Theme: Constitutional Order

  • “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA” Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is

    “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA”

    Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is paid for by the state’. The discussion at the time was that given the vastness of the territory, the sparsity of the population, and the limited funds, that they could not at the time afford to pay for it, and that men might not show up given the cost of travel to staging areas, and that they would need to wait until such training was affordable, and therefore they must trust that the men will do it themselves (which they largely did).

    The english did this with the longbow in that every sunday after church boys were required (and did) spend three hours shooting the bow. This what (like the Russians are doing) we need to restore again – schools or churches or town halls where men practice regularly at the local level. By the regimental period the regiments were paid for and self sustaining in England. And this is my suggestion going forward – restoration of the regiments and the fraternal order that comes from them.

    (My suspicion is that we can reform religion and civil society by working through the regiments as much as through school systems.)

    The purpose of a trained militia is to (a) prevent the need of a standing army because (b) standing armies had been used to oppress the people. So, in keeping with european tradition a small number of professional warriors (the aristocracy) would command a large number of unprofessional riflemen (soldiers, footsoldiers). Which would balance the power between the people and the state ensuring that the state didn’t get out of hand, and insuring that the men were invested in the sense of control of their government.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-24 10:32:00 UTC

  • As far as I can tell the only value we can demonstrate by voting is to approve o

    As far as I can tell the only value we can demonstrate by voting is to approve or reject proposals by a professional government. Otherwise democracy serves only locality and homogeneity.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 20:25:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219717630816399360

    Reply addressees: @gardeniabee @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219700489983492102


    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/1219700489983492102

  • No. I suggest that voting is a bad thing – but that if you want it, and there ar

    No. I suggest that voting is a bad thing – but that if you want it, and there are reasons you should – then we must return to houses of the classes and one of those houses being women. I also suggest houses that require responsibility so that participation is earned and valued.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-21 20:22:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219716857277698048

    Reply addressees: @gardeniabee @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219700489983492102


    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/1219700489983492102

  • Always go with rights. They can’t fight rights. 2nd amendment is holy ground

    Always go with rights. They can’t fight rights. 2nd amendment is holy ground.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-20 23:13:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219397591676440577

    Reply addressees: @Nalo_Nei @Nationalist7346 @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219384277298626560


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Nalo_Nei

    @Nationalist7346 @curtdoolittle @EricLiford Exactly!

    What Antifa starts, the good guys finish. With Antifa suppressed (deterred) there’s nothing to start or finish.

    Question:
    Do you think Antifa was authentically deterred?
    Do you think the conspicuous lack of violence is a trick?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219384277298626560

  • Mr President, this charade will end very quickly or it will end with the republi

    Mr President, this charade will end very quickly or it will end with the republic. Because we are done waiting.

    “By the prickling of my thumbs, this way Revolution comes.”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-20 00:07:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1219048889191424000

    Reply addressees: @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218962544372670467


    IN REPLY TO:

    @realDonaldTrump

    I have never seen the Republican Party as Strong and as Unified as it is right now. Thank you!

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218962544372670467

  • The point is to stop them, and to restore the ‘return to the legislature’ if it’

    The point is to stop them, and to restore the ‘return to the legislature’ if it’s undecidable.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 01:43:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218710525846196225

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford @probiotical

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218697238123372546


    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/1218697238123372546

  • Judges have the finest record of any body of people in america other than perhap

    Judges have the finest record of any body of people in america other than perhaps – until the immigrant hordes – medicine (doctors). The problem is that the constitution was too weak in defining the theory of jurisprudence (something I’ve repaired). And so the left abused it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 00:33:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218692929704931333

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford @probiotical

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218643816795852800


    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/1218643816795852800

  • THREE QUESTIONS ON RULE OF LAW – AND GOVERNING by Caleb Mimnaugh —” Rule of la

    THREE QUESTIONS ON RULE OF LAW – AND GOVERNING

    by Caleb Mimnaugh

    —“

    Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful.

    3 clarifications – if you have the time.

    1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better?

    2. If the former, how is it unnecessary?

    3. If the latter, where can it be improved?

    3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion.

    “—-

    1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.

    2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.

    3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.

    3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority.

    AS FAR AS I KNOW:

    The organs of the state are limited to:

    1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military)

    2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts)

    3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury).

    4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State)

    5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government)

    6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy).

    This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee.

    There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 14:06:00 UTC

  • You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american consti

    You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 13:59:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218170985737785345

    Reply addressees: @KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680

  • Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to vo

    Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man).


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-17 13:57:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218170548645191680

    Reply addressees: @KralcTrebor @ARossP @tedcruz @RandPaul @MittRomney @SenatorCollins @lisamurkowski @SenMcSallyAZ @SenMikeLee @johnthune @SenatorWicker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1218155976064479232


    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/1218155976064479232