2) I do not know how to make the law accommodate christianity in the interim. I cannot find a way in the law to accommodate the lies of christianity without leaving a hole for every other lie to crawl thru.
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.
—“Hey Curt, there’s a question I have been wrestling with for a while regarding your work. It’s about discretion versus judge discovery law. In common law I have understood the idea to be, that judges look at previous cases of decisions in similar incidents of parasitism and make informed judgements based on that history. But how are not the original, “inaugural” decisions with no historical precedence not entirely reliant on that said judge’s discretion? … Thanks in advance!”—Alex, your friend.
A number of dependencies require clarification to answer this question:
0 – There is only one law in tort: reciprocity.
1 – The test of property is investment.
2 – The court is reluctant to transfer title (possession) and make itself a participant in a crime – which would harm the law, the people, and the profession.
3 – Because of evolution of our civilization, earlier cases are always more ‘rudimentary’, with law ‘cumulative’ (increasing in complexity with the complexity of the division of knowledge and labor)
4 – Judges are ‘informed’ by prior decisions so that they don’t have to do all the work all over again of being smarter than all other judges in all other matters (they consult the market for judgements).
5 – Because of the competition between judges over time in a multitude of similar cases, the market for decisions tends to resolve on constant judgements. (more than tends, actually) just as markets for goods resolve on prices, just as markets for scientific knowledge resolve on theories.
6 – Original criteria (sovereignty, reciprocity, property etc) developed over time, such that what we understand today (investment, reciprocity, voluntary transfer etc) is the result of the empirically cumulative record of judgements over time rather than design. (See the three books on the law in my reading list which discuss the ‘messy’ evolution of the common law.)
… – Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.
… – Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.
… – Hayek’s: The Constitution of Liberty.
7 – The common law evolved because of ancient western indo european (european) sovereignty, truth, duty, and militia (everyone fights) is the principle difference between civilizations, and because the west consists of kinship and shareholder militias federating into armies.
HOWEVER
8 – The state began interfering (disintermediating) in the common law in the late middle ages in order to enforce the king’s policy when unifying territory. this is the primary reason for law codes: consolidation of different groups and territories by producing standard weights and measures of justice (conflict resolution).
9 – Under both Roman Law, Divine Right, and Democracy, legislatures have sought to corrupt common law (tort) into a single ‘non logical’ law. Rather than that tort always remains, and all legislation and regulation must maintain the law of torh (reciprocity).
10 – this was exacerbated by the juridical relativists (american) in the 1800’s particularly in response to the suppression of the south after the civil war, and in the 1900’s by the jewish and ne protestant attempt to undermine the constitution in order to bring about socialism.
11 – Worse, the american constitution would require:
(a) An explicit declaration of reciprocity as the basis of all law.
(b) The inviolability of tort and therefore reciprocity.
(c) The binding of the legislature to tor (contract production not law production.)
(d) The requirement that such law be strictly constructed (justified as adherent to tort, and reciprocity)
(e) That any legislation (contract of the commons) pass the court as lawful (in other words, all legislation is immediately subject to suit)
(f) That the court require legislators revise legislation found faulty, rather than ‘creating’ new legislation from the bench (not law). (Legislation must be returned to the legislature who has only so many days before
(g) That the monarchy (or ‘president’ or ‘nobility’ or ‘people’ or whatever) possess rights of veto over any and all legislation.
So, I think I have pretty thoroughly answered the question of the origination and method and means of correction.
Several years ago, I was discussing how pilpul had transformed rule of law into rule by discretion.
I was having the discussion with a Millennial who has never been to college.
I showed him what the First Amendment actually said, and contrasted the text with the current interpretations.
What he told me then goes right along with what John Mark says about the inability of the Right to conduct a reverse long march though the institutions:
–“Lies mislead you little by little, but the truth slaps you in the face.”–
No, we can’t do a long march to retake the Cultural Heights. But the fact is, we don’t have to.
“[O]ur rise to victory will be much quicker than ours”
I agree.
—“I mention it because it is fresh in my mind. Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent in the Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) case provides an insightful (and savage) analysis of the majority’s replacement of law with pilpul.”—Brad Lehman
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51720081_10156982732532264_3047621897463267328_n_10156982732522264.jpg Matt EvansOne thing that irritates me about jury trials in the USA is that allegedly I am deserving of a jury of “my peers”, but, in practice people try to stack juries with people too dumb to get out of jury duty.
Today in the US, if I am put on trial, I will never find a jury box full of my “peers”. The best I could hope for would be people from my community, but my understanding is that jurors are not allowed to have a personal relatinoship with me, or indeed, even to have experienced the same kind of situation I’d be on trial for.
How are such people peers? How can someone of a vastly different intelligence level [higher or lower], and who has never been in a similar situation to the one that the person charged with a crime found themselves in when committing a crime, truly be an informed juror and a peer?
What kind or jury reform does P suggest?
If “markets in everything” is a good idea, why not juries? Why not have a jury made up of 6 people who know the defendant, 6 people who know the victim, and 1 person who doesn’t know either, and a judicial outcome of a transactional, negotiated nature. Shouldn’t the verdict by the jury try to balance the need to protect victims, the need to protect community trust, and the need to protect the accused, the need to restore the specific victim, the need to have mercy [or not] on the specific accused, and result in a balanced outcome?
P mostly talks about having more judges and them being more important. What about juries?Feb 13, 2019, 1:20 AMCurt Doolittlethe truth is juries have an INCREDIBLE record that should be the envy of every science.Feb 13, 2019, 10:28 AMCurt DoolittleThe only material problem with juries is that people don’t get paid – and they should. We aren’t farmers any longer with planting and harvest and lots of fungible time in between.Feb 13, 2019, 10:29 AMCurt DoolittleOne of the reasons they don’t pay is that they want to maintain a middle class jury pool. and it works pretty well.Feb 13, 2019, 10:29 AMCurt Doolittletoo many government employees tho.Feb 13, 2019, 10:29 AMDrew JoinerProfessional juries, professional judges.Feb 13, 2019, 2:34 PMJoshua SkeensIs it true that those who refuse to convict don’t get called to serve again?Feb 13, 2019, 3:45 PMStephen ThomasCurt Doolittle If you had to “put a number on it”. How close in percentage do you think the Founders “got it”?
10%, 20%, etc?Feb 15, 2019, 4:46 PMCurt Doolittleno system of measurment. It’s easy in retrospect to see how and why they made it as far as they did. But I don’t think it was possible to ‘think’ in the manner we use today at that time.Feb 15, 2019, 6:07 PM
Don’t have one. Market for prosecution of privatization of the commons or socialization of losses under the law solves the problem. Today we are disintermediated by the state in ‘standing’ before the court, in matters of the commons.
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.
—“All forms of governance (as in Aristotle’s definitions) distill down to one thing – obtaining a monopoly on law making i.e. subversion of nomocracy.”—Bill Joslin
—“All forms of governance (as in Aristotle’s definitions) distill down to one thing – obtaining a monopoly on law making i.e. subversion of nomocracy.”—Bill Joslin
