of, including but not limited to: Supernatural, Mythical, Literary, Ideal, Magical, Pseudoscientific, Fictional, Ordinary Language, Written Language, Testimonial Language, Legal, Economic, Mathematic, Economic (Models), Algorithms, Engineering, Medical Protocols, Accounting, Finance, Logic, Mathematics and Arithmetic: a) Both Law and Morality evidentially reflexive and coevolutionary not hierarchical. b) Compare: Commodity Money (Proper) and Fiat Money,Credit Money, Money Substitutes -vs- Law(proper), and Command, Legislation, Regulation, Arbitrary Ruling -vs- Morality (Proper), and Institutionalized Morality, Normative Morality, Individual Morality. …. and by disambiguation, question just which ‘law’ or ‘morality’ or ‘money’ one is talking about when one makes an argument about the SERIES’ of law, morality, or money. empirically speaking international law is reciprocity, including oath, truth, duty to perform. Because there are no other requirements between those who are neutral or enemies. While within a polity we are cooperating to produce a portfolio of rights(income, credit) and obligations(expense, debt) the disambiguation of which is beyond the abilities of ordinary people other than a vague sense of ‘proportionality’. c) People require a group strategy, and a means of reinforcing it a binding narrative for cognitive decidability (altruistic punishment, non conflict, cooperation, signaling). This binding narrative radically decreases the burden of intuitionistic calculation of trust and standardizes ethical(interpersonal) and moral (extrapersonal) permissible and impermissible display word and deed. Without these SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT they will continually conflict (as we see with ‘multiculturalism’ as a means of undermining government, culture, tradition, and civilization) and fracture into races, cults, tribes, and clans decreasing group competitive ability (survivability). d) As far as I know, Organized religion vs Traditional Religion, evolved to SEPARATE macro (Politically Organized) groups, so that they could separate and compete (Iranic vs Indo Iranic). In other words, just as warfare has moved from military to economic to religious to propaganda in the modern world, warfare moved from military to economic to religious in the age of Transformation. e) As far as I know Political Law versus Customary Law evolved in response to governance of heterogeneous people (Middle east), beginning with normalizing punishments to prevent retaliation cycles between clans and tribes with different traditional standards of punishment. In other words, we are more sensitive to differences in punishment (altruistic punishment, especially) than we are to the content of proscribed norms themselves. f) As far as I know Historical Mythology serves as mythos (binding narrative) for successful peoples Ancient Europeans and all East asians (and arguably egyptians). Given our new understanding of the origin of middle eastern religion as an evolution of the burial, and it’s nexus as a trade route between the continents, it is easier to understand how pilgrimage, heavens, supernaturalism and authoritarianism evolved in that region amid the continuous wars between so many non-kin. Both christianity and buddhism were forcibly imposed by the governments after multiple failures in order to create a docile populace. In other words, those who need false gods are those who have no worthy ancestors, and have not obtained sufficient control of territory via organization, economics, culture, tradition, and warfare to create an historical mythos and their binding narrative institutions, while those of us who have need no fictitious myths and their binding narrative institutions. g) So the question is that given the spectrum of inherited debt-respect from 1- nature, ancestor, hero, founder, nation, in a binding narrative, producing knowledge wisdom and correspondence to reality to 2- Idealism, Literary characters in Character and Role Archetypes and Anthropomorphic Archetypes, to 3- Fantastical, supernatural, non-rational, authoritarian, ignorance-inducing non-correspondence with and active denial of reality. h) And so Territorial, Political, Economic, Demographic, Genetic Differences all generate Demand for a Binding Literature of the WEAK, the Powerless, the ABLE, and the POWERFUL – but in no case does this appear to be other than a portfolio of literatures except islam and judaism. In western civilization we have, as most have, relied upon Our ancient Heathen myths (childhood, family), Traditional Myths, Political Religions (formal Myths), Law (social and economic rules), Literary (temporary myths), and Fashions (ever expiring myths). And in western civilization and to a lesser degree in eastern civilization we have done so. The major difference being that the southeast and east were not conquered by Semitic Heterogeneous Political Religions, and preserved their natural religion (and justifiably consider us foolish for ours). i) And I cannot tell the difference between the addiction response by a herd of people practicing ritualizing a falsehood despite reality, and a tribe of people and their addiction response TO ONE ANOTHER AND THEIR HISTORY. Other than … that drugs sedate us, and drugs that escape from reality are desirable even if destructive. j) As such I will continue my efforts to create the optimum Science, Law, Tradition, Religion for my people and mankind that are the least infected by falsehood and the production of submission, ignorance, vulnerability, and dysgenia. 😉 Do you see that it’s disambiguation and testimony I practice, and that the outcome of doing so is Natural Law – but what trades and portfolios we construct within that Natural Law’s requirement for reciprocity within the limits of proportionality are infinitely malleable.

