The American constitution created a system wherein the natural aristocracy could not be DISEMPOWERED by other classes, but where none of the natural aristocracy could obtain SUFFICIENT power to deprive other members of it. Ergo, the American model could not sustain expansion of the franchise.
Theme: Constitutional Order
-
The Constitution Could Not Survive Expansion of the Franchise
The American constitution created a system wherein the natural aristocracy could not be DISEMPOWERED by other classes, but where none of the natural aristocracy could obtain SUFFICIENT power to deprive other members of it. Ergo, the American model could not sustain expansion of the franchise.
-
A Nation? Nationalism? Vs Statism?
A State, and bureaucracy, provide fertile ground for parasitism, for the sole reason that a majority of men do not demand Rule of Law, under Natural Law, using Judge Discovered Law, and accumulating in the Common Law. A nation is quite good at preventing alternative ‘tax farms’, brought into being by conquest using war, religion, immigration, trade. And arguably, as an extension of the tribe, the nation is best at it. Those that could not form sedentary societies were destroyed by those that could. Since a sedentary society is productive, not parasitic. Jews, Gypsies, underclass immigration, and we ‘migratory occidental craftsmen’, vary in value from catastrophically harmful, to a net loss, to of some limited economic value by providing expertise – we are a questionable exception, not a definite rule. All of us live under the political orders that survive competition, not those we choose to have were that competition were absent. Man was not in the past, nor is he today, good. He is rational. He chooses predation when it is rational, parasitism when rational, production when it is rational, and trade when it is rational. We create institutions to deny him the rational choice of predation or parasitism, and thereby force all people into either production or trade. From that thing we call ‘rule’, by rule of law, we can possibly eliminate all discretion but judicial discretion, and judicial discretion only within the limits of that law. But in no case can we eliminate organized production of commons and survive competition. The west advanced faster than the rest, because we created the most difficult commons for any people to produce: truth, property, jury, and natural, common, judge-discovered law. In other words: social science. It’s our invention of social science, (law) that we applied to other fields. And that law is insured, and enforced, by the organized application of violence by ‘the peers’ – those men who demand rule of law. Those who cannot pay for war, cannot as a consequence, pay for staving off war by others. Wishing for liberty does not make liberty so. Violence alone does. We fight for liberty under natural law, judge-discovered common law, with universal standing and rule of law (universal application), or we shall not have it. For we will fail to rais the price of rule to some other means of decidability, organization of property. And our only sincere permanent allies in such a long term war are our kin. Ergo. Nationalism: kin under natural law, with a market for reproduction, a market for production and consumption, and a market for commons. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
A Nation? Nationalism? Vs Statism?
A State, and bureaucracy, provide fertile ground for parasitism, for the sole reason that a majority of men do not demand Rule of Law, under Natural Law, using Judge Discovered Law, and accumulating in the Common Law. A nation is quite good at preventing alternative ‘tax farms’, brought into being by conquest using war, religion, immigration, trade. And arguably, as an extension of the tribe, the nation is best at it. Those that could not form sedentary societies were destroyed by those that could. Since a sedentary society is productive, not parasitic. Jews, Gypsies, underclass immigration, and we ‘migratory occidental craftsmen’, vary in value from catastrophically harmful, to a net loss, to of some limited economic value by providing expertise – we are a questionable exception, not a definite rule. All of us live under the political orders that survive competition, not those we choose to have were that competition were absent. Man was not in the past, nor is he today, good. He is rational. He chooses predation when it is rational, parasitism when rational, production when it is rational, and trade when it is rational. We create institutions to deny him the rational choice of predation or parasitism, and thereby force all people into either production or trade. From that thing we call ‘rule’, by rule of law, we can possibly eliminate all discretion but judicial discretion, and judicial discretion only within the limits of that law. But in no case can we eliminate organized production of commons and survive competition. The west advanced faster than the rest, because we created the most difficult commons for any people to produce: truth, property, jury, and natural, common, judge-discovered law. In other words: social science. It’s our invention of social science, (law) that we applied to other fields. And that law is insured, and enforced, by the organized application of violence by ‘the peers’ – those men who demand rule of law. Those who cannot pay for war, cannot as a consequence, pay for staving off war by others. Wishing for liberty does not make liberty so. Violence alone does. We fight for liberty under natural law, judge-discovered common law, with universal standing and rule of law (universal application), or we shall not have it. For we will fail to rais the price of rule to some other means of decidability, organization of property. And our only sincere permanent allies in such a long term war are our kin. Ergo. Nationalism: kin under natural law, with a market for reproduction, a market for production and consumption, and a market for commons. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Positive Philosophy And Negative Law
Aug 25, 2016 2:46pm If you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science). Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule. We attempt to advocate and inform, and prohibit and prosecute. As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism> And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so. Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Positive Philosophy And Negative Law
Aug 25, 2016 2:46pm If you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science). Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule. We attempt to advocate and inform, and prohibit and prosecute. As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism> And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so. Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The only way to win is not to play the game. The only way to rule justly is to e
The only way to win is not to play the game. The only way to rule justly is to eliminate discretionary rule: Rule of Law: Nomocracy.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 05:47:00 UTC
-
The only way to win is not to play the game. The only way to rule justly is to e
The only way to win is not to play the game. The only way to rule justly is to eliminate the discretionary rule: Rule of Law: Nomocracy.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 05:45:00 UTC
-
to circumvent a public normative contract is not a hangable offense, but it is c
https://propertarianism.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/is-bigamy-a-hangable-offense/Conspiracy to circumvent a public normative contract is not a hangable offense, but it is certainly cause to invoke voluntary disassociation and your removal from the polity.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 02:04:00 UTC
-
There Is No Reason To Tolerate Burgher (Bourgeoise) Interference in Political Orders
Let’s compare Soros’ activism, with PPPP’s activism against Gawker. The courts can be, if we repair the constitution, a method by which the wealthy can police what the politicians choose not to. This is a good. We have juridical defense in these cases. But why can we not sue Soros for corruption by circumventing the courts, where we have juridical defense? The moment we let the state determine law rahter than terms of contract we surrender to state corruption, and the corruptibility of the state. So far, in the west, we have, at least until the past few generations, been able to preserve the rule of law as sacred natural order beyond which no man may transgress. This is our defense. Not politicians. They are corrupt to the last – because they must be.