Curt Doolittle shared a post.
WHAT HAPPENED IS WHAT THEY INTENDED TO HAPPEN: DEVOLUTION
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 11:41:48 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
WHAT HAPPENED IS WHAT THEY INTENDED TO HAPPEN: DEVOLUTION
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 11:41:48 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a video.
GOVERNMENTS CONCENTRATE POWER. ELIMINATE CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER, AND ELIMINATE COMPETITION FOR POWER
by Oliver Westcott
⢠No democracy, check.
⢠Militia, check.
⢠Strong borders, check.
⢠Ancestors honoured, check.
Well done lads.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 11:31:31 UTC
RULE OF LAW
Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law.
1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights;
2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist”: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and;
3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway.
The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power.
Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights.
Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights.
Rule of Law (By Rights)
1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights.
Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation)
2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law.
In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges).
Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”.
The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law.
Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion)
3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”.
Closing (Summary)
In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 10:29:00 UTC
THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF SOCIALISM VS CAPITALISM
What kind of government? Rule of Law, or Rule by Discretion? It’s an easy question.
Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets
One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume).
There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 08:16:00 UTC
WHAT HAPPENED IS WHAT THEY INTENDED TO HAPPEN: DEVOLUTION
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 07:41:00 UTC
GOVERNMENTS CONCENTRATE POWER. ELIMINATE CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER, AND ELIMINATE COMPETITION FOR POWER
by Oliver Westcott
• No democracy, check.
• Militia, check.
• Strong borders, check.
• Ancestors honoured, check.
Well done lads.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 07:31:00 UTC
GOVERNMENTS CONCENTRATE POWER. ELIMINATE CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER, AND ELIMINATE COMPETITION FOR POWER
by @[100002098730174:2048:Oliver Westcott]
• No democracy, check.
• Militia, check.
• Strong borders, check.
• Ancestors honoured, check.
Well done lads.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 07:31:00 UTC
Correct. An homogenous population has decided the optimum solution for all polities. The difference is that it’s only possible for homogenous.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 16:35:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019984082502078464
Reply addressees: @cashmoneyglock @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019982032137437184
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019982032137437184
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
DANGEROUS MINORITIES
“The Democratic Majority Fallacy”
|CAUSALITY| .01% -> 1% -> 20% -> EVERYONE ELSE.
That is that historically it only takes 1-2% and no more than 3% of a (male) population to cause revolutionary destructive harm, just as it takes only 1-2% to create revolutionary productive good.
The success of either end of the spectrum depends upon the state of development of the people, their degree of heterogeneity, the consequential degree of disparity, the consequential degree of competition, and the percentage of the populace that will practice alternative norms.
Norms create a market for cooperation. Markets for production AFTER the market for norms (cooperation), and markets for commons after production, and markets for polities after commons.
So no. It matters more if 1% of immigrants are hostile than it does if 1% of citizens are fully domesticated.
Don’t let democratic reasoning fool you. The Pareto rule and the power laws ALWAYS rule – FROM EVERY DIRECTION.
.5% of a hostile populace is enough.
Abrahamism, particularly militant, fundamentalist, irreciprocal, equalitarian, anti-reason abrahamism, is the equivalent of a single cancer cell.
It spreads rapidly and kills everything it touches from the inside out.
Judaism was bad, christianity, worse, and islam the very worst.
Islam(Judaism, Christianity) = Monopoly.
Paganism = Markets.
IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING TO EVOLVE, OR DEVOLUTION AND REGRESSION.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 14:29:36 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
PUTIN: BORDERS, RELIGION(Tradition), MESSIANIC ROLE
–“Putin assigned the following three books to Russiaâs regional governors:
1) The Philosophy of Inequality, by Nikolai Berdyaev
2) The Justification of the Good, by Vladimir Solovyov
3) Our Tasks, by Ivan Ilyin
What is the common theme linking these works? The main message of these authors is Russiaâs messianic role in world history, preservation and restoration of Russiaâs historical borders and Orthodoxy.â—
Of course, I agree with borders, role and tradition.
Russia does not have western europe’s traditions so religion is more important there than here. We have superior traditions which is why we have superior trust. Unfortunately, while our ‘hundreds of years together’ have been catastrophic for both orthodox, catholic, protestant, and pagan (scientific-legalistic), russia has purged itself of (((foreign))) effect more so than the west has. Only because the germans failed.
And only careful analysis exposes that germans were, in the turn of the century, on the verge of not only the second technical-industrial revolution, but on the verge of ridding western civilization of (((foreign))) influences both ancient (christian) and modern (cosmopolitan).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 11:54:37 UTC