DEFENSE AGAINST DISCRETIONARY RULE?
The only defense against discretionary rule, as always, is the natural law, the economic self interest of the independent cult of the court, the general self interest of the militia, and the naked self interest of the monarchy.
It’s that simple really.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 15:16:00 UTC
USA VS EUROPE
I mean, is it that simple: We are Legal and Europe is Literary? Yep.
USA: Commercial Legal Analytic Deflationary vs. EU: Religious Moral Literary Conflationary.
And so Canada and UK are backsliders, AUS less so, and USA not so.
Europe attacked the churches but evolved into them in the french model.
USA continued the practice of deflation and separated public law from private religion, with the problem being that morals were not left to the regions and localities. Thereby leaving open the door for the restoration of religious rule that occured in europe to occur in the federal governent – which, for an ‘old europe of the americas’ to form required analytic government of commerce.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 12:50:00 UTC
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEANS AND AMERICANS
Ok. Do I have this right, that americans practice the cults of protestantism and constitution, and so our ‘religiosity’ is overstated, while europeans, who practice the cults of secular democratic secular humanism, marxism and christianity are in fact more *superstitious* or *mystical* than americans? Because that is what I think divides the old world and the new world?
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 12:47:00 UTC
THE DECEPTION OF MARXISM VS CAPITALISM
Marxism <> Capitalism was a deception. The question is only Rule of Law <> Discretion. If we have rule of law then we must cooperate. If we cooperate then we will compromise. If we compromise we will have redistribution. The price of redistribution will be one-child-reproduction.
RULE OF LAW <> DISCRETIONARY RULE
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 11:08:00 UTC
if you have rule of law for everyone (defensive governance) but minority rule of the commons, you will get less politicking.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 16:44:00 UTC
THINKING:
Ok. So, attacking and falsifying my own possible desire for unnecessary monopoly, one can create a natural law nomocracy with a minority, majority, or homogenous population.
1) An Aristocratic Minority (a Caste) – Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs
2) A Republican Majority(a Polity) – Add Banking and Industry
3) A Democratic Monopoly (a People) – Add labor and svcs.
Let’s say you take a caste of people, like the spartans, and specialize in rule. If that rule is by natural law, and produces commons for both rulers and ruled, I think that’s a great arrangement. You might call this fascism, but you might actually have a population ‘hire’ you to rule them for their own good.
Let’s say you take a set of aristocratic families and their relations constituting either a sizable minority or a majority, and rule by natural law and produce commons that the nobility and the propertied classes choose to. You might all this oligarchy, but it certainly appears to be the most successful model on earth.
Let’s say you take a whole population set up an hereditary monarchy, a regional nobility, professional administration(private not public) and a market for the commons where all classes have virtual houses that can produce commons through trade.
I mean, you can implement Natural Law (Nomocracy) via Aristocracy, Republic, or Democracy, with minority, majority, totality (homogenous), by starting with a monarchy, adding a senate, adding houses for the classes with levels of enfranchisement depending upon whom you do and do not want to include.
So is that all I need to produce? And, why do we need a homogenous polity? I mean, arguably demand-for-enfranchisement is actually a bad thing?
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 15:44:00 UTC
WHAT IS AMERICA’S RUBICON?
—“What is America’s metaphorical Rubicon?”—Brad Lundgren
by Dmitry Chernov
Constitutional Crisis. Several examples. Jackson defying the Supreme Court to remove the Cherokee. Lincoln arresting the legislators in Maryland to prevent Secession (actually a variety of actions he took.) In theory, Nixon’s firing of Cox – but since Nixon was Pardoned it simply doesn’t matter there. Ditto Lincoln who kept the country together and no one would think of prosecuting realistically, and Jackson who lived in an era well before those kinds of checks were really well-developed and acted decisively in his Executive Authority in spite of High Court squeamish attempts at interference. We’re approaching that again. The question is does Trump fulfill the promise of Trump, or try to make a deal with the deep state?
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 10:26:00 UTC
The only ‘Rights’ you
possess are those that you can enforce.
All else is Privilege.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 16:48:00 UTC
THE EVOLUTIONARY CYCLE OF THE CRITERIA FOR EQUALITY
(priceless)
by Bill Joslin
1) LAW: Equality before the law, formed in the wake of costly rebellion where arbitrary, inconsistent, discretionary application of law bred resentment, encouraged retaliation and ultimately rebellion.
2) OPPORTUNITY: Equality of opportunity – as the welfare state rise and regulation became the staple of the state, upper middle classes pled for the state from interfering in opportunity (via statute and regulation)
3) OUTCOME: Equality of outcome – romantics, upset about a rising gentry aligned themselves with the underclass causes to “shame” the capitalist gentry. Faced with the reality that no one is equal, they pointed at unequal outcomes as an example of hypocrisy and encourages the state to “level the playing Feild”.
Leveling the Feild requires the state to develope special rights for the disadvantaged. This results in arbitrary, inconsistent and discretionary application of law….
Wash rinse repeat.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 18:39:00 UTC
ENDING TRADITIONALIST AND LIBERTINE FALSEHOODS
(the middle class lies)
The source of western civilization is heroism > sovereignty > oath/jury/rule of law > markets in everything.
Upon the development of slavery (agriculture esp) the concept of freedom was developed. and freedom could be earned.
Upon the development of cities, we see a middle class seek the equivalent of sovergitny (liberty) and it evolves in the literature.
Upon the development of christian monarchies, we see the demand for liberty (preservation of local custom and rule).
Upon the rise of the middle classes we see the develoment of liberty (freedom from arbitrary rule)
Upon the rise of marxism we see the development of libertarianism (freedom from involuntary commons production)
This is “True” as far as I know, and does not allow for the conflation of terms.
What a person who is and excuse-maker does, is to try to preserve various frauds and conveniences rather than modify his arguments and language and speech to reflect the most truthful statements possible – thereby preventing further contamination of the informational commons
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:48:00 UTC