Theme: Constitutional Order

  • THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT NECESSARY AND WHY (important concepts) The form of govern

    THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT NECESSARY AND WHY

    (important concepts)

    The form of government *necessary* for a people depends upon their demographic distribution, homogeneity, and the size of the middle class, because the middle class generates demand for rule of law, and the state generates demand for income from the wealth the middle class generates. So in the competition between rule of law and rule by man, demand is driven by conditions.

    THis market is created by the competition for profits by the middle classes and their employees vs rents by the state and their dependents, with the principle difference being that the state can more easily concentrate startup capital and market advantage for heavy capital industries at the cost of corruption – and while the private sector cannot so easily produce the capital and market advantage through trade policy, the private sector can better utilize that capital and suppress state corruption since market competition suppresses rents.

    For historical reasons (geography, militia order, and ‘competitive’ bipartite manorialism), the west evolved cross-family corporations rather than intra-family clans, and as such superior trust, superior ability to produce commons because of it, and as such superior ability to generate large scale private sector organizations with greater innovation and returns on capital.

    Just as social orders became anchored (religion) during the age of transformation (the restoration after the bronze age collapse) societies became anchored during the industrial transformation after the Abrahamic Collapse (judaism,christianity,islam: the semitic – turkic invasion).

    Fukuyama attributed the success of european bureaucracy to its development prior to democracy. Because, despite his stated positions, his analysis favors the sino tradition of monolithic bureaucracy.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 10:19:00 UTC

  • CONTINENTALISM, NATIONALISM, STATE CAPITALISM. One world government, monopoly, a

    CONTINENTALISM, NATIONALISM, STATE CAPITALISM.

    One world government, monopoly, authoritarian communism vs continentalism, nationalism, state capitalism. Why is that a difficult choice, versus empires or one-empire of world government?

    India for Indians, Europa-America-Australia for Europeans, “Semitica” for Semites, Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, South America for South Americans and Amerindians, Pacifica for Pacificans.

    Why this arrangement under many nation states is other than optimum is extremely difficult to understand.

    We could all build walls and be at peace with one another. Good fences and good walls make good neighbors.

    There is no ‘human right’ to access the civilization of European people. Our ancestors worked very hard to eliminate the ‘familialism and tribalism’ of the other civilizations. Only the Europeans (Atlantic-Germanic-Slavs), and the East Asians Han-Korean-Japanese) have achieved it. And only the hindus have produced as ‘kind’ a social order despite the burden of their demographics. The chinese have chip on their shoulder due to the century of embarrassment. The africans need nothing but time and defense against the horrors of islam. and all of us need defense against the horrors of Semitica – expansionary islamism. Only the west is ‘naive’ and trusting (Foolish) enough not to defend herself from conquest.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 09:24:00 UTC

  • CLOSE 10) This is indifferent from the debate over ‘creativity in legal interpre

    CLOSE 10) This is indifferent from the debate over ‘creativity in legal interpretation’ in the supreme court, versus the law says only what it obviously says in the context it was written for the purpose it was written: One Shall Not (in the jewish tradition) attempt To FIT Data.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:26:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055571308493324290

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @MrKennan1948 @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN The language is very familiar to me. What confuses me is the fact that it’s completely detached from any of my criticisms on the topic.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968

  • Continuing: –“..respect [for] western classics…”–. Does not include the prop

    Continuing: –“..respect [for] western classics…”–. Does not include the proposition (that Hicks or I would state) that this technique (Pilpul) is what separates anglo law, philosophy, and science, from platonism and continental ‘literary philosophy’ which rebelled against it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:04:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055565826785468416

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @MrKennan1948 @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN The language is very familiar to me. What confuses me is the fact that it’s completely detached from any of my criticisms on the topic.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968

  • Flipping blue just means ending the American Experiment in the “Third Way” the f

    Flipping blue just means ending the American Experiment in the “Third Way” the founders (rights of anglo saxons) imagined: A middle class civilization, free of the authoritarian state (upper class) and the authoritarian church (underclass)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 17:53:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055517787970527232

    Reply addressees: @VoiceofIgnatius @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055516560503328770


    IN REPLY TO:

    @VoiceofIgnatius

    @curtdoolittle @sapinker They’re not arguing for a more informed or more motivated electorate. Their project is to “flip congress blue”. It’s purely partisan. They’re aware that the majority of people too lazy or out of the loop to know how to vote are on their side, and they’re correctly targeting them.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055516560503328770

  • 20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Nat

    20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Natural Law of Tort, An Independent Judiciary (Nomocracy), and the only option remaining under all of the above: Markets for voluntary cooperation in all aspects of life.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:44:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055455045276352513

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • Well, the purpose of Propertarian Constitution is to not only to eliminate false

    Well, the purpose of Propertarian Constitution is to not only to eliminate falsehood and immorality in public speech, but to de-financialize the economy, and de-politicize the population, so that we return to the production of eugenic norms rather than dysgenic institutional enforcement in opposition to those norms. The opposition does not want that of course. They want Power of Dysgenia.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 12:33:00 UTC

  • THE VIA NEGATIVA OF LAW (AND THE METHOD IN GENERAL) —“Curt: By stating it’s la

    THE VIA NEGATIVA OF LAW (AND THE METHOD IN GENERAL)

    —“Curt: By stating it’s law that made western virtues, are you not only offering half of the story here? “—

    —“…If I see someone being raped,

    but do nothing to help….”—

    Then by law, “You failed to remove the bad”.

