Theme: Governance

QUESTIONS ON THE PROPERTARIAN-CONSTITUTION

—“I wasn’t sure where to ask these questions. If it’s easier to just give me a link to read answers, then please do.

1) Who does get to vote?

2) Do we retain a representative republic? If not, what replaces it?”— A Friend

To answer those questions clearly I have to make a couple of statements in advance – otherwise it’s too likely you’ll spin on assumptions no matter what I say.

1) The reason we have so much conflict in government is that the left was successful in reframing (as they always do) rule OF law that limited the government to a narrow range of permissible actions, as rule BY law, where whatever the government can agree to by majority is permissible. As such the citizenry (YOU) are always asking the wrong questions and proposing the wrong solutions. Instead, if we restore rule OF law, and we produce a sufficiently scientific and logical body of law, then it doesn’t matter what government you put in place – they can only do what they do truthfully and reciprocally. And if you restore our rights to sue *anyone* for *anything* as long as loser pays – then we have recreated markets for goods and services (economy), markets for commons (government) and markets for punishment of irreciprocity in economy or commons (court). So the propertarian constitution focuses (“via-negativa”, meaning ‘by the negative”) on prohibiting falsehood and irreciprocity, rather than producing presumed ‘goods’.

2) The propertarian constitution is structured as amendments to the Constitution of the United States (“CSA”), in order to preserve it as a “going concern”, so all debts and agreements private and public remain. This is to prevent world chaos and uncertainty.

3) Our goal is to provide the ability of people with different cognitive biases and preferences to pursue their group’s interests and strategy but to prevent them from imposing upon others strategies. This is because as we have become wealthier we are not – as predicted – seeking the same things, but in fact, seeking very opposite things, and under the presumption that peace is only possible if all people have the right to self determination – at least by moving to bet near and with those who share it – as was the western tradition.

4) Structurally it restores the original intent, which was a united states of Europe. In other words, to create a set of european states under a British system of common laws.

In other words, just as the church had functioned as a weak federal government in Europe, they sought to create a secular weak federal government in America, with each State, as was common in the pre-unification german princedoms, the holy roman empire (most of Germanic Europe from 800ad to 1800’s), and all of european history, a set of states.

However, they needed a federal government to unite enough people and resources to prevent european re-conquest of the american continent. And in the end the problem they had, that we do not have today, was the ability to print money as debt to themselves rather than use hard money.

That may be confusing but it means that they needed a common defense when it was an era of hard (real) money, and there was no other way of paying for it. We don’t have that problem any longer.

On the other hand, there is no reason for our federal government to do anything OTHER than fund a military that prevents creating of political competition on the continent.

This limitation of the federal government’s AND the state’s powers is restored in our Propertarian Constitution.

5) We restore this original intent of separate (‘several’) states, by (a) forcibly converting blue (immigrant) cities to city states, thereby depriving them of political influence over territorial states. This give Meritocratic masculine eugenic red, and equalitarian feminine dysgenic blue states the opportunity to produce commons according to their preferences. (b) preserving the supreme court, the military, and the Treasury, but devolving necessary services to the states, and shutting down unnecessary services – most of them. (c) Eliminating the house, and converting the senate to the sitting governors, and (d) severely limiting the powers of those governors, such that they can only conduct trades between the states. They cannot modify the constitution. There is no need to. If some group violates it, the court can make a finding that suppresses that violation. This is a purely via-negativa (via the negative) federal government. All positive government must be produced individually by the states.

6) As such, regarding —“Who does get to vote?”— (a) there is no federal power, so there is no federal voting. (b) who votes and how they vote is up to the individual states. And we provide counsel as to the choices of decision making – voting being one of the choices. (b) all state constitutions must be approved by the supreme court – they must be truthful, reciprocal, and “calculable” – which I won’t explain here. (c) States do not have debts to the treasury All debts are allocated pro rata to the citizens of those states by the treasury. One can go bankrupt on any debt EXCEPT debts to the treasury. This makes it very difficult for ‘leftists’ to escape responsibility for their actions.

7) As such, regarding —“2) Do we retain a representative republic? If not, what replaces it?”— We retain a representative senate consisting of the governors of the states but majoritarianism has no power. It is a purely economic government. In other words, governance (the production of commons) is completely separate from rule (the courts). As for the individual states, they can construct whatever order they wish within the terms set in the constitution, most of which I assume will retain some semblance of the democratic model. The states do not have control over citizenship. Those criteria are set out in the constitution – and if voting is to exist – it must be limited to citizens. And the standard is quite high.

8)The primary defense is not the governmnet. It is the law and the market for suppression of falsehood and irreciprocity via the courts. The ‘wild west’ of saying whatever nonsense you want to citizens in order to get elected is over. The ‘wild west’ of the academy teaching pseudoscience is over.

That’s the difference. Government is never the answer.

The only answer is the law.

The common law of sovereignty and reciprocity and testimony.