    In response to: Culture Precedes Law by Troy Camplin https://medium.com/@troyc…/culture-precedes-law-183763eaa861

  • Religions: Addiction to Emotional Self Indulgence

    [T]he purpose of most religions is not mindfulness but supplanting it with addiction to emotional self indulgence. The purpose of buddha’s teaching was, originally, submissive mindfulness. The purpose of stoicism’s teaching was dominant mindfulness – action. The purpose of Epicureanism was evidentiary mindfulness: supplying the human with real demands instead of status competition. And while the stoic METHOD – today’s cognitive behavioral therapy (training) – is superior to all others, the Epicurean objective is superior to all others. And this is in part why the anatolian, syrian, middle eastern fought so hard to destroy western heroism and it’s status competition by demonstrated action, sacrifice to earn the franchise, truth and duty to preserve the franchise: because all of these demands force us to obtain status through contribution to the commons (farmers and men ), rather than hyperconsumption of any available commons (shepherds and women), and emotional self indulgence. Why? Because while the division of labor provides discounts on production, status provides a discount on opportunity. So if can construct high status (sexual, social, economic, political, or military market value) we obtain more and better opportunities with more and better people. The innovation in abrahamic religion was to provide competition against aristocratic stoicism, truth, duty, and contribution to the commons, with self indulgence, justification of cowardice, and elimination of contribution to the commons – which is what we see in communism, neo-liberalism, and libertarianism: how to consume the commons rather than contribute to them. The structure of this religion is dependent upon your learning to lie in the face of reality in exchange for denial of that reality, denial of truth, duty, commons. It is a narrative structure that recreates the nepotism and insularity of the wandering shepherds who have no land, but live off common lands, and preserve insularity and non-defection in a condition of permanent competition against others of the same ilk, rather than the forces of nature. Our gradual domestication of this religion the purpose of which was to undermine the aristocracy, by converting it’s women and underclasses, who could not obtain status in the meritocratic order in that era where industrialization and gunpowder had not yet produced multiples of force, and all was still dependent upon military participation and fighting. The demand for mindfulness is largely a demand for means of training our demand for status. As the division of labor increases, the classes diverge in ability, productivity, and interest, and as power distance between bottom and top increases, we find those with the least agency seeking status by alternative means, and a caste of ‘talkers’ providing status (success) by alternative means – where are alternative does not refer to production contribution to the commons, or defense of the private and common. Gods provide a means of obtaining approval without competing in the sexual, social, political, economic, and military markets for status and therefore opportunity. Mythical Archetypes, heroes (masculine pagan markets), gods and saints (feminine abrahamic monopoly), provide a diversity of heroies and interests as suits those with agency in a division of knowledge and labor. The monotheistic archetype creates an anti-hero, in which the victim who suffers for his lack of ability and agency is somehow heroic. But the purpose of this anti-hero is the undermining of those who demonstrate innovation, excellence, competitiveness, production, and contribution to the commons, that increases the division of knowledge and labor, increases competitiveness, increases power distance, and decreases opportunity for status in those lacking ability, training, and agency. The jesus hero is a contribution to the heathen (ancestors, nature) pagan (heroes, archetypes) when one of many. But a disaster, like mohammed, and the jews when a monopoly – for we are only equal in ignorance, lack of agency and poverty. We are always unequal in knowledge agency, and wealth. It is not that we didn’t need the jesus hero, since there is no equivalent of the feminine archetype in the european pantheon. and the teaching of forgiveness and love in christianity is commercially optimum for all peoples. Unless it is applied (as do christians) beyond our kith and kin. There is no better method of training our emotions and intuitions other than the stoic method. There is nothing better to seek in life than the epicurean. And just as we domesticated christianity into a germanic folk religion, and just as we manufactured chivalry to direct aryan men to christian ends. These are the needs of the many ordinary men, while nietzsche, aristotle, alexander, jefferson, and frederick are examples for those of us who are not ordinary men. And it is only aristotelianism, heathenism, paganism , and christianity together that produce a religion for all the classes. We have always been an aristotelian (natural law), heathen (nature and ancestor) and pagan (heroes and tribes) people. With competition between the martial, magical,literary, and rational in competition. (Note: I have made a mistake by not putting time, opportunity, and status, at the top of the demonstrated property hierarchy. life is just time. time opportunity. opportunity experience.)

