Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Ok. So imagine this. Every city dwelling family and most suburban families have a ‘country house’, even if it’s just a garden shed, or a cottage, and a couple of acres of land.
How does that change the way of life?
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:40:41 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN)
—“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend
There are only three conditions:
1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions).
2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions).
3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification.
And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria.
The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly)
The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”).
I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch.
Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry).
(Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:21:44 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
How many of your ‘arguments’ are just excuses for doing nothing to alter the status quo? Adults don’t do that. Children and women do.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:41:54 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
EUGENICS VS. DYSGENICS
by Ely Harman
Eugenics is the tendency of genes to get “better.” It relates to politics because all policies are either Eugenic, they tend to make genes better, or they are “dysgenic,” they tend to make genes “worse.”
I understand the definitions of “better” or “worse” are going to be a stumbling block for most people, since they seem kind of subjective. But I believe they have more or less objective definitions, at least as related to policy. A policy is eugenic if it selects for the genes that enable the policy to be carried into effect. And it is dysgenic if it selects for genes that disrupt, retard or arrest the policy itself or against genes that the policy relies upon.
E.g. Insisting people feed themselves is a eugenic policy because it selects for people who can feed themselves, and against people who can’t. There is no systemic failure mode. Things only get better over time as individuals who fail to feed themselves remove their failure genes from the gene pool. But feeding people is a dysgenic policy because it selects for people who can’t feed themselves and against people who can feed them (the ability to feed people who can’t feed themselves becomes a burden, risk, and cost, because it carries the obligation to do so.) Thus, the latter policy will tend to break down over time as people who can’t feed themselves proliferate and the people who can feed them are consumed. But a eugenic policy can be maintained indefinitely and be built upon continuously.
Put another way, Eugenia is the gradual, sustainable, accumulation and inprovement of genetic capital, that can be built upon with further improvements, while dysgenia is its consumption for the short term propagation of defective garbage.
Accumulation vs. consumption. Production vs. parasitism. Eugenia vs. dysgenia.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:35:03 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:25:37 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(sarcasm)
yeah. um…. Let me remind you that as a proper germanic, and descendent of Puritans, that I have no sense of humor. And as a professor of natural law and testimony I teach argument, not substitute for it. And as a curator of my feed, I delete memes and other non-arguments. It’s not like I’m gonna comment on humor. It’s in another language from another planet. lol 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:17:21 UTC
—“Why should I be barred from contributing to the growth of another who would in turn contribute to my own growth?”— Bennard Ebanks
When doing so imposes costs upon others by externality, who tolerate your presence only under the condition that you do not do so.
Groups differ in the degree of suppression of externalization of costs. High trust high performance, homogenous polities are intolerant – and because they are, they have the choice. Low trust, heterogeneous, low performing are tolerant. Because they have no other choice.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:07:00 UTC
YOU WILL EVENTUALLY DISAGREE WITH ME
I will inevitably make you disagree with me for the simple reason that nearly all of us are invested in some excuse or other that violates natural law.
You will not take my advice and accept that the problem is the man in the mirror, but instead, you will blame me or my work or my reasoning, or my incentives, just like you blame others for the status quo, rather than the man in the mirror.
It is extremely difficult to possess sufficient agency such that we ritualize intellectual honesty. While almost all of us are capable of it, few of us train for it, and fewer of us develop it in the course of life, and even fewer of us are born with the disposition.
Truth knows no exception.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:03:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“Lewontin and Gould were Marxist biologists who were so shameless about their ideology shaping their research that even left-leaning colleagues like Dawkins called them out.”— Matthew Genack
Lewontin: ‘greater variation within than across groups’
Gould: ‘mismeasure of man – cranium size is irrelevant’
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 11:52:28 UTC
Ok. So imagine this. Every city dwelling family and most suburban families have a ‘country house’, even if it’s just a garden shed, or a cottage, and a couple of acres of land.
How does that change the way of life?
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 10:40:00 UTC