Feb 3, 2020, 10:02 PM The constitution failed when men failed: they denied southerners sovereignty – the premise upon which the constitution is founded. And it failed for no other reason than to prevent the agrarian south from control of the continent isolating the puritan industrial north from control over western expansion. The only reason Lincoln didn’t continue the existing repatriation of slaves to africa was the cost. yet what was the cost of 500,000 lives, our constitution, and our sovereignty? Why? Because white men – Pres. Lincoln in this case – granted black leaders at the time their sovereignty by asking it of them. To lead it. Rather than for americans to force it. Why do we make the same mistake today with all other aliens? If you seek to take our sovereignty, then by reciprocity we shall seek to take yours. If you cannot or will not integrate then we have no choice but to separate.
Theme: Constitutional Order
-
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-sovereign-is-above-earthly-powers-under-law-not-above-natural-law/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:52:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264449050243403778
-
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law
Feb 3, 2020, 10:07 PM by Scott De Warren A sovereign is above the law in the sense that there is no earthly legal power above him in his kingdom. He is not above natural law, however, in the sense that his sovereignty is not inalienable. For example if he seeks to destroy his kingdom and people or other crimes similar in kind to high treason (selling his sovereignty to a hostile foreign sovereign and thus stripping his people of their liberties) he can lose his sovereign rights in a just revolution (but not his legal heirs already born).
-
The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law
Feb 3, 2020, 10:07 PM by Scott De Warren A sovereign is above the law in the sense that there is no earthly legal power above him in his kingdom. He is not above natural law, however, in the sense that his sovereignty is not inalienable. For example if he seeks to destroy his kingdom and people or other crimes similar in kind to high treason (selling his sovereignty to a hostile foreign sovereign and thus stripping his people of their liberties) he can lose his sovereign rights in a just revolution (but not his legal heirs already born).
-
The Monarchy Under the One Law
The Monarchy Under the One Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-monarchy-under-the-one-law/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:51:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264448845888598016
-
The Monarchy Under the One Law
Feb 3, 2020, 10:08 PM by Bill Joslin Under One Law, where by no group or individual obtains the power to write law, the king can be under law without the risk of molestation by politicians. I’d say, evidenced by Charle’s decapitated body, this One Law is already enforced by nature whether we agree, understand, notice or not. Its just a matter of what time horizon the judgements are passed. by aligning with this One Law, and decreasing latency between act and judgment, we can use nature to create the disincentive with in the actors lifetime and avoid the tails of damages breaking One Law creates.
-
The Monarchy Under the One Law
Feb 3, 2020, 10:08 PM by Bill Joslin Under One Law, where by no group or individual obtains the power to write law, the king can be under law without the risk of molestation by politicians. I’d say, evidenced by Charle’s decapitated body, this One Law is already enforced by nature whether we agree, understand, notice or not. Its just a matter of what time horizon the judgements are passed. by aligning with this One Law, and decreasing latency between act and judgment, we can use nature to create the disincentive with in the actors lifetime and avoid the tails of damages breaking One Law creates.
-
Why Will New Laws Work?
Feb 4, 2020, 12:41 PM
—-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to change human nature? We are a nation of many different peoples with many different religions , cultures and morals.
