Your narrative is exceptional – as wisdom. But wisdom cannot be converted into law unless in a formal, deflationary argument. The west differs from the east. We never conflated law with other fields. And the skin of the loan IN put = the warranty OUT put. High trust civilization (the west) could use warranty rather than skin. So what happened that the west stopped demanding warranty? Without low trust SKIN IN -or- high trust WARRANTY OUT, western civ kept high trust population but low trust economics and policy. Now, if the west relied upon high trust warranty, how could we rely once again on high trust, or must we move to low trust Skin? When you discuss cultural deltas I hear (a) levantine low trust with (b) mathematical and literary platonism. Not Natural Law.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Sovereignty vs Servility
SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that’s what you mean by ‘governor’ then that kind of “government” is something I am comfortable with. But I won’t give up my Sovereignty (My “rights as an anglo saxon”) in the choice of contracts I will prefer to pay for; which choices of contracts I prefer not to pay for; and which choice of contracts I will not tolerate. This is the difference between Sovereigns investing in Commons (Anglo Saxons) by vote and hiring project managers, and Subjects choosing their rulers by vote, who will then choose the commons they produce for those who chose them. We have had our rights for thousands of years. It took those thousands of years to preserve them. It took those thousands of years to capture them in draft form the US Constitution. And today we can capture them perfectly in a new one. So will you choose the Sovereignty of the Warrior, or the Servility of a Subject?
-
Sovereignty vs Servility
SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that’s what you mean by ‘governor’ then that kind of “government” is something I am comfortable with. But I won’t give up my Sovereignty (My “rights as an anglo saxon”) in the choice of contracts I will prefer to pay for; which choices of contracts I prefer not to pay for; and which choice of contracts I will not tolerate. This is the difference between Sovereigns investing in Commons (Anglo Saxons) by vote and hiring project managers, and Subjects choosing their rulers by vote, who will then choose the commons they produce for those who chose them. We have had our rights for thousands of years. It took those thousands of years to preserve them. It took those thousands of years to capture them in draft form the US Constitution. And today we can capture them perfectly in a new one. So will you choose the Sovereignty of the Warrior, or the Servility of a Subject?
-
The Past Superstition vs Present Pseudoscience. (Fictionalisms)
….I think the problem is that the past was honest but justified it supernaturally, because the promise of reward was after death. Whereas the present is dishonest and justified pseudo-scientifically and promised if we can reach a socialist utopia or some variation thereof. The medieval order was hierarchical and honest. The only false promise was after death. We live in a world of loneliness and lies….
-
The Past Superstition vs Present Pseudoscience. (Fictionalisms)
….I think the problem is that the past was honest but justified it supernaturally, because the promise of reward was after death. Whereas the present is dishonest and justified pseudo-scientifically and promised if we can reach a socialist utopia or some variation thereof. The medieval order was hierarchical and honest. The only false promise was after death. We live in a world of loneliness and lies….
-
Terror, Progress, and Islam
Terror requires the deliberate targeting of non-combatants as a means of altering policy. Sovereignty requires one’s government control non-state actors. Democracy requires one’s people control one’s government such that it controls non-state actors, such that it does not break the westphalian peace, nor the postwar peace. Justice visited upon the muslims to contain them just as the west tried to contain the communists in the twentieth century and the Islamic empires, for it’s thousand years of warfare against the west. And so apparently we must unify china, india, russia, and america to contain islam until it respects the peaces of westphalia (containing non state actors), and of the postwar consensus (maintian borders, develop human rights, and develop consumer economies). No people yet has transformed from the medieval to the modern without a reformation, and some sort of civil war. Islam is the only backward civilization remaining. The problem it faces, and south america faces, is that the demographics throughout the muslim world make a rational secular state nearly impossible without the promise of ever-expanding growth under fiat money capitalism.
