Theme: Constitutional Order

  • YOU SEE…. What’s the difference between the American Constitution and the P-co

    YOU SEE…. What’s the difference between the American Constitution and the P-constitution? Clarity. I plugged holes.

    All we have to do is say “It is time for all good men to come to the defense of the constitution….”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 13:40:00 UTC

  • LESSON 1. Eve’s apple, 2. Pandora’s box, 3. The 19th Amendment. Is it the fault

    LESSON

    1. Eve’s apple, 2. Pandora’s box, 3. The 19th Amendment.

    Is it the fault of the female, or is it the fault of the male, for not having created laws to equally suppress the female interpersonal and social, superpredator, that they did to suppress the male physical and military, superpredator.

    One family one vote was a compromise. In the absence of one family one vote we require houses for men and women just as we required house for aristocracy, nobility, industry, and family.

    The animal just follows its instincts. It is up for those few men of ability to domesticate the animals.

    And we are always the few.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 21:41:00 UTC

  • Look you want to call people nazis by pulling random nonsense out of your a– th

    Look you want to call people nazis by pulling random nonsense out of your a– then go ahead but don’t waste my time. P-law is an evolution of european, british, american constitutional law that suppresses the innovations in deceit in public speech during the 20th.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 19:05:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246876566346518528

    Reply addressees: @Ariakvs

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246875132145983488

  • The right is split between three absolutes: Nationalists (race-genetics), Civic

    The right is split between three absolutes: Nationalists (race-genetics), Civic

    The right is split between three absolutes: Nationalists (race-genetics), Civic Nationalist(culture-constitution), And Religious Universalists(religion-bible), and everyone is somewhere on that triangle. And the only solution fundamentalists have to offer is ‘I demand’. (Failure) https://t.co/15G9hWlsjw


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 15:43:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246825679875907584

    Reply addressees: @MillikanTamzin @DudeMaximus

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246810235005779968

  • Apr 4, 2020, 7:31 PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Acthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_ActUpdated Apr 4, 2020, 7:31 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 19:31:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME Propertarianism is just a brand name for

    “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME

    Propertarianism is just a brand name for strictly constructed traditional anglo american constitutional law, that is an evolution of our law, that prevents the (((crimes))) invented during the twentieth century, that were used to undermine western civlization. “Propertarian” was an ‘insult’ that was levied against libertarians who reduced all questions of social science to measurement by property. Fortunately, all questions of social science, ethics and law, really are reducible to measurement by demonstrated interest that we call property. But, property, at least under our definition, is complete where under libertarianism it was insufficient. I chose the name “propertarianism” because it maintained this system of measurement, and “strictly constructed natural law of reciprocity” was too difficult a brand name. At this point I would change it to Sovereignty, or “European Traditional Natural Law.” or something else. But the ‘term’ has stuck as a brand name so it’s hard to change it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 15:40:00 UTC

  • SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF.

    SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE

    That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there.

    SUMMARY:

    (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s,

    (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences,

    (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations)

    (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect.

    (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation,

    (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest).

    (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses

    (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war.

    (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group.

    (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none.

    CLOSING

    As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;;

    And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad.

    In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other.

    P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand.

    We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting.

    -Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:57:00 UTC

  • HOW ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES AT THE TOP?? First, there is very little federal g

    HOW ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES AT THE TOP??

    First, there is very little federal government left. It consists almost exclusively of the military and treasury plus the insurer function of the treasury. The states are more like european states except that they share a military. (a) Monarchs are superior to presidents and prime ministers, prime ministers are superior to presidents, hired CEO’s are superior to prime ministers. Competing contractors are superior to bureaucracies. So Governors > Senate > Executives (Professional Cabinet) > Bureaucracies (Minimum) > Firms (maximum) (b) The checks and balances rely more on court (suits) against individuals and groups than on votes. After courts, then approval of federal appropriations. Appropriations are not pooled so they are more like payment plans. So there is no discretionary use of these fees. After that we have votes for our governors. Our governors (and governments) appoint senators. The only significant improvement would be an hereditary monarchy to overrule if something gets out of hand (think the present queen of England with more likely exercise of power.) The french really ruined government. The english had it right. Our experiment didn’t work as well as our enumerated rights in the constitution. So the P-constitutional amendments further enumerate rights and shift from the french vision of government back to the British. (classes).


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-31 22:40:00 UTC

  • Constitution. Subject: Territory. Problem: Continents. Under the law one may use

    Constitution. Subject: Territory.

    Problem: Continents.

    Under the law one may use the kin group’s territory to produce preferred commons under the law.

    A group may not divorce the territory from the law.

    A group may not grant competing peoples territory.

    One may only exit the territory.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 16:58:00 UTC

  • THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES> I didn’t say there is an end to

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrUNO, THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES>

    I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I wasn’t searching for an idea. I’m claiming that european ancestral law is the reason for the unique success of western civlization. And that continuing the anglo tradition, we must periodically update our constitution and law to reflect innovations in irreciprocity. I am merely adapting the current constitution and law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science. The difference is that institutions change with greater difficulty than does un-institutionalized knowledge. 😉

    JFG – Love you man but you have a habit of declaring understanding when you are hypothesizing understanding, and cannot warranty your words. 😉 Of course, in P-Law, you would have to change your behavior, and say your understanding was such, but that you can’t warranty it as true. 😉 Otherwise you’d be liable for ten times the air time to correct your prior claims. 😉

    And yes, I know you run an opinion show. JFG opinion is entertaining. 😉

    youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU Updated Mar 28, 2020, 3:16 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 15:16:00 UTC