Theme: Constitutional Order

  • I work within the law. Not just our law, but the common law, and the common law

    I work within the law. Not just our law, but the common law, and the common law history of how these disputes are settled in our ancient tradition.
    AFAIK we must offer (Parley) a settlement (Terms) as did our forefathers, the founders, and our English forefathers before them.
    Those terms must be ‘fair’ – meaning reciprocal.
    And posting those terms lets us advertise them to the public, letting them understand the choice as well. (It is very difficult to argue with our terms because they benefit everyone.)
    If they refuse the terms, refuse to negotiate, or offer immoral terms, then they can only desire to conquer and rule our people.
    Upon refusal, we are left only with civil war – and have obtained a moral license for that war.
    Since everyone knows this, it causes a desire to settle. Our objective (mine) is to bring about a peaceful settlement rather than war.
    You might prefer winner takes all, but I would choose it only as a last resort.
    Why? It’s not useful to keep them.
    It’s not useful to govern people who hate you any more so that to be governed by people who hate you.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 22:48:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628527069998055425

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628524964574896129

  • Under the law, one must serve notice of cease and desist before one can prosecut

    Under the law, one must serve notice of cease and desist before one can prosecute for intentional harms. Because once informed, if one does not desist, then one confirms intent. And because this is matter of the commons, while a tort, and does not require intent, the law contains…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 22:35:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628523946499866626

    Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628500688031318017

  • Under the law, one must serve notice of cease and desist before one can prosecut

    Under the law, one must serve notice of cease and desist before one can prosecute for intentional harms. Because once informed, if one does not desist, then one confirms intent. And because this is matter of the commons, while a tort, and does not require intent, the law contains no obvious prohibition – therefore no restitution or punishment if behavior ceases.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 22:35:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628523946373947395

  • For example, you’re emphasis is in restoring the realtion between formal (writte

    For example, you’re emphasis is in restoring the realtion between formal (written) and spoken language.

    My emphasis is on writing laws programmatically so that ti’s closed to interpretation (abuse, conflation, inflation, deceit) To do so requires an ordinal ‘math’ (logic) consisting of sets of measurements instead of more general and flexible terms.

    Ie: the current supreme court is, thanks to departed Judge Scalia, trying to restore the law to its transactional (accounting) origins. I’m completing that program. That way there is no means of bypassing the people by the legislature or the courts.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 02:48:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628225234338828290

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626615439638798337


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Dear Lord, Professor, Saint @elonmusk ;), (All)

    Yes, we can build a TruthGPT.
    Yes, I know how. I’m a nerd. πŸ˜‰
    You have no reason to believe me.
    People who follow my work do.
    I had to solve the Truth problem for an AI that could test law, constitution, legislation, regulation, and speech for truthfulness.

    I have too much on my plate reforming law for the same reason (Truth, Possibility, Legality, Legitimacy), to start another company to produce on an AI – though it’s something I’ve worked on and planned for years.

    TSLA could easily produce a TruthAI, and Twitter could use and AI produced by TSLA. The world would benefit from a TruthAI more than any technology… well…, other than a safe battery with N-times the energy density of gasoline. πŸ˜‰

    For anyone interested:

    1. The embodiment that TSLA uses for cars and robots is necessary for world modeling, and world modeling is necessary for categorization (identification) from context.

    2. Route Finding in vehicles and robots is necessary for Recursive Wayfinding (thinking and problem-solving.)

    3. Novelty Detection and World Modeling combined with Way Finding are necessary for episodic memory. Memories favor novelties.

    4. Object, Space, and Background classification, combined with episodes (contexts) are necessary for sufficient disambiguation to determine ‘ownership’ and predictions.

    5. If you study linguistics you quickly realize that universal morality is embedded in all our languages (particularly English because it’s a high-precision low-context language) in the form of permission to act on a person, object, space, class, etc.

    6 So, moral AI that respects life and demonstrated interest (property) and even negotiates over control and transfer of interest is pretty simple.

    7. The next higher-order problem then is one of speech (truth). While justificationary truth is impossible (yes really) survival of falsification is possible (yes really).

    8. There is one simple logic to the universe at all scales that provides us with the opportunity for a constructive falsificationary logic. (That was the hard part)

    9. The hard bit for the next generation to swallow, is that there is a relatively simple set of criteria for *universal falsification of statements* and a *universally commensurable paradigm, grammar, vocabulary, logic, and syntax* – Yes really.

    When written or spoken language using this ‘grammar’ looks and sounds like a bit tedious form of ordinary language. And this tedious form can be reduced to ordinary language on output.

