Theme: Constitutional Order

1) –“Hey, I’ve got some concerns. Why does Mr. Doolittle want to return the US under British Imperial rule with a monarch? “—

I just have a broader understanding of the strategic future than other americans – I’m thinking on the same scale as the enemy. it’s (a) that a monarch is superior in incentives to a president or prime minister or dictator, or any other individual, as a judge of last resort. (b) it’s the least different culture with a monarchy, (c) it would assist in creating the military-trade-culture block of USA, CA, AU, NZ and that gets us enough people enough trade, to maintain funding of a global military which they others cannot do without us (d) it becomes much easier to restore nationalism and monarchies to the rest of european civilization as defense against “the enemy”.

2) —“I understand the monarch is still bound by the rules of reciprocity, but that goes against balance if powers the Founding Fathers put in place.”—

That doesn’t make sense. The president has a veto. But even his veto wasn’t enough to protect the Natural Law, the Constitution, and our Civilization. I don’t understand why a prime minister and a monarchy with judge of last resort isn’t superior to a president, when (at least for those of us who study these thing) it’s record is fantastic and ours is terrible – and ours is only less visibly terrible because of the wealth we have from selling off a continent.

3) —“Does the monarch having the power to over through Supreme Court rulings?”—

The monarch has the power to veto findings of the court (rulings) that are in violation of the spirit of the constitution and the people, so that such things as abortion and gay marriage would not be possible to make law of the land, only local laws. (this isn’t that hard really)

4) —“What about congress? Also, will there be a balance of political perspectives in this new government?”—

The federal government is devolved almost entirely to the states with the senate surviving only as the sitting governors of the states, and their powers limited to voluntary contracts between the states – as in old europe – with majority rule limited to collective trade policy, treaty, and war. And all contracts survive only as long as those who enacted them.

5) —“Balance in all levels of government is extremely important and thus having balanced perspectives is vital–that is as long as both sides are speaking the truth.”—

This only partly true. We spent far too much time on government, little of which maters at all, when it’s the law that matters – and that was hayek’s insight – and the failure of the twentieth century intellectual caste. All that matters is the law. The production of commons within the law like the production of all other market goods, within the law, is served via-negativa, by prosecution for failure, within which any possible good is a good. Political orders are not a defense against the bad. Just the opposite. It’s LAW, EDUCATION, and MILITIA that provide defense against the abuse of power – by denying power to all. Cheers

1) –“Hey, I’ve got some concerns. Why does Mr. Doolittle want to return the US under British Imperial rule with a monarch? “—

I just have a broader understanding of the strategic future than other americans – I’m thinking on the same scale as the enemy. it’s (a) that a monarch is superior in incentives to a president or prime minister or dictator, or any other individual, as a judge of last resort. (b) it’s the least different culture with a monarchy, (c) it would assist in creating the military-trade-culture block of USA, CA, AU, NZ and that gets us enough people enough trade, to maintain funding of a global military which they others cannot do without us (d) it becomes much easier to restore nationalism and monarchies to the rest of european civilization as defense against “the enemy”.

2) —“I understand the monarch is still bound by the rules of reciprocity, but that goes against balance if powers the Founding Fathers put in place.”—

That doesn’t make sense. The president has a veto. But even his veto wasn’t enough to protect the Natural Law, the Constitution, and our Civilization. I don’t understand why a prime minister and a monarchy with judge of last resort isn’t superior to a president, when (at least for those of us who study these thing) it’s record is fantastic and ours is terrible – and ours is only less visibly terrible because of the wealth we have from selling off a continent.

3) —“Does the monarch having the power to over through Supreme Court rulings?”—

The monarch has the power to veto findings of the court (rulings) that are in violation of the spirit of the constitution and the people, so that such things as abortion and gay marriage would not be possible to make law of the land, only local laws. (this isn’t that hard really)

4) —“What about congress? Also, will there be a balance of political perspectives in this new government?”—

The federal government is devolved almost entirely to the states with the senate surviving only as the sitting governors of the states, and their powers limited to voluntary contracts between the states – as in old europe – with majority rule limited to collective trade policy, treaty, and war. And all contracts survive only as long as those who enacted them.

5) —“Balance in all levels of government is extremely important and thus having balanced perspectives is vital–that is as long as both sides are speaking the truth.”—

This only partly true. We spent far too much time on government, little of which maters at all, when it’s the law that matters – and that was hayek’s insight – and the failure of the twentieth century intellectual caste. All that matters is the law. The production of commons within the law like the production of all other market goods, within the law, is served via-negativa, by prosecution for failure, within which any possible good is a good. Political orders are not a defense against the bad. Just the opposite. It’s LAW, EDUCATION, and MILITIA that provide defense against the abuse of power – by denying power to all. Cheers