by David Rosser Owen “The West” that separates Church and State is basically France and French-style secularism. The USA doesn’t really separate church and state as such, but instead, decided against having an established church so as not to weaken the resolve of the 13 Colonies, in their wish to leave being British, and gain independence. Why? So that the Established Anglican states (e.g. New York, Maryland, Virginia) would not end up fighting Puritan fundamentalists (e.g. Massachusetts, Connecticut) when they should be watching their collective backs. in other words, Americans did not establish a religion because (a) it would have divided the states, and (b) they perceived the state religion of britain as ‘diluted’, which we would today translate as “insufficiently cleansed of catholicism and Popery.” The UK’s secularism (separating Church and State) means here that there are no Churchmen holding senior offices of the secular state as churchmen – the last bishop as Lord Chancellor was in the 1600s. But it doesn’t mean that the Common Law doesn’t derive from Natural Law (i.e. Divinely inspired Law, as the books by people like Hooker, Feilding, or Hearnshaw state).
Theme: Constitutional Order
-
French, British, and American Separations of Church and State
by David Rosser Owen “The West” that separates Church and State is basically France and French-style secularism. The USA doesn’t really separate church and state as such, but instead, decided against having an established church so as not to weaken the resolve of the 13 Colonies, in their wish to leave being British, and gain independence. Why? So that the Established Anglican states (e.g. New York, Maryland, Virginia) would not end up fighting Puritan fundamentalists (e.g. Massachusetts, Connecticut) when they should be watching their collective backs. in other words, Americans did not establish a religion because (a) it would have divided the states, and (b) they perceived the state religion of britain as ‘diluted’, which we would today translate as “insufficiently cleansed of catholicism and Popery.” The UK’s secularism (separating Church and State) means here that there are no Churchmen holding senior offices of the secular state as churchmen – the last bishop as Lord Chancellor was in the 1600s. But it doesn’t mean that the Common Law doesn’t derive from Natural Law (i.e. Divinely inspired Law, as the books by people like Hooker, Feilding, or Hearnshaw state).
-
FRENCH, BRITISH, AND AMERICAN SEPARATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE by David Rosser Ow
FRENCH, BRITISH, AND AMERICAN SEPARATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE
by David Rosser Owen
“The West” that separates Church and State is basically France and French-style secularism.
The USA doesn’t really separate church and state as such, but instead, decided against having an established church so as not to weaken the resolve of the 13 Colonies, in their wish to leave being British, and gain independence.
Why? So that the Established Anglican states (e.g. New York, Maryland, Virginia) would not end up fighting Puritan fundamentalists (e.g. Massachusetts, Connecticut) when they should be watching their collective backs.
in other words, Americans did not establish a religion because (a) it would have divided the states, and (b) they perceived the state religion of britain as ‘diluted’, which we would today translate as “insufficiently cleansed of catholicism and Popery.”
The UK’s secularism (separating Church and State) means here that there are no Churchmen holding senior offices of the secular state as churchmen – the last bishop as Lord Chancellor was in the 1600s.
But it doesn’t mean that the Common Law doesn’t derive from Natural Law (i.e. Divinely inspired Law, as the books by people like Hooker, Feilding, or Hearnshaw state).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 12:08:00 UTC
-
WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION Natural law preda
WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION
Natural law predates all western states, and is merely the law of tort (reciprocity for the prevention of retaliation cycles), which is merely traditional european customary law back into the pre-govermental (tribal) period. Natural law is the label and justification for traditional (northern) european customary law. It was the greeks who started and zeno in particular who gave the romans, the explanation that traditional customary law of individual sovereignty and reciprocity (and tripartism), was in fact ‘natural’ ( living according to the laws of nature), and the church’s contribution was to state it was necessary for peaceful cooperation among peoples as a means of demanding the state – particularly once the spanish started slaughtering primitives in the new world.
Western civ like all civs is a product of our law, and our law like all civs originated in our military orders and was codified during the period of the great transformations.
