Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Hard to imagine that’s true given all the evidence everywhere in the world. Comp

    Hard to imagine that’s true given all the evidence everywhere in the world. Compare the right (christian, jeffersonian, rule of law, natural law) with left (authoritarian, socialist, communist) all are hostile to natural law, rule of law, christianity, and all the responsibiilty they require. I mean, nazis were left-socialists, ussr was left socialist, china was left communist, the failed states of south america were left-socialists. I can’t think of anyone that’s right wing (christian, jeffersonian, rule of law, natural law) that’s anywhere near as military as the left is almost everywhere – for the simple reason that naturallaw doesn’t requires we change people. Only that we police irreciprocity that violates natural law.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:50:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632136572865769472

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632134713597886469

  • WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY? What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not government

    WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
    What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, and human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above. That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation to states and federations under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”

    Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?
    Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?

    You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.

    The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within. That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.

    There is no possible moral argument against this policy.
    The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.

    Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.

    -Curt

    Reply addressees: @IAmAsaJ


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:11:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632126636798750720

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632122738595844096

  • If every group is separate then the rule of law is the same for all, but each st

    If every group is separate then the rule of law is the same for all, but each state produces different policies.
    My whole point is separation into ‘a thousand nations’ allied militarily in federations, is the only way to give everyone what they need.
    I’m not sure how that’s not clear.

    Now, as y’all said today, it’s not clear that giving the left their own states isn’t abandoning responsibility for people who don’t know better. So is it immoral to suggest separation instead of conquest and domestication? In essence, separation is analogous to throwing the kids lost kids into a vast orphanage instead of finishing school, and letting them suffer.

    Maybe that’s the moral proposition instead.

    If it is, then I haven’t got there yet. Mostly because my understanding of genetics, is that you don’t want them in the gene pool because those genes are really really bad and might take hundreds of years to pacify.

    WHat I do know is that I want to do my work and I don’t want to put up with arrogant, opinionated, annoying, rude people that poison the well of discourse while I do it – regardless of what side they’re on. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 23:17:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631433538728783874

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631431389265395714

  • (You are wrong. If you have monarchy be glad you do. The alternative is endless

    (You are wrong. If you have monarchy be glad you do. The alternative is endless political decay. Rule of law by the natural law, common law, and concurrency, requires the monarchy as a judge of last resort. And requires the aristocracy to set a standard that prevents degeneracy (though in the UK it’s maybe too little too late).)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 03:57:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630416807076020224

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630129208264650756

  • USA: WHAT’S BROKEN AND NOT BROKEN? –“The Supreme Court, Department of Justice,

    USA: WHAT’S BROKEN AND NOT BROKEN?
    –“The Supreme Court, Department of Justice, Secret Service, Senate, Electoral College, Dark Money, Gerrymandering, are broken, and Citizens United broke it all.”– Brandon Unger

    No. The electoral college preserves concurrency. The direct voting of the senate broke concurrency. If you don’t understand commonality (court, law) and concurrency (voting, legislation), then you don’t understand the government and why it expressly prohibits majoritarianism – majority tyranny.

    No. The Supreme court is now UN-broken thanks to the movement to restore rule of law, that prohibits legislation from the bench, and restores the constitutional requirement for legislation and for constitutional amendment, vs abuse of the court.

    No. Gerrymandering, when it produces all democrat and all republican districts correctly represents the preferences of the population, preserving concurrency. If it doesn’t do that then it’s in fact bad.

    Yes, Justice, Secret Service, Senate, House, and Dark Money are evil and we need to end it.

    But we’re not going to end it by violating the constitution, the natural law, and the lessons of all of history by majority rule and a race to the bottom.

    Because there is no evidence that the majority won’t do the worst thing possible. In fact, it always does.

    Fix the law and the constitution and then use the court, to fix everything else. We can do that. But we gotta show up in the millions to demand it. Because the special interests own the government.

    I’ve done the work on the law, constitution, and policy.
    But I’m not ‘millions’.
    That’s up to you.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-27 23:00:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630342050880143362

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630338524883959808

  • I was asked a question. I answered the question. Don’t blame me for answering th

    I was asked a question. I answered the question. Don’t blame me for answering the question. πŸ˜‰

    I could say “We had a theory that european discovery of rule of law, industrialization, and participatory government could be used everywhere. The theory was falsified, and we no longer believe the theory. But we must gradually end that mission in order to prevent crises as we do so.”


