Theme: Governance

  • Government Under P-Law

    —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my strong belief in Republicanism. Am I correct?”— Robert

    You can create any form of government with P-law you just have to state it truthfully and reciprocally in a constitution. A republican government refers to elected representatives. But that is all. It doesn’t tell us who does the electing. And it doesn’t state the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of republican governments. But the limit of any democratic government is homogeneity and scale. To create prosperity we incrementally add to the division of labor. As the division of labor increases the division of political interest diverges. The homogeneity of the people limits the conflict between those interests and the heterogeneity of the people increases the heterogeneity of those interests. So heterogeneity breaks down democratic processes and generates demand for authority instead. When the democratic process fails, people resort to political activism outside of the government as we see today at the cost of truth, reciprocity, harmony and the civil society creating the chaos we see today. We are too tolerant of competitors to rule of law (false promise, baiting into hazard), homogeneity, and markets in everything, including markets in political representatives as proxies for markets for political policy. We should be ruthlessly intolerant of those competitors. The general presumption was that we would elect people who were demonstrably capable in the making of policy (the senate as the professionals) and people who were capable in limiting the popular acceptability of policy (house of representatives as the jury) together continuing the adversarialism of our ancestral argument before the jury – but the house was given too much power, and changing the constitution creating the popular election of senators destroyed the professionalism of the senate, and gave via positiva power to the jury (house). The optimum form of representative government is rule of law of natural law, constitutional monarchy as judge of last resort (veto, nullification, dismissal power), a cabinet of professional executives (appointed by the senate vetoed by the monarchy), and houses of parliament including one for regions, one for business and industry, and either one family under one household one vote, or two houses separated into labor and mothers, if under one person one vote. The constitution fully enumerates rights and obligations, and requires strict construction of legislation and regulation, and that the court does not veto the legislation and regulation, and that the monarchy does not veto the legislation and regulation. In P-Law we correctly label legislation as ‘contracts of the commons’. There is only one law, and and the findings of the law under that law. The alternative optimum form of government would eliminate the representatives and therefore the power of political parties and special interests, and provide the people with collective(propositional) and transactional (line item) veto. This is the optimum form of government and is now possible due to technology. This would eliminate the house of representatives, and limit the senate to representatives of the governors of the several states OR, use the governors of the several states as the senators. The constitution and the law provide a sliding scale of authority from the senate (republic-production) in ordinary times, the monarchy in times of war(concentration), and the houses or people in times of windfalls (redistribution) which is a minor improvement on the roman model. This entire system is predicated upon a universal militia, a constitution of natural law that they swear to defend, and an independent judiciary sufficiently self-auditing, and sufficiently fearful of the militia that the court can adjudicate disputes under the law.

  • Define how You Use the Term Socialism.

      Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine.

  • Define how You Use the Term Socialism.

      Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine.

  • THE STATE AS A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE IS EVIDENTLY FALSE The westphalian peace res

    THE STATE AS A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE IS EVIDENTLY FALSE

    The westphalian peace resulted in the demand between states that the state maintain a monopoly on violence. The muslims do the opposite and ended the westphalian peace.

    The state cannot in fact and never has had, a monopoly on violence. It still doesn’t. It just tries. What defines a state is not it’s monopoly on violence but it’s capacity to produce the incentives that produce order with violence among those incentives.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 13:58:00 UTC

  • DISAMBIGUATION OF GOVERNMENT (BANKRUPTCY) 1. Military > State > Government > Com

    DISAMBIGUATION OF GOVERNMENT (BANKRUPTCY)

    1. Military > State > Government > Commons > institutions-organization

    2. Rule of Law > Law > Courts > Contracts > Biz-trade

    3. Strategy+Tradition > Religion+Education+Academy+Media > Families/Consumers > People-consumption

    State (corporation holding assets)

    1. Federal State -> Federal Government

    2. … Regional State -> Regional Government

    3. … … Territorial: County Corporation -> County Government

    4. … … Market: Local Corporation -> Local Government

    If a state declares bankruptcy the creditors get screwed all or partly. The state has demonstrated incompetence in the management of state affairs, and then the creditors will seek higher interest rates in the future, and after a cycle or two governments ‘learn’ partly because they have evidence of the consequences after bankruptcy and no evidence prior to bankruptcy – just as we now have evidence of immigration, diversity, monetary policy, and democracy – evidence of failure seems to be necessary to prevent repetition of human hubris.

    The state as a monopoly on violence is evidently false because it was a construct of the westphalian peace. At present it’s falsified, just as it was prior to the westphalian peace. In other words it was always false.

    The state is a corporation. The institutions organize the use of assets. The owners of that corporation consist of a small number of people willing to use sufficient violence to prevent alternative organizations of institutions and assets. The people who govern may or may not constitute sufficient violence to do so.

    Usually they don’t. In china they do. In russia they do. Because the fear of chaos in those countries is the opposite of the love of opportunity in NE European civilizations. – something the rest of the world cannot comprehend – because they never developed trust or commons … as we did.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 12:07:00 UTC

  • If we restore strict construction, universal standing in matters of the commons

    If we restore strict construction, universal standing in matters of the commons we will produce class actions in court that make irreciprocal political sector actors pay, and further constrain corporations of scale. Loser pays will prevent abuses. etc. …


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 21:00:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253066090877521925

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253065501489672193


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @judicialist The problem arose during the industrial revolution when our right to defend the commons in court(our ‘standing’) was revoked by the state – we were disintermediated from defense of the commons.This created opportunity for political corruption in our otherwise adaptive common law.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253065501489672193

  • We do what we were born to do. Conquer. Reform. Rule. Govern. Prosper

    We do what we were born to do.
    Conquer. Reform. Rule. Govern. Prosper.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 20:51:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253063975643811843

    Reply addressees: @Fight4TheWest

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253062381237702657

  • Well i suspect they’d be the size of german pre-unification states as was the hi

    Well i suspect they’d be the size of german pre-unification states as was the historical european optimum, but yes.

    There are only three values to scale: trade negotiation, borrowing capacity, and military power. Federation of the military solves it. USA/EU did it wrong.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 20:42:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253061674799706112

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253058955296870400

  • Well, you know, that’s the whole thing right? The military creates oppy for the

    Well, you know, that’s the whole thing right? The military creates oppy for the state (rule). The government creates a market for market-violation, along with its market for commons. The problem is – can we create a sufficient market for the suppression of market violations?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 20:40:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253061224532709376

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253059214248947713

  • Do governments overspend? Did hard money, the gold standard, fiat currency, make

    Do governments overspend? Did hard money, the gold standard, fiat currency, make any difference?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 19:36:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253045079566176256

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253044890214240256


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @judicialist You see, this is Mises/Rothbard’s attempt to retain the rent seeking of the jewish diaspora on host governments and people when it’s unnecessary. Especially once fiat money is either paper or digital (shares in the economy).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253044890214240256