  • Religions: Addiction to Emotional Self Indulgence

    [T]he purpose of most religions is not mindfulness but supplanting it with addiction to emotional self indulgence. The purpose of buddha’s teaching was, originally, submissive mindfulness. The purpose of stoicism’s teaching was dominant mindfulness – action. The purpose of Epicureanism was evidentiary mindfulness: supplying the human with real demands instead of status competition. And while the stoic METHOD – today’s cognitive behavioral therapy (training) – is superior to all others, the Epicurean objective is superior to all others. And this is in part why the anatolian, syrian, middle eastern fought so hard to destroy western heroism and it’s status competition by demonstrated action, sacrifice to earn the franchise, truth and duty to preserve the franchise: because all of these demands force us to obtain status through contribution to the commons (farmers and men ), rather than hyperconsumption of any available commons (shepherds and women), and emotional self indulgence. Why? Because while the division of labor provides discounts on production, status provides a discount on opportunity. So if can construct high status (sexual, social, economic, political, or military market value) we obtain more and better opportunities with more and better people. The innovation in abrahamic religion was to provide competition against aristocratic stoicism, truth, duty, and contribution to the commons, with self indulgence, justification of cowardice, and elimination of contribution to the commons – which is what we see in communism, neo-liberalism, and libertarianism: how to consume the commons rather than contribute to them. The structure of this religion is dependent upon your learning to lie in the face of reality in exchange for denial of that reality, denial of truth, duty, commons. It is a narrative structure that recreates the nepotism and insularity of the wandering shepherds who have no land, but live off common lands, and preserve insularity and non-defection in a condition of permanent competition against others of the same ilk, rather than the forces of nature. Our gradual domestication of this religion the purpose of which was to undermine the aristocracy, by converting it’s women and underclasses, who could not obtain status in the meritocratic order in that era where industrialization and gunpowder had not yet produced multiples of force, and all was still dependent upon military participation and fighting. The demand for mindfulness is largely a demand for means of training our demand for status. As the division of labor increases, the classes diverge in ability, productivity, and interest, and as power distance between bottom and top increases, we find those with the least agency seeking status by alternative means, and a caste of ‘talkers’ providing status (success) by alternative means – where are alternative does not refer to production contribution to the commons, or defense of the private and common. Gods provide a means of obtaining approval without competing in the sexual, social, political, economic, and military markets for status and therefore opportunity. Mythical Archetypes, heroes (masculine pagan markets), gods and saints (feminine abrahamic monopoly), provide a diversity of heroies and interests as suits those with agency in a division of knowledge and labor. The monotheistic archetype creates an anti-hero, in which the victim who suffers for his lack of ability and agency is somehow heroic. But the purpose of this anti-hero is the undermining of those who demonstrate innovation, excellence, competitiveness, production, and contribution to the commons, that increases the division of knowledge and labor, increases competitiveness, increases power distance, and decreases opportunity for status in those lacking ability, training, and agency. The jesus hero is a contribution to the heathen (ancestors, nature) pagan (heroes, archetypes) when one of many. But a disaster, like mohammed, and the jews when a monopoly – for we are only equal in ignorance, lack of agency and poverty. We are always unequal in knowledge agency, and wealth. It is not that we didn’t need the jesus hero, since there is no equivalent of the feminine archetype in the european pantheon. and the teaching of forgiveness and love in christianity is commercially optimum for all peoples. Unless it is applied (as do christians) beyond our kith and kin. There is no better method of training our emotions and intuitions other than the stoic method. There is nothing better to seek in life than the epicurean. And just as we domesticated christianity into a germanic folk religion, and just as we manufactured chivalry to direct aryan men to christian ends. These are the needs of the many ordinary men, while nietzsche, aristotle, alexander, jefferson, and frederick are examples for those of us who are not ordinary men. And it is only aristotelianism, heathenism, paganism , and christianity together that produce a religion for all the classes. We have always been an aristotelian (natural law), heathen (nature and ancestor) and pagan (heroes and tribes) people. With competition between the martial, magical,literary, and rational in competition. (Note: I have made a mistake by not putting time, opportunity, and status, at the top of the demonstrated property hierarchy. life is just time. time opportunity. opportunity experience.)