What one group of people see as acceptable another group sees as unacceptable. I do agree that whatever laws we have , and few they should be, should apply equally to everyone regardless of any status.”—John Lafferty GOOD QUESTION 1) Under the natural law, we are each sovereigns (kings of different countries). Our contract with one another is an alliance that insures one another’s sovereignty. That is our ‘social contact’- it’s not social at all. It’s military. As such we are all equal before the law, because the law is nothing more than reciprocal insurance of one another’s sovereignty, and therefor the requirement for reciprocity in all interactions; and that in any violation of reciprocity, they may request defense restitution and punishment from the allies. So we are unequal in ability, unequal in value to one another, equal under the law, and equally insured. But we are sovereign, autonomous mini-countries, with each man, woman, and children and their land the smallest possible nation. 2) Natural law is a description of human nature. It is the MOST descriptive of human nature. Reciprocity is the same as the law of thermodynamics – but with our memory we can create credits(give help) and debts(receive help) with one another: But reciprocity is unavoidable because people demonstrably spend heavily on punishing irreciprocity – both interpersonally by retaliation, judicially by restitution, and socially by what we call altruistic punishment. 3) No, while people WANT differently, people all see irreciprocity equally: bad. They see proportionality differently. In other words, the right sees capitalizing, meritocracy, hierarchy and reciprocity more important than proportionality, and the left sees consumption, equidistribution, equality, and proportionality more important than reciprocity. This is just an expression of cognitive differences in development since these reflect female consumptive short term dysgenic, and male capitalizing long term eugenic strategies. 4) Given that we express different strategic demands, under the same natural law we can separate and pursue our different strategies (and the left will die off), or we can be eradicated by the left and all die off in another dark age, or we can eradicate the left and transcend man into the gods we imagine. The only solutions are separation to produce our commons, conquest, or failure.
-
Why Will New Laws Work?
Feb 4, 2020, 12:41 PM
—-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to change human nature? We are a nation of many different peoples with many different religions , cultures and morals.
What one group of people see as acceptable another group sees as unacceptable. I do agree that whatever laws we have , and few they should be, should apply equally to everyone regardless of any status.”—John Lafferty GOOD QUESTION 1) Under the natural law, we are each sovereigns (kings of different countries). Our contract with one another is an alliance that insures one another’s sovereignty. That is our ‘social contact’- it’s not social at all. It’s military. As such we are all equal before the law, because the law is nothing more than reciprocal insurance of one another’s sovereignty, and therefor the requirement for reciprocity in all interactions; and that in any violation of reciprocity, they may request defense restitution and punishment from the allies. So we are unequal in ability, unequal in value to one another, equal under the law, and equally insured. But we are sovereign, autonomous mini-countries, with each man, woman, and children and their land the smallest possible nation. 2) Natural law is a description of human nature. It is the MOST descriptive of human nature. Reciprocity is the same as the law of thermodynamics – but with our memory we can create credits(give help) and debts(receive help) with one another: But reciprocity is unavoidable because people demonstrably spend heavily on punishing irreciprocity – both interpersonally by retaliation, judicially by restitution, and socially by what we call altruistic punishment. 3) No, while people WANT differently, people all see irreciprocity equally: bad. They see proportionality differently. In other words, the right sees capitalizing, meritocracy, hierarchy and reciprocity more important than proportionality, and the left sees consumption, equidistribution, equality, and proportionality more important than reciprocity. This is just an expression of cognitive differences in development since these reflect female consumptive short term dysgenic, and male capitalizing long term eugenic strategies. 4) Given that we express different strategic demands, under the same natural law we can separate and pursue our different strategies (and the left will die off), or we can be eradicated by the left and all die off in another dark age, or we can eradicate the left and transcend man into the gods we imagine. The only solutions are separation to produce our commons, conquest, or failure.
-
Do Laws Expire Under P?
Feb 4, 2020, 11:06 PM QUICK DEFINITIONS: LAW – rules in a given political order NATURAL LAW – Reciprocity COMMAND – Rule by Degree LEGISLATION – A rule by decree of a legislative body REGULATION – Rule for enforcing legislation CONTRACT OF THE COMMONS – A contract between representatives on behalf of the people having force of law. FINDING OF LAW – record of decision made by a court for future reference. BODY OF LAW – the sum of all of the above. CONTRACT – an agreement under law insured by a court. A constitution describes process and procedure for the production of commons. All contracts must state dependencies, fulfillment criteria, an expiration date, termination clauses, means of restitution, and responsible parties. Under P-Law we may only make contracts of the commons, and findings of law. Regulations are processed as changes to the terms of the contract of the commons. As such all contracts of the commons expire. As such we should expect regular renewal of those contracts whose value remains in place – and regular termination of contracts of the commons and regulations that no longer apply – and a chain of terminated contracts of the commons and regulations that are dependent upon those terminated contracts of the commons.