Theme: Constitutional Order

  • The only thing that melts in the american pot is rule of law, trust, the commons

    The only thing that melts in the american pot is rule of law, trust, the commons, and the civil society


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-06 18:04:00 UTC

  • TEARING UP THE SPEECH: VIOLATING WESTERN CUSTOMARY LAW (And why women are incapa

    TEARING UP THE SPEECH: VIOLATING WESTERN CUSTOMARY LAW (And why women are incapable of political participation)
    #PettyPelosi https://t.co/qfrLhWiaRC


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:40:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225081691930341376

  • Tearing Up The Speech – vs The Western Tradition

    Tearing Up The Speech – vs The Western Tradition https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/05/tearing-up-the-speech-vs-the-western-tradition/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:34:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225080253816635392

  • No. On the other hand religion has no place in court

    No. On the other hand religion has no place in court.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 14:16:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225060623308021761

    Reply addressees: @AutisticArchiv1 @ClownBa73413423 @JohnMarkSays @YouTube

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225053367703085060


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225053367703085060

  • DO LAWS EXPIRE UNDER P? QUICK DEFINITIONS: LAW – rules in a given political orde

    DO LAWS EXPIRE UNDER P?

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 23:06:00 UTC

  • WHY WILL NEW LAWS WORK? —-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to chang

    WHY WILL NEW LAWS WORK?

    —-“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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:41:00 UTC

  • THE MONARCHY UNDER THE ONE LAW by Bill Joslin Under One Law, where by no group o

    THE MONARCHY UNDER THE ONE LAW

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 22:08:00 UTC

  • THE 20th EXPERIMENT IN COSMPOLITAINISM FAILED The constitution failed when men f

    THE 20th EXPERIMENT IN COSMPOLITAINISM FAILED

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 22:02:00 UTC

  • (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison)

    “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches.

    The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 21:10:00 UTC

  • SHOULD A MONARCH BE ABOVE THE LAW? Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politi

    SHOULD A MONARCH BE ABOVE THE LAW?

    Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.

    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.

    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.

    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 21:00:00 UTC