    Incremental Suppression: the discovery and canonization of ‘bads’ (violations of reciprocity) by use of the one law of reciprocity (tort), the jury, and an independent professional judiciary, provides the most rapid means possible of continuous incremental suppressions of free riding, parasitism, and predation

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity: the demand for Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests (property), Free of Imposition of Costs upon the Demonstrated Interests (property) of others by externality.

    —“..confusion..”—

    Remove the bad: Every man a warrior, sheriff, juror, legislator of the one natural law of reciprocity.

    —“You’re conflating “good””—

    Anything that is not bad is good. Bads can be known. The preferential, the good (reciprocal preferential), are preferences. Whether they are preference or good is an opinion. Whether they are ‘bad’ and a violation of reciprocity is not an opinion. It is a fact (by Logical Necessity).

    —“Sacrifices”–

    No animal, including humans, demonstrates altruism, only kin selection, option buying, status acquisition (opportunity gain and discount), and reciprocity (debt) payment against status loss (and therefore opportunity loss). We cast this self interest as virtuous in order to acquire more of such behavior by grant of status to heroic display.

    —“…being good…”—

    Man is, by all evidence, amoral – preying upon or cooperating with as suits his self interest. Given a long time frame, it is in one’s self interest to cooperate because of the outsized returns on cooperation versus predation and boycott. One is ‘virtuous’ because all ‘virtues’ decrease the opportunity costs of cooperation and provide discounts on those higher returns. The fact that we attribute status (pay for with opportunity discounts [trust, recommendation, referrals], is merely compensation (investment) in the production of reciprocity by those with most evidence of it.

    |WESTERN CIVILIZATION| Transcendence (Evolutionary Velocity) via Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The judiciary of the natural law, and the consequential markets in everything. Where there the militia constitutions a private partnership and there is no state to perform the function of insurer of last resort, every man demonstrate reciprocity by performing the function of insurer of last resort.

    QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 10:10:00 UTC

  • Origins of Militia Obligation

    October 23rd, 2018 3:27 PM ORIGINS OF MILITIA OBLIGATIONThe origins of military obligation in England and can be traced to the ‘common burdens’ of the Anglo-Saxon period, among which was service in the fyrd, or army. [T]here is evidence that such an obligation existed in the Kingdom of Kent by the end of the 7th century, Mercia in the 8th century and Wessex in the 9th century, and the Burghal Hidage of 911–919 indicates that over 27,000 men could have been raised in the defence of 30 West Saxon boroughs. In the late 10th century, areas began to be divided into ‘hundreds’ as units for the fyrd. The obligation to serve was placed on landholders, and the Domesday Book indicates that individuals were expected to serve for approximately 60 days. The Norman conquest of England in 1066 brought with it a feudal system which also contained an element of military obligation in the form of the feudal host. This system supplemented rather than replaced the fyrd, which continued to be deployed until at least the beginning of the 12th century. The Assize of Arms of 1181 combined the two systems by dividing the free population into four categories according to wealth and prescribing the weapons each was to maintain. The first category corresponded to the feudal host, the next two corresponded to the old fyrd and the last to a general levy. The Statute of Winchester in 1285 introduced two more non-feudal categories to impose a general military obligation on all able-bodied males, including non-free, between the ages of 15 and 60, and updated the prescribed weaponry in the light of developments in warfare at the time.[2][3] Because it was not practical to call out every man, King Edward I introduced a system whereby local gentry were authorised to conduct commissions of array to select those who would actually be called for military service

  • Origins of Militia Obligation

    October 23rd, 2018 3:27 PM ORIGINS OF MILITIA OBLIGATIONThe origins of military obligation in England and can be traced to the ‘common burdens’ of the Anglo-Saxon period, among which was service in the fyrd, or army. [T]here is evidence that such an obligation existed in the Kingdom of Kent by the end of the 7th century, Mercia in the 8th century and Wessex in the 9th century, and the Burghal Hidage of 911–919 indicates that over 27,000 men could have been raised in the defence of 30 West Saxon boroughs. In the late 10th century, areas began to be divided into ‘hundreds’ as units for the fyrd. The obligation to serve was placed on landholders, and the Domesday Book indicates that individuals were expected to serve for approximately 60 days. The Norman conquest of England in 1066 brought with it a feudal system which also contained an element of military obligation in the form of the feudal host. This system supplemented rather than replaced the fyrd, which continued to be deployed until at least the beginning of the 12th century. The Assize of Arms of 1181 combined the two systems by dividing the free population into four categories according to wealth and prescribing the weapons each was to maintain. The first category corresponded to the feudal host, the next two corresponded to the old fyrd and the last to a general levy. The Statute of Winchester in 1285 introduced two more non-feudal categories to impose a general military obligation on all able-bodied males, including non-free, between the ages of 15 and 60, and updated the prescribed weaponry in the light of developments in warfare at the time.[2][3] Because it was not practical to call out every man, King Edward I introduced a system whereby local gentry were authorised to conduct commissions of array to select those who would actually be called for military service