The only way to start a revolution is via the second amendment battle over carrying arms, and our militia of every possible male, as the foundation of our civilization, and it is as sacred as is our law, and our religion.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 16:08:00 UTC
ON THE LIABILITY FOR DISLOYALTY
by Scott De Warren
When we won the revolutionary war the losers were required by and large to vacate the territory. Exceptions were made for honorable Tory members that had not taken up arms against the patriots or support to the loyalists. Everyone else had to pack up and go.
Why shouldn’t this be the precedent we follow. If we kick out our own kinsmen how much more should be not kick out an enemy group after the conflict?
(CD: this is one of the propositions that has to be stated)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 19:07:00 UTC
ON JURY NULLIFICATION
—“Could you please offer your thoughts on Jury Nullification, and how that might play out under P law?”—
Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.
—“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—
So let’s list them again:
… 1 – The Law itself is unjust,
… 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law,
… 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime.
Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law:
… a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision.
… b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury.
In practical terms to prevent jury nullification,
… a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute,
… b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes),
… c) jurors are given instruction by the judge.
The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern.
The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem.
In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law.
However,
… 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon.
… 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate.
… 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the *degree* of the crime.
So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common).
In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused.
THE PROBLEM
The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 19:04:00 UTC
What is Necessary for an optimum Government
0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non.
1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for:
2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?)
3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests)
4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons.
5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information.
6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction.
7) A market for the resolution of disputes over property in toto by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary)
8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers)
9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.
Share this:
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 12:20:00 UTC
P IS JUST A METHOD. THE P-CONSTITUTION IS AN APPLICATION OUR APPLICATION IS INTOLERANT OF COMPETITION AGAINST THE PEOPLE. BUT IT”S STILL RULE OF LAW.
—“P isn’t similar to NS, it just may seem like it in contrast to the madness of “liberal democracy”.”—Martin Štěpán,
—“I think it is misleading to try to think of some ideology as ‘closest to P’. That way you end up thinking that P is similar to ‘whatever’ or ‘sort of whatever’. That surely isn’t the case, even tough there are/might be similarities with ‘whatever’.”—Jonne Klockars
—“is not the whole point that it’s not an ideology at all?”–Crypto X
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 10:46:00 UTC
(war, law, faith) The faith is one player in a triumvirate of military(war), law, and faith. There is no place for law in war or faith, only in disputes between them. There is no place for faith in law or war, only in consolidation after them. There is no place for war in law or faith, only in our defense of them. This is our civilization; this has been our civilization for 5000 years.
(war, law, faith) The faith is one player in a triumvirate of military(war), law, and faith. There is no place for law in war or faith, only in disputes between them. There is no place for faith in law or war, only in consolidation after them. There is no place for war in law or faith, only in our defense of them. This is our civilization; this has been our civilization for 5000 years.
State Bankruptcy Is Necessary https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/24/state-bankruptcy-is-necessary/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 18:23:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253751478210060288
[S]tate bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankruptcy reform, just as the EU is experiencing the problems of the catholic periphery vs the protestant core. It’s not a constitutional issue, b/c it’s one of the most important reasons for the formation of the federal system: unifying bankruptcy laws so interstate commerce and consequent scale was possible without continuous conflicts that constrained trade. Opponents would resist under the Contracts Clause but the court would eventually extend protection to the states since the states are not making the legal change, the federal government is, and despite the 10th (which is universally ignored anyway), the bankruptcy code is a power specifically granted to the federal government specifically for this reason. Add to the fact that it was done by false promise of ‘progressive’ (((socialist))) eternal growth on one end and financial (((rent seeking))) constructed using fractional reserves guaranteed by the federal government, and the credit expansion, all via the treasury and federal reserve, instead of retaining the returns for redistribution to the citizenry, and we have criminal conspiracy at least of conspiracy of interests not sufficiently defended against by a government lacking experience in financial corruption practiced in the Pale – especially ukraine and russia. (Where mises and rothbard inherited their ideas and tried to spread them to the west.) While screwing politicians, government employees, their unions, and investors that profited from seeking rents by offering credit that baits states into hazard, the populations of the states would benefit greatly from no longer spending their tax revenues on employee pensions as large as their medicare-medicaid expenses, leaving a single digit trickle of income for infrastructure and investment. Personally I would love to write a brief for the court on this, and bring the issue before the court because it would provide the impetus to end the fed, and nationalize the finance sector dependent upon treasury issue, and instead, force them to raise all capital from the private sector, forcing the sector to compete for savings rather than continuously destroy them. Biggest organized crime in human history.
[S]tate bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankruptcy reform, just as the EU is experiencing the problems of the catholic periphery vs the protestant core. It’s not a constitutional issue, b/c it’s one of the most important reasons for the formation of the federal system: unifying bankruptcy laws so interstate commerce and consequent scale was possible without continuous conflicts that constrained trade. Opponents would resist under the Contracts Clause but the court would eventually extend protection to the states since the states are not making the legal change, the federal government is, and despite the 10th (which is universally ignored anyway), the bankruptcy code is a power specifically granted to the federal government specifically for this reason. Add to the fact that it was done by false promise of ‘progressive’ (((socialist))) eternal growth on one end and financial (((rent seeking))) constructed using fractional reserves guaranteed by the federal government, and the credit expansion, all via the treasury and federal reserve, instead of retaining the returns for redistribution to the citizenry, and we have criminal conspiracy at least of conspiracy of interests not sufficiently defended against by a government lacking experience in financial corruption practiced in the Pale – especially ukraine and russia. (Where mises and rothbard inherited their ideas and tried to spread them to the west.) While screwing politicians, government employees, their unions, and investors that profited from seeking rents by offering credit that baits states into hazard, the populations of the states would benefit greatly from no longer spending their tax revenues on employee pensions as large as their medicare-medicaid expenses, leaving a single digit trickle of income for infrastructure and investment. Personally I would love to write a brief for the court on this, and bring the issue before the court because it would provide the impetus to end the fed, and nationalize the finance sector dependent upon treasury issue, and instead, force them to raise all capital from the private sector, forcing the sector to compete for savings rather than continuously destroy them. Biggest organized crime in human history.