http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-democrats-outbreak-of-lawlessness/2013/11/28/3184b6f2-579b-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.htmlTHE END OF THE RULE OF LAW : STUFF NIXON WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE
“The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 09:09:00 UTC
http://blogs.elpais.com/atomium-culture/2013/11/the-power-from-below-understanding-europes-historical-institutional-diversity.htmlTHE IMPORTANCE OF SIMPLE RULES: COMMENSURABILITY=LEGITIMACY
“Our present-day Western society is highly regulated and institutionalized: formal agreements are made at various levels within society to make things run smoothly, from driving a car, to disposing waste, to taking part in local and national elections. Breaching a rule usually carries a sanction.”
**”However, if rules are simply added without attention to the internal coherence of the regulations, contradictory situations may emerge within the regulations and the rules may become ineffective: they may no longer be understood by the stakeholders or they may simply be ignored (leading to freeriding), with sanctions no longer being applied.”**
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 15:29:00 UTC
All the amazing nonsense I’ve been lucky to see in my lifetime.
The only thing I want to see now, is the failure of the EU project, and the dissolution of the united states federal government, and a return of power to the states.
I’ll trust science to accomplish the rest.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 15:05:00 UTC
CALL TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT – CALL TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT
I mean this isnt all college kids. Pudgy, middle-aged, russian faced moms are out in the street. In America we have a class of ‘professional protesters’. And you can’t take them seriously. These people, you take seriously.
When moms get on TV and say that they weren’t ” … against russia, but if the difference is between the euro and russia then we want nothing to do with russia”
#ukraine #euromaidan #kiev
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 12:01:00 UTC
A people must consist as an extended, outbred family. The philosophy (religion) of these people must be fairly homogenous. The men must be armed such that the government must fear the people. The source of freedom is not democracy, it is the militia. Democracy is precisely the opposite of freedom. It is incompatible with freedom. Democracy is a means of enacting free riding and rent seeking.
A people must consist as an extended, outbred family. The philosophy (religion) of these people must be fairly homogenous. The men must be armed such that the government must fear the people. The source of freedom is not democracy, it is the militia. Democracy is precisely the opposite of freedom. It is incompatible with freedom. Democracy is a means of enacting free riding and rent seeking.
MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR LIBERTY
1) A Militia, trained but unregulated.
2) Contract for Private Property (constitution in propertarian language)
3) Independent, Private, Judiciary under Common Law, ratifications proposed once every three years, requiring supermajority, and expiring with the death of the recommending judges.
4) Inbred outbreeding – prohibition on cousin marriage.
5) The right of exclusion (ostracization).
Rothbard was wrong. The market and ‘belief’ are not enough. It’s the militia, and the universal ‘ownership’ of government that are the ONLY demonstrable source of liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 04:23:00 UTC
ANOTHER NAIL IN THE AMERICAN COFFIN
Two centuries of senate supermajority brought to an inglorious end.
A Supermajority doesn’t just empower the opposition, it requires more homogenous policy with broader support.
And it suppresses policy in general, such that you produce less government that is better thought out.
I prefer no government of course. But the less of it and better of it is still an improvement.
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-23 01:21:00 UTC
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667WHAT IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW?
Well, that trigger point is empirically possible to determine, but it is not rationally possible to determine.
Our argument is that these matters of regulation are only determinable by the willingness of an insurer to insure against the action. If it is unprofitable to insure against the action, then it is likely something we should just prohibit. If it is easy to insure against, then it is something we should leave alone.
There is no alternative ratio-empirical means by which a monopoly can make such a determination. We have a very, very bad record of deciding what should and should not be ‘permitted’.
Secondly, the high trust society is predicated on NOT defining laws that limit behavior, in the french and german style (napoleonic law), and instead, in anglo-scandinavian style, anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted (the common law).
These are not philosophical questions. They are empirical questions. And the empirical means of measuring behavior is the willingness and ability to insure against it.
That is, after all, what a government does: it functions as an insurer of last resort. But that the insurer should be the last resort, is very different from whether that insurer of last resort should be a monopoly.
your question, as it is stated, implies that the state, and reason, and monopoly, are superior to private agency, empirical measurement, and demonstrated evidence. Including demonstrated willingness to risk, as demonstrated evidence of the truth of one’s statements.
This is both rationally and empirically a damning criticism of law, state, and and moral philosophy as anti-scientific.
But you know, i’ve been working on this problem for something like forty years and I am not terribly optimistic about convincing a lot of people – especially given the academic preference for anti-rational, anti-scientific. postmodern mysticism. 🙂
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667#comment-308273
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 09:30:00 UTC
ARISTOTLE ON DEMOCRACY VS OLIGARCHY
“…it is thought democratic, for the offices to be assigned by lot, and oligarchic for them to be elected (by vote.)” – Aristotle
There is nothing much good from elected government that would not be better served by selection by lot.
I would much rather trust a random selection of citizens than I would any selection of any politicians.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-20 13:36:00 UTC