Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Will Wilkinson, GSRRM Against Conservatives. I…Explain.

    —“In my latest at  @nytopinion, I argue that the truculent response to  @BetoORourke’s mandatory assault weapon buyback proposal betrays a disturbing hostility to democracy on the right. Why an Assault Weapons Ban Hits Such a Nerve With Many Conservatives. The premise of Trumpist populism is that the political preferences of a shrinking minority of citizens matter more than democracy.”–Will Wilkinson @willwilkinson

    It’s not a hostility to democracy(Mob Rule), it’s a hostility to your continued undermining of Rule of Law (Reciprocity, Tort, Trespass), by incrementally deceiving the population that there any means, whether authoritarian, bureaucratic, representative, or democratic of legitimizing violation of Rule of Law. I don’t know if you (Will Wilkinson) are ignorant or intellectually dishonest by inverting the relationship between Rule of Law and Democracy – where Rule of law consists in the spectrum: Reciprocity(natural) vs substantive(Rights) vs formalist (Procedure) vs Functional (arbitrary) – and Democracy refers to a means of choosing the priority of commons given scarce resources, within that law). But Conservatism is empirical (evidentiary), not ideal(imagined) and we hold to rule of law (sovereignty, reciprocity, jury) and limit The State, Houses of Government, and Polity from violating that rule of law – and we are the only people to have built a civilization upon it, and a majority middle class because of it. WE ARE SPECIAL BECAUSE OF OUR RULE OF LAW, NOT DEMOCRACY. America, the anglo countries, and the germanic countries, are ‘special’ not because of government, but because we have rule of law. The world does not need democracy, and continues to rebel against it. They need rule of law. With rule of law the form of government is irrelevant. Under rule of law people have no choice to obtain status and consumption by any other means that the voluntary service of others in markets for association, production, reproduction, commons production, and polity production. Every alternative is just one excuse or another. YOU SEEK TO REPLACE RULE OF LAW WITH ARBITRARY RULE OF MAN So if you are just mistaken, then it’s worth educating you. If you are instead, continuing your campaign to destroy the first written Constitution of Natural Law (reciprocity) for the first middle class civilization(the third way), then that is why we have arms – to stop you. And every agitation you conduct against that law of reciprocity – our “political religion” – moves one step closer to turning this civil war from one of words, political infighting, and sporadic violence, into the bloodiest in human history – so, please, by all means continue. THERE IS NO “WE” There is no ‘we’. We can peacefully separate and return to a federation of states for the single purpose of defense, returning local control over local policy to the local people, or we will roll the dice on whether we win, you win, or, if it lasts six months, no one wins. We have our weapons – because of you.

  • Will Wilkinson, GSRRM Against Conservatives. I…Explain.

    —“In my latest at  @nytopinion, I argue that the truculent response to  @BetoORourke’s mandatory assault weapon buyback proposal betrays a disturbing hostility to democracy on the right. Why an Assault Weapons Ban Hits Such a Nerve With Many Conservatives. The premise of Trumpist populism is that the political preferences of a shrinking minority of citizens matter more than democracy.”–Will Wilkinson @willwilkinson

    It’s not a hostility to democracy(Mob Rule), it’s a hostility to your continued undermining of Rule of Law (Reciprocity, Tort, Trespass), by incrementally deceiving the population that there any means, whether authoritarian, bureaucratic, representative, or democratic of legitimizing violation of Rule of Law. I don’t know if you (Will Wilkinson) are ignorant or intellectually dishonest by inverting the relationship between Rule of Law and Democracy – where Rule of law consists in the spectrum: Reciprocity(natural) vs substantive(Rights) vs formalist (Procedure) vs Functional (arbitrary) – and Democracy refers to a means of choosing the priority of commons given scarce resources, within that law). But Conservatism is empirical (evidentiary), not ideal(imagined) and we hold to rule of law (sovereignty, reciprocity, jury) and limit The State, Houses of Government, and Polity from violating that rule of law – and we are the only people to have built a civilization upon it, and a majority middle class because of it. WE ARE SPECIAL BECAUSE OF OUR RULE OF LAW, NOT DEMOCRACY. America, the anglo countries, and the germanic countries, are ‘special’ not because of government, but because we have rule of law. The world does not need democracy, and continues to rebel against it. They need rule of law. With rule of law the form of government is irrelevant. Under rule of law people have no choice to obtain status and consumption by any other means that the voluntary service of others in markets for association, production, reproduction, commons production, and polity production. Every alternative is just one excuse or another. YOU SEEK TO REPLACE RULE OF LAW WITH ARBITRARY RULE OF MAN So if you are just mistaken, then it’s worth educating you. If you are instead, continuing your campaign to destroy the first written Constitution of Natural Law (reciprocity) for the first middle class civilization(the third way), then that is why we have arms – to stop you. And every agitation you conduct against that law of reciprocity – our “political religion” – moves one step closer to turning this civil war from one of words, political infighting, and sporadic violence, into the bloodiest in human history – so, please, by all means continue. THERE IS NO “WE” There is no ‘we’. We can peacefully separate and return to a federation of states for the single purpose of defense, returning local control over local policy to the local people, or we will roll the dice on whether we win, you win, or, if it lasts six months, no one wins. We have our weapons – because of you.

