Apr 24, 2020, 2:11 PM The westphalian peace resulted in the demand between states that the state maintain a monopoly on violence. The muslims do the opposite and ended the westphalian peace. The state cannot in fact and never has had, a monopoly on violence. It still doesn’t. It just tries. What defines a state is not it’s monopoly on violence but it’s capacity to produce the incentives that produce order with violence among those incentives.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Strictly Constructed Natural Law Jurisprudence.
When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent. Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it. Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff. There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with. Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs.
-
Strictly Constructed Natural Law Jurisprudence.
When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent. Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it. Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff. There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with. Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs.
-
Maturity of Your Political Preference
Apr 25, 2020, 8:35 AM MATURITY OF YOUR POLITICAL PREFERENCE “The Limits of Calculability” 1. Communism (Family) > 2. … Socialism (Extended Family) > 3. … … Classical Liberalism (Community – Market) > 4. … … … Rule of Law (Nation(People) – Multiple Markets) > 5. … … … … Military (Territory(International) – Competing Markets).
-
Maturity of Your Political Preference
Apr 25, 2020, 8:35 AM MATURITY OF YOUR POLITICAL PREFERENCE “The Limits of Calculability” 1. Communism (Family) > 2. … Socialism (Extended Family) > 3. … … Classical Liberalism (Community – Market) > 4. … … … Rule of Law (Nation(People) – Multiple Markets) > 5. … … … … Military (Territory(International) – Competing Markets).
-
Disambiguation: “P vs Applied P”
I see lot of confusion by not separating “P” (the method) from various applications of the P-method. P-Method isn’t like libertarianism, or socialism, or some other political model. By applying P-Method we are trying to reform and restore our civilization. Method vs Application. Science vs Technology, Baking vs Cookies. THE METHODOLOGY 1 – P-Metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, ….) 2 – P-Epistemology (brain, mind, consciousness, learning, epistemology, acquisition) 3 – P-Method (a method, the completion of the scientific method in a formal operational logic) of testing reciprocity in display word and deed. … a) Disambiguation, serialization, competition (supply demand equilibration, evolution) … b) The Grammars and Table of Grammars … c) The Operational Grammar and Universal Commensurability … … c’) The Specification for Man … d) Reciprocity in Display word and Deed … … d’) The set of definitions in series that result from disambiguating terms of reciprocity. … e) Compatibilism (division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor) … f) Ternaryism, Tri-Coeercion – Tri-Functionalism … g) Beckerian explanation of social phenomenon using economic analysis APPLIED GENERALLY 4 – P-Method applied to History and Group Strategies 5 – P-Method as an explanation for the strategy and success of western civilization. 6 – P-Law, and Government (applied P to creating governments) and APPLIED SPECIFICALLY 7 – P-New-Constitution for restoration of western civilization. 8 – P-Constitutions for various other civilizations. Which thing are you talking about? If it’s political it’s 7 or 8. Newbies talk about 7-8 all the time. That’s not P. That’s APPLIED-P. P method is the formal logic of psychological and social science, if not all science. P method combines all the philosophical and scientific categories. So when you confuse confuse P-method(explanation) with political preferences (application) it’s the same as confusing science(explanation) with technology(application)
-
Disambiguation: “P vs Applied P”
I see lot of confusion by not separating “P” (the method) from various applications of the P-method. P-Method isn’t like libertarianism, or socialism, or some other political model. By applying P-Method we are trying to reform and restore our civilization. Method vs Application. Science vs Technology, Baking vs Cookies. THE METHODOLOGY 1 – P-Metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, ….) 2 – P-Epistemology (brain, mind, consciousness, learning, epistemology, acquisition) 3 – P-Method (a method, the completion of the scientific method in a formal operational logic) of testing reciprocity in display word and deed. … a) Disambiguation, serialization, competition (supply demand equilibration, evolution) … b) The Grammars and Table of Grammars … c) The Operational Grammar and Universal Commensurability … … c’) The Specification for Man … d) Reciprocity in Display word and Deed … … d’) The set of definitions in series that result from disambiguating terms of reciprocity. … e) Compatibilism (division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor) … f) Ternaryism, Tri-Coeercion – Tri-Functionalism … g) Beckerian explanation of social phenomenon using economic analysis APPLIED GENERALLY 4 – P-Method applied to History and Group Strategies 5 – P-Method as an explanation for the strategy and success of western civilization. 