-
Terror, Progress, and Islam
Terror requires the deliberate targeting of non-combatants as a means of altering policy. Sovereignty requires one’s government control non-state actors. Democracy requires one’s people control one’s government such that it controls non-state actors, such that it does not break the westphalian peace, nor the postwar peace. Justice visited upon the muslims to contain them just as the west tried to contain the communists in the twentieth century and the Islamic empires, for it’s thousand years of warfare against the west. And so apparently we must unify china, india, russia, and america to contain islam until it respects the peaces of westphalia (containing non state actors), and of the postwar consensus (maintian borders, develop human rights, and develop consumer economies). No people yet has transformed from the medieval to the modern without a reformation, and some sort of civil war. Islam is the only backward civilization remaining. The problem it faces, and south america faces, is that the demographics throughout the muslim world make a rational secular state nearly impossible without the promise of ever-expanding growth under fiat money capitalism.
-
Definitions: Philosophy, Truth, Methods of Argument (Worth Repeating)
PHILOSOPHY The search for internally consistent means of decidability within a domain or context. TRUTH (PROPER) The most parsimonious most universal method of decidability regardless of context. SOME FORMS OF ARGUMENT
- Analogy – a justification by shared constant relations.
- Reason – a criticized and justified argument from experience.
- Rational – an internally consistent, non contradictory argument from experience
- Empirical – a correlative externally correspondent argument for the purpose of limiting human error bias and deceit.
- Logical – an internally consistent, non contradictory, argument from set membership.
- Analytic (Logical+Empirical) – an internally consistent, non contradictory, verbally parsimonious, argument from set membership incorporating the methods of the physical sciences.
- Operational (Current Scientific) – an internally consistent, existentially possible, subjectively testable, causal, argument from possibility.
-
Definitions: Philosophy, Truth, Methods of Argument (Worth Repeating)
PHILOSOPHY The search for internally consistent means of decidability within a domain or context. TRUTH (PROPER) The most parsimonious most universal method of decidability regardless of context. SOME FORMS OF ARGUMENT
- Analogy – a justification by shared constant relations.
- Reason – a criticized and justified argument from experience.
- Rational – an internally consistent, non contradictory argument from experience
- Empirical – a correlative externally correspondent argument for the purpose of limiting human error bias and deceit.
- Logical – an internally consistent, non contradictory, argument from set membership.
- Analytic (Logical+Empirical) – an internally consistent, non contradictory, verbally parsimonious, argument from set membership incorporating the methods of the physical sciences.
- Operational (Current Scientific) – an internally consistent, existentially possible, subjectively testable, causal, argument from possibility.
-
Definitions: Oath, Common Law, Testify, and Salic Law for Good Measure
Mar 04, 2017 11:15am OATH (n.) Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise,” from Proto-Germanic *aithaz (source also of Old Norse eiðr, Swedish ed, Old Saxon, Old Frisian eth, Middle Dutch eet, Dutch eed, German eid, Gothic aiþs “oath”), from PIE *oi-to- “an oath” (source also of Old Irish oeth “oath”). Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure. SALIC LAW (/ˈsælᵻk/ or /ˈseɪlᵻk/; Latin: Lex Salica), or Salian Law, was the ancient Salian Frankish civil law code compiled around AD 500 by the first Frankish King, Clovis. Recorded in Latin and in what Dutch linguists describe as one of the earliest known records of Old Dutch. it would remain the basis of Frankish law throughout the early Medieval period, influencing future European legal syste… See More COMMON LAW (n.) mid-14c., “the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodied in commentaries and old cases” (see common (adj.)), as opposed to statute law. Phrase common law marriage is attested from 1909. TESTIFY (v.) late 14c., “give legal testimony, affirm the truth of, bear witness to;” of things, c. 1400, “serve as evidence of,” from Anglo-French testifier, from Latin testificari “bear witness, show, demonstrate,” also “call to witness,” from testis “a witness” (see testament) + root of facere “to make” (see factitious). Biblical sense of “openly profess one’s faith and devotion” is attested from 1520s. Related: Testified; testifying; testification.