  • There is no ‘we’. We can peacefully separate and return to a federation of state

    There is no ‘we’. We can peacefully separate and return to a federation of states for the single purpose of defense, returning local control over local policy to the local people, or we will roll the dice on whether we win, you win, or, if it lasts six months, no one wins.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 17:00:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174367530472923137

    Reply addressees: @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174367164645728256


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke And every agitation you conduct against that law of reciprocity – our “political religion” – moves one step closer to turning this civil war from one of words, political infighting, and sporadic violence, into the bloodiest in human history – so, please, by all means continue.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174367164645728256


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke And every agitation you conduct against that law of reciprocity – our “political religion” – moves one step closer to turning this civil war from one of words, political infighting, and sporadic violence, into the bloodiest in human history – so, please, by all means continue.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174367164645728256

  • So if you are just mistaken, then it’s worth educating you. If you are instead,

    So if you are just mistaken, then it’s worth educating you. If you are instead, continuing your campaign to destroy the first written Constitution of Natural Law (reciprocity) for the first middle class civilization(the third way), then that is why we have arms – to stop you.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 16:56:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174366508249747456

    Reply addressees: @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174365739941130240


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke Under rule of law people have no choice to obtain status and consumption by any other means that the voluntary service of others in markets for association, production, reproduction, commons production, and polity production. Every alternative is just one excuse or another.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174365739941130240


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke Under rule of law people have no choice to obtain status and consumption by any other means that the voluntary service of others in markets for association, production, reproduction, commons production, and polity production. Every alternative is just one excuse or another.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174365739941130240

  • America, the anglo countries, and the germanic countries, are ‘special’ not beca

    America, the anglo countries, and the germanic countries, are ‘special’ not because of government, but because we have rule of law. The world does not need democracy, and continues to rebel against it. They need rule of law. With rule of law the form of government is irrelevant.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 16:51:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174365224071307269

    Reply addressees: @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174364950535561216


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke But the Conservatism is EMPIRICAL not IDEAL and we hold to rule of law (sovereignty, reciprocity, jury) and limit state, houses, and polity from violating that rule of law – and we are the only people to have built a civilization upon it, and a majority middle class b/c of it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174364950535561216


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke But the Conservatism is EMPIRICAL not IDEAL and we hold to rule of law (sovereignty, reciprocity, jury) and limit state, houses, and polity from violating that rule of law – and we are the only people to have built a civilization upon it, and a majority middle class b/c of it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174364950535561216

  • But the Conservatism is EMPIRICAL not IDEAL and we hold to rule of law (sovereig

    But the Conservatism is EMPIRICAL not IDEAL and we hold to rule of law (sovereignty, reciprocity, jury) and limit state, houses, and polity from violating that rule of law – and we are the only people to have built a civilization upon it, and a majority middle class b/c of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 16:49:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174364950535561216

    Reply addressees: @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174364567784361985


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke I don’t know if you (Will) are ignorant or intellectually dishonest by inverting the relationship between Rule of Law (Reciprocity(natural) vs substantive(Rights) vs formalist (Procedure) vs Functional (arbitrary), and Democracy (means of choosing priority of commons within law).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174364567784361985


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke I don’t know if you (Will) are ignorant or intellectually dishonest by inverting the relationship between Rule of Law (Reciprocity(natural) vs substantive(Rights) vs formalist (Procedure) vs Functional (arbitrary), and Democracy (means of choosing priority of commons within law).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174364567784361985

  • I don’t know if you (Will) are ignorant or intellectually dishonest by inverting

    I don’t know if you (Will) are ignorant or intellectually dishonest by inverting the relationship between Rule of Law (Reciprocity(natural) vs substantive(Rights) vs formalist (Procedure) vs Functional (arbitrary), and Democracy (means of choosing priority of commons within law).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 16:48:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174364567784361985

    Reply addressees: @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174363590721245191


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke It’s not a hostility to democracy(Mob Rule), it’s a hostility to your continued undermining of Rule of Law (Reciprocity, Tort, Trespass), by incrementally deceiving the population that there any means: authoritarian, political, democratic of legitimizes violation of rule of law.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174363590721245191


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke It’s not a hostility to democracy(Mob Rule), it’s a hostility to your continued undermining of Rule of Law (Reciprocity, Tort, Trespass), by incrementally deceiving the population that there any means: authoritarian, political, democratic of legitimizes violation of rule of law.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174363590721245191

  • It’s not a hostility to democracy(Mob Rule), it’s a hostility to your continued

    It’s not a hostility to democracy(Mob Rule), it’s a hostility to your continued undermining of Rule of Law (Reciprocity, Tort, Trespass), by incrementally deceiving the population that there any means: authoritarian, political, democratic of legitimizes violation of rule of law.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 16:44:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174363590721245191

    Reply addressees: @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174360008080941056


    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/1174360008080941056

  • Correct. It’s NO threshold. 😉 There is one rule of law (Tort, Trespass, Recipro

    Correct. It’s NO threshold. 😉 There is one rule of law (Tort, Trespass, Reciprocity, Natural Law). There are at least three theories of jurisprudence that violate rule of law. Conservatives the first (traditional, empirical, rights), and Liberals the third (‘whatever we say’).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 14:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174335544735805441

    Reply addressees: @danstrawhun @primalpoly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174334487624331264


    IN REPLY TO:

    @dstrwhn

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller Under this interpretation, the legislature has the freedom to curtail freedom of contract so long as its doing so is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This is a super low threshold.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174334487624331264

  • Another nit. A right is something the state via the court will enforce – a ‘righ

    Another nit. A right is something the state via the court will enforce – a ‘right to judgement’. It has nothing to do with ‘rights’ per say, in colloquial prose – and can include unethical, immoral, involuntary, irreciprocal violations of any and every sort (and does).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 14:46:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174333884907040768

    Reply addressees: @danstrawhun @primalpoly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174331668804571136


    IN REPLY TO:

    @dstrwhn

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller “The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract…. Freedom of contract is a qualified and not an absolute right. There is no absolute freedom to do as one wills or to contract as one chooses.”

    W. Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174331668804571136