  • Economic Advice and The Public

    ECONOMIC ADVICE AND THE PUBLIC [E]conomics has been a cudgel for justifying a moral bias, not a science to which we must conform our moral intuitions. Libertarians are largely advocating free riding on the commons just as much as socialist advocate free riding upon the private sector. No economic proposition is decidable by either libertarian or socialist without first solving the question of the distribution of a mixed economy, since only mixed economies can survive competition in the market for polities. The answer of course is just rule of law by reciprocity and that we track investments by the polity in returns and prevent the public from privatizing public gains, just as much as we prevent the public from socializing private gains. In other words, it’s largely a problem of record keeping and accounting. The problem is everyone has an interests in maintaining the lie, and maintaining chaos in the public who resorts to petty moralizing out of ignorance.

  • Economic Advice and The Public

    ECONOMIC ADVICE AND THE PUBLIC [E]conomics has been a cudgel for justifying a moral bias, not a science to which we must conform our moral intuitions. Libertarians are largely advocating free riding on the commons just as much as socialist advocate free riding upon the private sector. No economic proposition is decidable by either libertarian or socialist without first solving the question of the distribution of a mixed economy, since only mixed economies can survive competition in the market for polities. The answer of course is just rule of law by reciprocity and that we track investments by the polity in returns and prevent the public from privatizing public gains, just as much as we prevent the public from socializing private gains. In other words, it’s largely a problem of record keeping and accounting. The problem is everyone has an interests in maintaining the lie, and maintaining chaos in the public who resorts to petty moralizing out of ignorance.

  • The Golden Rule Explained

    THE GOLDEN RULE EXPLAINEDby Luke Weinhagen [T]hose of us living in high trust societies recognize the importance of The Golden Rule. We understand its value and the benefits we derive from it. It is one of the first formal lessons in social interaction we teach our children. But when you stop there at the Golden Rule alone, we too easily take it for granted. What we seem to miss is that rather than the Golden Rule being the First Rule of a high trust society – it is the last. THE FOUNDATIONS And so we often take for granted the other foundational rules:

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
    3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.
    5. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

    These are Foundational rules – rules that form the foundations of interaction upon which we build the functions of our society – the closer you get to the Golden Rule the more trust you can support. But High Trust, absent vigilance, allows one to make the mistake of standing on that foundation seeing nothing but the immaculate Gold and stop looking – ignoring the layers below that must be there to support each ascending layer. But these other rules can not be ignored. They are active. Starting from the Iron Rule each rule supports the next, making each possible in turn. The next rule in sequence can not exist without the previous rule being applied and maintained. Today someone is out there applying the fifth rule so that you have access to the fourth. Today someone is out there applying the fourth rule so that you have access to the third. Today someone is out there applying the third rule so that you have access to the second. Today someone is out there applying the second rule so that you have access to the first. “BE THAT SOMEONE” Be willing and able to be that someone. All the way down. If you can not be that someone, be grateful that someone is there. If you can not be grateful, at least do not try to knock that someone down – Trust is valuable and we really want to keep the Golden Rule. These are the rules. They are not complicated, but they are demanding. They are not hard to understand, but they so often seem easy to forget. -Luke Weinhagen

  • The Golden Rule Explained

    THE GOLDEN RULE EXPLAINEDby Luke Weinhagen [T]hose of us living in high trust societies recognize the importance of The Golden Rule. We understand its value and the benefits we derive from it. It is one of the first formal lessons in social interaction we teach our children. But when you stop there at the Golden Rule alone, we too easily take it for granted. What we seem to miss is that rather than the Golden Rule being the First Rule of a high trust society – it is the last. THE FOUNDATIONS And so we often take for granted the other foundational rules:

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
    3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.
    5. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

    These are Foundational rules – rules that form the foundations of interaction upon which we build the functions of our society – the closer you get to the Golden Rule the more trust you can support. But High Trust, absent vigilance, allows one to make the mistake of standing on that foundation seeing nothing but the immaculate Gold and stop looking – ignoring the layers below that must be there to support each ascending layer. But these other rules can not be ignored. They are active. Starting from the Iron Rule each rule supports the next, making each possible in turn. The next rule in sequence can not exist without the previous rule being applied and maintained. Today someone is out there applying the fifth rule so that you have access to the fourth. Today someone is out there applying the fourth rule so that you have access to the third. Today someone is out there applying the third rule so that you have access to the second. Today someone is out there applying the second rule so that you have access to the first. “BE THAT SOMEONE” Be willing and able to be that someone. All the way down. If you can not be that someone, be grateful that someone is there. If you can not be grateful, at least do not try to knock that someone down – Trust is valuable and we really want to keep the Golden Rule. These are the rules. They are not complicated, but they are demanding. They are not hard to understand, but they so often seem easy to forget. -Luke Weinhagen

  • —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.