    In other words, we can and have produced a non-cardinal, ordinal, qualitative, geometry of language that can test the possibility of any speech or text’s testifiability (truth). And we can and have produced a rule set (checklist) for Truthful(testifiable), ethical(direct), and moral(indirect) questions.

    THE PLAYERS TODAY AND WHY TSLA MATTERS

    TSLA vs Google vs OpenAI use three different models. OpenAi is the simplest, Google’s a bit more challenging, and TSLA’s the most difficult.

    Now, we require TSLA’s world model to create an AI that can continuously recursively and in real-time produce truth tests.

    And we need eventually neuromorphic hardware (many tiny simple processors with a bit of local memory) to circumvent the backpropagation cost problem (and the alternatives, and evolve closer to real-time learning. (FWIW recent innovations in solving the cost problem has been exciting and is gaining popularity – thanks to one of the fathers of the field.)

    The combination of local truth testing of tangible questions and escalation to distant central truth testing for increasingly abstract questions is the holy grail of imitating the human mind and its use of collective minds as a market for knowledge and decisions.

    (BTW: Thanks #TwitterDev for long-form tweets. It’s finally possible to inform with Twitter instead of just virtue signal and generate conflict by promoting viscous cycles of moral outrage for dopamine junkies. πŸ˜‰ )

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1626615439638798337

  • YOU’RE PROBABLY SILLY. πŸ˜‰ Anyone with a political opinion should try to write a

    YOU’RE PROBABLY SILLY. πŸ˜‰
    Anyone with a political opinion should try to write a constitution, articles, rights, obligations, and inalienations, the common code – and the policy and procedure for each department and service – and prove you’re not silly. πŸ˜‰

    You will rapidly discover you’re silly.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 01:54:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628211573817851904

  • (FWIW: I’ve done the work, hopefully, publish late this year. That doesn’t mean

    (FWIW: I’ve done the work, hopefully, publish late this year. That doesn’t mean I’m right and there aren’t other alternatives. But the proof is in the pudding: Anyone with an opinion should try to write a constitution, articles, rights, obligations, and inalienations, and the common code – and prove you’re not silly. πŸ˜‰ If you can’t do that you don’t really know enough to know you’re not silly so to speak. I found it took me a couple of decades and I’m not done yet. The founders had seventy of the best minds of the age. And it took them seven months. ) πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 01:32:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628206021058469888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628195832729067522

  • JAMES IS WRONG OF COURSE: SOME EDUCATION FOR THE MASSES: 1) The constitution doe

    JAMES IS WRONG OF COURSE: SOME EDUCATION FOR THE MASSES:
    1) The constitution does not answer the question of secession.

    2) However, upon enacting the constitution, “national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people.”

    3) This means that the people choose the government, and the government and the court have no say. A vote is enough. (Unanswered Question: A vote of whom?)

    4) And it means that the States’ territorial unity (now continent) is of such strategic security to all, that the security of any and all are threatened by separation. In other words, the primary purpose of the federal government was military defense and sovereign security.

    5) And this still means that under the constitution, the people of any state have the right to a local republican form of government.

    6) In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court confirmed unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

    7) Later court rulings have placed unconstitutional limits on the people’s right to sovereignty. These may have been practical, but they were not constitutional. The court is limited by the constitution. The constitution is limited by the people. And the people are limited by ‘Natural Law’ (Note: Which you probably don’t understand as the Science of Cooperation, but it’s not that complicated.)

    8) It is absolutely positively constitutional, for anyone, including an elected officer, to advocate for national divorce. (Sorry, Marjorie no matter how we judge her, absolutely has that right)

    9) And, “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

    10) That is the right of revolution, revolt, replacement with whatever they see fit.

    Conclusion:
    … a) The sovereignty of the people lies with the people, and the people alone.

    … b) The constitution survives until they vote that it doesn’t.

    … c) And revolution may be required if voting fails – and is the people’s NATURAL, inalienable right. A right that may neither be taken from them, or voluntarily abandoned.

    … d) And in the end, everything on earth is dependent upon those who are willing to use pointy objects – and the largest military in the world consists of American conservatives by something on the order of twenty times.

    … e) Our military sounds impressive but consists of something on the order of 200k fighting soldiers, and 330k reserves whose loyalty is divided. Only two cities can field substantial police forces and only for short periods. Our military has failed in every insurgency. And that was during a time of never before seen asymmetric strength.

    … f) In the very near future, the choice that the government, and the people would(may,will) face, is losing a world war or satisfaction of domestic conflict by restoration of the pre-civil-war constitution, to an alliance of sovereign states, guaranteed a republican government, defense of natural rights (not wanted rights), and the right to produce their own policy, commons, and culture as they see fit.

