OLIGARCHY DOESN”T MATTER. ALL DISCRETIONARY RULE IS BAD. NOMOCRACY: the distributed dictatorship of sovereign warriors.
I don’t think a constitutional oligarchy matters – it might be good. it’s not as good as a constitutional monarchy. The problems are (a) democracy (b) freedom of false speech, (c) ability to circumvent of rule of law of reciprocity due to the frailty of the constitution, (d) the loss of universal standing in matters of the commons (we can’t sue politicians and bureaucrats), (e) we have no mechanism for evolving necessary monopoly bureaucracy into competitive private organizations once institutionalized (habituated). (f) the failure to modernize the fiat money system for direct distribution of liquidity to consumers rather than through credit in the financial system. (g) it has been possible to forcibly ‘convert’ the population from the nuclear family and civic responsibility, and immigrate the underclasses the country was designed to escape from (not to mention the civil rights acts, and the civil war) which caused forced integration).
Theme: Constitutional Order
-
The Next American Revolution
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Because as far as I know no other people are capable of it. -
THE NEXT AMERICAN REVOLUTION The unification of north and south in the declarati
THE NEXT AMERICAN REVOLUTION
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again.
The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Because as far as I know no other people are capable of it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-23 14:46:00 UTC
-
The Next American Revolution
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Because as far as I know no other people are capable of it. -
Either obey the law or leave. It’s not complicated. Why did he fail to obey the
Either obey the law or leave. It’s not complicated. Why did he fail to obey the law? Why are progressives selective about obeying the law and why are conservatives NOT selective about obeying the law?
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 13:30:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955432467892187136
Reply addressees: @washingtonpost
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955430499903856640
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/955430499903856640
-
Ai’s Will Deceive Us Just As Humans Do: By Fictionalisms. Myjob Is The Law That Prevents Such A Thing.
—“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’. My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral. And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech. So you are correct. My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it. And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples. So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉 -
AI’S WILL DECEIVE US JUST AS HUMANS DO: BY FICTIONALISMS. MYJOB IS THE LAW THAT
AI’S WILL DECEIVE US JUST AS HUMANS DO: BY FICTIONALISMS. MYJOB IS THE LAW THAT PREVENTS SUCH A THING.
—“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch
If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’.
My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral.
And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech.
So you are correct.
My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it.
And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples.
So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 09:06:00 UTC
-
Ai’s Will Deceive Us Just As Humans Do: By Fictionalisms. Myjob Is The Law That Prevents Such A Thing.
—“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’. My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral. And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech. So you are correct. My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it. And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples. So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉 -
—-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-
—-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL 1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked). So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin. Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous). So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation. (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting. In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed. 2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
—-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-
—-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—-
TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL
1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked).
So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin.
Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous).
So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation.
(I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting.
In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed.
2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 08:10:00 UTC