When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.
Theme: Constitutional Order
-
Natural Law Means A Simple Law.
When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.
-
(Saving in progress) 1) —“Hello Curt! Briefly, and simply, would you tell me t
(Saving in progress)
1) —“Hello Curt! Briefly, and simply, would you tell me the difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy?”—
CURT:
Great question.
A Dictator is not bound by rule of law. He exercises discretionary rule.
A Monarch in the european sense, is bound by rule of law, and exercises discretion only within the bounds of rule of law.
Most cultures other than china limit rulers to some sort of traditional boundaries or religious boundaries. But only christian monarchies were semi-bounded by whatever natural law the church and tradition were able to limit them with. Anglo saxons were quite good at limiting the power of the monarchy, and that is the tradition that carries with us.
2) —“Regarding how aristocratic families earn their status, a King is nominated to lead? He is lifted up to the top of a society rather than oppressing the people?”—
CURT:
For most of european history, kings were elected. The reason they adopted inheritance was to end succession conflicts. But the consequence was the extension of time preference and the increased production of competitive commons.
3) —“Things we’re more stable that way I guess. I suppose even with a “bad” King, the people could more or less go about their business
Why are modern royalty so impotent? I was raised on Queen Elizabeth and all things British (plus James Bond ). Where are they now when we could use some Leadership?”—
CURT:
(Great questions. I’m going to answer this in the main thread so that everyone benefits. I’m doing some other things right now so it might take some time. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 11:19:00 UTC
-
When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the co
When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 10:16:00 UTC
-
Jefferson misunderstood. It is not the method of governance that matters so much
Jefferson misunderstood.
It is not the method of governance that matters so much as rule of law that constrains the action of all – governing and governed alike.
He justified majoritarianism, possible only under homogenity, yet enfranchised all hoping that the church would create the homogenaity.
But the ‘priesthood’ that ‘kept the faith’ of western civilization in prehistory, and in the ancient, medieval, and modern periods, has been the judiciary. The church was just another house of government.
The question we must solve is quite simple: how to preserve the independence, scholarship, and exclusivity of the judiciary, as the final arbiter of disputes over property-in-toto.
The truth is that self interest alone is what drives these people. And self defense of their status is enough, so long as the militia stands, and the miitary indocrtinates.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 09:09:00 UTC
-
RULE BY OUR BETTERS IS PREFERABLE I don’t fear rule by my betters as long as the
RULE BY OUR BETTERS IS PREFERABLE
I don’t fear rule by my betters as long as they are limited by rule of law under natural law, with universal application and universal standing. Because under rule of law the only possible way that they have to act is in my, and, our benefit. Conversely I detest being ruled by my inferiors without rule of law under natural law, with universal application and universal standing. Democracy guarantees that by sheer numbers my inferiors rule.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 14:42:00 UTC
-
Q&A: —“Hello Curt! Briefly, and simply, would you tell me the difference betwe
Q&A: —“Hello Curt! Briefly, and simply, would you tell me the difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy?”—
Great question.
A Dictator is not bound by rule of law. He exercises discretionary rule.
A Monarch in the european sense, is bound by rule of law, and exercises discretion only within the bounds of rule of law.
Most cultures other than china limit rulers to some sort of traditional boundaries or religious boundaries. But only christian monarchies were semi-bounded by whatever natural law the church and tradition were able to limit them with.
Anglo saxons were quite good at limiting the power of the monarchy, and that is the tradition that carries with us.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 16:05:00 UTC
-
It’s not that the best must rule, it’s that the worst must not.
Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make false; and proofs tell us what is not false but not what is true; and the law tells us now what we must do, but only what we must not do; and evolution tells us only what fails, not what succeeds, it is not important that the best people lead, as much as it is important that the worst do not. For this reason we must limit access to power to those least likely to lead poorly. How do we know? Demonstrated character in familial, entrepreneurial, political, and military excellence over multiple generations. And the elimination of consideration of those who fail the test of character in familial, entrepreneurial, and military excellence across multiple generations.
Nobility is most frequently demonstrated by intergenerational excellence. For those who cannot master their passions enough for good breeding, good rearing, good production, and good defense, have demonstrated by their actions that they and their families are unsuitable for leadership. Note that survival from the opinions of others in schooling, academy, politics and church, tell us nothing about an individual other than his ability remember and to obey, while engaging in various forms of politicking and deceit. Only family, commercial, and military experience tell us about the capacity of an individual to lead. -
It’s not that the best must rule, it’s that the worst must not.
Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make false; and proofs tell us what is not false but not what is true; and the law tells us now what we must do, but only what we must not do; and evolution tells us only what fails, not what succeeds, it is not important that the best people lead, as much as it is important that the worst do not. For this reason we must limit access to power to those least likely to lead poorly. How do we know? Demonstrated character in familial, entrepreneurial, political, and military excellence over multiple generations. And the elimination of consideration of those who fail the test of character in familial, entrepreneurial, and military excellence across multiple generations.
Nobility is most frequently demonstrated by intergenerational excellence. For those who cannot master their passions enough for good breeding, good rearing, good production, and good defense, have demonstrated by their actions that they and their families are unsuitable for leadership. Note that survival from the opinions of others in schooling, academy, politics and church, tell us nothing about an individual other than his ability remember and to obey, while engaging in various forms of politicking and deceit. Only family, commercial, and military experience tell us about the capacity of an individual to lead. -
Democracy’s Monopoly Commons vs Rule of Law’s Market Commons
The value of democracy in the selection of commons decreases with the size of the population voting. Why? because the size of the population increases the diversity of interests. And because democracy allows us only to choose between priorities from within common interest – it’s a monopolistic means of choosing which commons to produce. So when we increase in scale, we require markets to conduct exchanges between different common interests, not monopolies, to ignore our uncommon interests.