Theologians, priests, monks, and the church like philosophers, public intellectuals, professors, and the academy, and like propagandists, politicians, bureaucrats and the state, take credit for and develop names for, those things which they justify but do not cause or created or even practice.
Meanwhile the law, the economy, the trades, and families leave daily records of the purely empirical.
We are almost always just the product of our laws, and everything else is propaganda.
Hence the importance of law, and in particular the law of sovereign men, and that is the law of tort: the resolution of conflict and the prevention of retaliation cycles by the demand for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon third parties (externalities).
It just so happens that once you choose sovereignty and the law of tort you are forced to produce markets, and in doing so adapt faster to changes than all other civilizations combined.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 08:41:00 UTC
-
No Political Parties, or Politicians
There is no value in a political party under rule of law since there are no political parties. There are no political parties because there are no politicians. There are no politicians because there is nothing for politicians to do. Either return to monarchical decision making. Or direct equi-distributive economic voting. Or direct proportional economic voting. All of which are bound by the limits of the natural law of reciprocity. Ergo, king is bound by contract, and voters cannot but vote for contracts. And only judges discover and make laws. There is no need for politicians when the only purpose of politicians was to solve the problem of distance from one another. This problem no longer exists. Quite contrary to every presumption I had going in, the constitutional monarchies were far better at governing than democracies. I don’t care which model, but representative democracy is the worse possible model.
-
No Political Parties, or Politicians
There is no value in a political party under rule of law since there are no political parties. There are no political parties because there are no politicians. There are no politicians because there is nothing for politicians to do. Either return to monarchical decision making. Or direct equi-distributive economic voting. Or direct proportional economic voting. All of which are bound by the limits of the natural law of reciprocity. Ergo, king is bound by contract, and voters cannot but vote for contracts. And only judges discover and make laws. There is no need for politicians when the only purpose of politicians was to solve the problem of distance from one another. This problem no longer exists. Quite contrary to every presumption I had going in, the constitutional monarchies were far better at governing than democracies. I don’t care which model, but representative democracy is the worse possible model.
-
Only the british old parliamentary system (houses were large juries accepting or
Only the british old parliamentary system (houses were large juries accepting or rejecting proposals put forth by the monarchy/administration ) produced a market for commons between the classes. Had additional lower houses been added classical liberalism wouldnt have been needed.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:21:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993148747940016128
Reply addressees: @AjArrival @TheAustrian_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433
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/993147003612946433
-
NOMOCRACY = Rule of Law , Must = Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity. Howe
NOMOCRACY = Rule of Law , Must = Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity. However, markets for comons must exist, because commons must exist for a polity to survive competition in the market for territory.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:19:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993148360960995329
Reply addressees: @AjArrival @TheAustrian_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433
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/993147003612946433
-
NO POLITICAL PARTIES, OR POLITICIANS. There is no value in a political party und
NO POLITICAL PARTIES, OR POLITICIANS.
There is no value in a political party under rule of law since there are no political parties.
There are no political parties because there are no politicians.
There are no politicians because there is nothing for politicians to do.
Either return to monarchical decision making.
Or direct equi-distributive economic voting.
Or direct proportional economic voting.
All of which are bound by the limits of the natural law of reciprocity.
Ergo, king is bound by contract, and voters cannot but vote for contracts.
And only judges discover and make laws.
There is no need for politicians when the only purpose of politicians was to solve the problem of distance from one another. This problem no longer exists.
Quite contrary to every presumption I had going in, the constitutional monarchies were far better at governing than democracies.
I don’t care which model, but representative democracy is the worse possible model.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 10:03:00 UTC
-
We Win Either Way
You don’t understand. The reason to spend so much time on the philosophy, the law, the new constitution, its applications, the arguments, training others to conduct those arguments, is to prevent them from lying about our intentions and demands. There is nothing more profoundly moral than voluntary reciprocity. And if they use force to suppress it they invalidate their entire justification for governing. We’re going to win. We win either way. They will acquiesce or there will be nothing left to govern. Because all sides are armed, and committed.