6 – P-Law, and Government (applied P to creating governments) and APPLIED SPECIFICALLY 7 – P-New-Constitution for restoration of western civilization. 8 – P-Constitutions for various other civilizations. Which thing are you talking about? If it’s political it’s 7 or 8. Newbies talk about 7-8 all the time. That’s not P. That’s APPLIED-P. P method is the formal logic of psychological and social science, if not all science. P method combines all the philosophical and scientific categories. So when you confuse confuse P-method(explanation) with political preferences (application) it’s the same as confusing science(explanation) with technology(application)
-
Jesus wasn’t complicated
Apr 25, 2020, 9:54 AM Mithra was the origin of the political utility of monopoly. Zoroastrian the religion of that successful monopoly. Sol Invictus was a rotation like Odin->Tyr replacement, to compete with Mithra. Jesus was a ‘capture’ of john the baptist (jesus’ competitor for prophet), Mithra, Pagan Sun Gods, and from hindu: “Christ”=”Krishna”, from Egyptian: Osiris, the king as son-of-god, mediator with god, trinity, isis=holy spirit, cross, baptism, eucharist, and mythology, and the was bible an attempt to replace the Epic Cycle esp. aristocratic Achilles with his mirror image.
–“Zoroaster’s religious innovation was the cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda, a supreme wise and benevolent deity, and Angra Mainyu, Ahura’s evil opponent. Here on earth, humans can support this struggle by taking sides. Living a virtuous life supports Ahura Mazda and contributes to the triumph of good over evil. Zoroaster encouraged his followers to worship Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, claiming that the old Persian deities were unworthy of worship and should be considered spirits of destruction.”–
Jesus wasn’t complicated. He had a single very useful idea of how to resist the predation of the jews on their own, and the threat of their cultural erasure by the great empires, and the need for a means of integrating with or competing with those empires that conveyed mindfulness to the weak and ignorant. And it worked. Just like Marxism > Neomarxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > and it’s origins: HBD-Denialism and the natural eugenics of the great civilizations.
-
Jesus wasn’t complicated
Apr 25, 2020, 9:54 AM Mithra was the origin of the political utility of monopoly. Zoroastrian the religion of that successful monopoly. Sol Invictus was a rotation like Odin->Tyr replacement, to compete with Mithra. Jesus was a ‘capture’ of john the baptist (jesus’ competitor for prophet), Mithra, Pagan Sun Gods, and from hindu: “Christ”=”Krishna”, from Egyptian: Osiris, the king as son-of-god, mediator with god, trinity, isis=holy spirit, cross, baptism, eucharist, and mythology, and the was bible an attempt to replace the Epic Cycle esp. aristocratic Achilles with his mirror image.
–“Zoroaster’s religious innovation was the cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda, a supreme wise and benevolent deity, and Angra Mainyu, Ahura’s evil opponent. Here on earth, humans can support this struggle by taking sides. Living a virtuous life supports Ahura Mazda and contributes to the triumph of good over evil. Zoroaster encouraged his followers to worship Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, claiming that the old Persian deities were unworthy of worship and should be considered spirits of destruction.”–
Jesus wasn’t complicated. He had a single very useful idea of how to resist the predation of the jews on their own, and the threat of their cultural erasure by the great empires, and the need for a means of integrating with or competing with those empires that conveyed mindfulness to the weak and ignorant. And it worked. Just like Marxism > Neomarxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > and it’s origins: HBD-Denialism and the natural eugenics of the great civilizations.
-
Emergent Dualism?
Apr 25, 2020, 10:01 AM —“So emergent dualism? The brain produces mind as an emergent property?”—Andrew M Gilmour Brain integrates information and produces the consciousness spectrum, that produces mind (use of consciousness by regulating attention through recursive searching by auto-association), that produces logical facility, that produces the reason facility, that produces the language facility, that produces the calculation facility, that produces the computation facility and so on. I can explain consciousness just fine. We only really have understood it for a few years now, but it’s rather obvious at this point. There is a reason you can’t introspect upon how you move your arm and consciousness. Because they’re produced by the same process.