    … g) because after all, a culture war only exists, because the states were deprived by way of dictate not constitution, of their right to produce the informal institutions that they prefer. The USA used west germanic (British) law to enact a copy of the germanic holy roman empire, which survived for 1000 years, until napoleon destroyed it.

    And FWIW, I’ve done a revolution. The minute a democratic government shoots at you, you win.

    Cheers

    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 01:28:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628205042925699074

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627864664146059265

  • SEPARATION BY NATIONAL DIVORCE (the choice) It’s gonna happen. It’s just a matte

    SEPARATION BY NATIONAL DIVORCE
    (the choice)

    It’s gonna happen.
    It’s just a matter of timing.

    1. Restore the constitution to a defensive federation of independent states. Complete the Natural, Common, and Concurrent Law definitions, rights, and obligations in the constitution.

    2. Extend the prohibition on and criminality of, false promises, fraud, and deceit, from the commercial to the political context – ending lying in public to the public in matters public, and ending the license to lie to the people.

    3. Convert the cities that have defected into independent city-states.

    4. Restore standards of personal(private), public-(commons), and civil (political) in those ‘red’ territories and cities.

    5. Drive the irresponsible, decadent, and dysfunctional even more into their decaying blue cities to escape the restoration of standards of personal, public and civil behavior that would prosecute them.

    6. Draw the productive middle class out of the cities. Recreate the “vast open-air art museum’ that is European civilization made possible by high responsibility, high trust European Intergenerational Families.

    7. Leave the decaying cities to follow the world standard of a tiny elite in the center, and vast favelas encircling them.

    8. Many people are unfit for self-regulation, agency, and responsibility. Some subset of people find meaning in parenting, managing, and governing those unfit for responsibility. And those who are managed and governed can blame their governors for their condition – and do nothing responsible to change it. The vast majority of people do not want sovereignty, liberty, and freedom because each requires responsibility. What they want is sufficiency with the least responsibility and the least effort.

    You are not oppressed.
    You are domesticated.
    Because you need to be.
    We no longer seek to domesticate you.
    We will no longer tolerate your destruction of us, our culture, our institutions, and our civilization, by the failure of your domestication.
    We can separate and create the polities we desire, or war until enough of us are dead, that we choose to do so anyway.

    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 18:50:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628104878005288994

  • US LEGAL FOUNDATIONS: MAJORITY VS CONCURRENCY VS COMMONALITY (basics of anglo ru

    US LEGAL FOUNDATIONS: MAJORITY VS CONCURRENCY VS COMMONALITY
    (basics of anglo rule of law)

    1. Majority vote means the majority of the voting population.

    2. Concurrency means the majority of multiple groups within the total population voted in favor of or against something – the groups must concur. ergo, concurrent legislation. This means survival of testing in market conditions.

    3. Commonality means that the courts of multiple regions concur on the means of deciding a conflict. ergo, common law. This means survival of empirical testing in market conditions.

    4. Both methods are empirical. Both methods require Agreement and Consent before canonization (Legitimacy). ie: Concurrency to agree on legislation versus Commonality to agree on dispute resolution.

    5. America uses concurrent voting, to choose representatives, who use concurrent voting to produce legislation on the citizen’s behalf, where the legislation and disputes under that legislation must survive adversarial competition before the courts who decide those conflicts by the natural(scientific) common(empirical) law.

    6. The Natural Law consists of self-determination by self-determined means by sovereignty in demonstrated interest and reciprocity in display word and deed, limiting us to truthful reciprocal voluntary cooperation in all walks of life, and is a total prohibition on any authority other than that natural law and/or the consent of the people expressed in the common law, and concurrent legislation.

    7. This is the one and only test of the legitimacy of legislation or law. There is no other. And Americans are the only people on earth who still have legitimacy in their laws.

    There is more content in this one post than you will receive in most of the constitutional law course in law school.

    The fact that I have to teach this, because no one is taught it, should terrify us, because it is the reason our government is not authoritarian, or ideological or philosophical, but scientific.

    It should be recitable by every child.

    -FIN-


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 04:47:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627892806210531330

  • (Resisting the urge to make up something ridiculous, send you on a quest for a b

    (Resisting the urge to make up something ridiculous, send you on a quest for a book, and page, that doesn’t contain the reference.)

    Can’t do it.
    Majority vote means of the total.
    Concurrency vote means the majority of multiple groups – the groups must concur. ergo, concurrent legislation.
    Commonality means that the courts of multiple regions concur on the means of deciding a conflict. ergo, common law.
    America is a concurrent democracy under the natural common law.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 04:32:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627888862683865088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627883336432771072