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-27 01:32:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630017935610728449

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630014424126742528

  • (correct) The most influential vulnerabilities in the constitution” 1) free spee

    (correct)
    The most influential vulnerabilities in the constitution”
    1) free speech rather than free testifiable and reciprocal speech.
    2) weakening of defamation under free speech.
    3) protection of political actors from civil liability
    4) disintermediation of the people from the courts in defense of commons (standing in the commons)
    5) failure to define natural law, commonality, concurrency, transactional law, and words as measurements of time and place.
    6) lack of court assent on legislation.
    7) Inability of the court to return legislation to the legislature or propose commonality to the legislature.
    8) Separation of church and state without specifying Christian religion, christian religion consistent with natural law, and maintaining the Church as the role of Insurer.
    -Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-26 05:26:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629714577020551168

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629707614505295872

  • Now the odd concept here, is the pretense that it’s possible to produce a polity

    Now the odd concept here, is the pretense that it’s possible to produce a polity with a durable economy without a power distribution of law, a Pareto distribution of assets (wealth), and a nash equilibrium of income.

    It isn’t possible. Its universal. Because the only alternative is authoritarianism which centralizes it more, and makes everyone dependent.

    But then, any economist knows this.

    So the only problem we CAN fix is to eradicate unearned wealth, by some form of rent seeing or corruption. And like I said, that’s not hard,


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-25 22:50:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629614767097667585

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629603454015635456

  • GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS. Let me help you: – A right consists, and can only co

    GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS.
    Let me help you:
    – A right consists, and can only consist of, and can only be created by, a group of insurers, who will insure a right. A right to demand an insurer defend one’s interest against those who impose upon them (deprive, harm, impeded).
    – To create this insurance, people form polities, and eventually governments and militaries to insure those rights.
    – So There is only one universal cause of rights: reciprocal insurance of self-determination by self-determined means: individual sovereignty over display, word, deed, and the proceeds obtained by them, withougt violating the sovereignty of others by the same criteria.
    – All other rights are mere application of the right to self-determination by self-determined means.
    – Only people can have rights. And people can organize into polities, states, alliances, and federations to secure rights for their people.
    – Governments cannot have rights.
    – Governments have capabilities – not rights.
    – Governments can create, deny, or destroy rights.
    – Western civilization is organized to construct rights.
    – Western governments are organized to construct rights.
    – Westerners may disagree on what constitutes a right, and seek to (falsely) claim rights extend to wants, privileges, and wishful thinking. But we do not disagree that we should construct rights.
    – When rights are constructed by people, governments, militaries, states, and federations, then empires are effectively prohibited. Because empires depend on depriving people of rights – particularly the right to self-determination by self-determined means.
    – The small, homogeneous, nation-state is the only political system under which rights are possible without depriving some other group of their want of the right of self-determination by self-determined means.
    – As such, under our right of self-determination by self-determined means, and the human rights necessary to preserve it, we are limited to producing safety in numbers,
    by alliances of nation-states in federations – and we are prohibited from empires.
    – This is the cause of remaining world conflict: China, Russia, and Iran – and anyone wishing to increase borders, are the remaining empires. Those empires have ‘castes’ (elites) that profit by predation (corruption) on their people.
    – And Russia, China, Iran (and those few remaining despotic regimes that prey on their people) wish to conquer and deprive other people of self-determination by self-determined means.
    – Insuring rights to self-determination by self-determined means, provides the opportunity and incentive for cooperation, provides rule of law to facilitate and defend cooperation, and suppress corruption (as much as possible at least).
    – And the evidence across the world is that every group of people is seeking that sovereignty necessary to produce self-determination by self-determined means and the rights necessary under it.
    – So just as farming spread around the world, creating states and empires, industry is spreading around the world creating nation-states and federations.
    – Would the people of China, Russia, and Iran prefer self-determination by human rights? Of course. They say so.
    – Also would the people of the world prefer to defend against the abuse of rights we call ‘liberalism’ that defend decadence, which is an imposition upon the rights to self-determination by self-determined means, that require the production of the first organization upon which all others depend in order to produce an intergenerational polity: the family? Yes.
    – The west does not live under rights, sufficient to preserve the family, and as a consequence, society, economy, and polity necessary to preserve those rights – because the west has licensed baiting into the hazard of decadence, as a harm to the institution of the family, and as a consequence, the society, economy, and polity.
    – As such, we must clarify the law, to prevent ‘harms’ of ‘liberalism’ (selfishness) harming the polity. (We did.)
    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-23 17:40:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628812102960922624

  • RT @StevePender: #NationalDivorce would be optimal at county-resolution, not sta

    RT @StevePender: #NationalDivorce would be optimal at county-resolution, not state. Consider Illinois. *MOST* of the state except for Chica…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-23 03:34:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628599237704384513