IN OUR QUEST FOR POWER WE GAVE POWER TO EVERYONE ELSE
We didn’t realize, that when we we started the enlightenment, that our appeal to universalism, which allowed us to collect the numbers needed to seize power from the aristocracy, that we were by consequence, also advocating that non-family members to use the same arguments to conquer us.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 05:39:00 UTC
http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Photos-show-border-militias-moving-across-Texas-5647487.phpTHEY NEED MORAL AUTHORITY, AND A PLAN. WE ALREADY HAVE THE NUMBERS
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 04:23:00 UTC
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/marginalrevolution/feed/~3/6rdGGfFDA60/why-does-the-u-s-economy-do-better-under-democratic-presidents.htmlPeople vote left when they feel safe and right when they dont.
We revisit this question every eight or ten years and the answer is the same.
Mommy daddy game at the federal level. Why this is surprising astonished me when I was 20, and still does today.
Voting is emotional and moral,
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 13:02:00 UTC
[W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule? Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.
[W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule? Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/leaving-labour-more-on-the-racialization-of-british-politics/Just how it is. Democracy creates racism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 09:54:00 UTC
THE BRITS WERE RIGHT, STILL ARE, EVEN IF THEY”VE ABANDONED REALITY.
Except for writing down the constitution in explicit terms (a project that still would be valuable), and giving the proletariat its own house rather than handing over the house of commons, and not ‘really’ preserving the monarch’s right of veto, the british system was superior to the american system in every possible way.
The parliamentary system as they conduct it is superior on so many levels, not the least of which is that we could get rid of an Obama today more easily. The use of Barrister’s and Solicitors is something I would never have thought of but certainly produces better process. And it is easier to hold policy across multiple governments. The one thing I feel strongly about is that the military must be its own branch of government, with written constitutional obligations and limits, rather than commanded by the government. (and when I say military, I mean it in my terms, not extant american terms.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 02:11:00 UTC
—“Liberty will win because it is the most robust sort of authoritarianism.”—
Eli on a roll today. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 15:09:00 UTC
[O]perationalism asks us to demonstrate that we are conducting observations of extant entities not projecting imagination and subjectivity. As a general rule: *** We shall define all phenomenon which we choose to observe, in terms of the sequence of physical operations (actions) used, the instruments used, and the measurements taken with those instruments (whether cardinal or ordinal), rather than either the use of analogies of any form, interpretations of those observations, or subjective experiences of those observations, so that we guarantee to any audience that all entities that we refer to exist, and that no information is added to the observation but that which can be observed when reproduced by the repetition of those actions, instruments and measurements by others.***
[O]perationalism asks us to demonstrate that we are conducting observations of extant entities not projecting imagination and subjectivity. As a general rule: *** We shall define all phenomenon which we choose to observe, in terms of the sequence of physical operations (actions) used, the instruments used, and the measurements taken with those instruments (whether cardinal or ordinal), rather than either the use of analogies of any form, interpretations of those observations, or subjective experiences of those observations, so that we guarantee to any audience that all entities that we refer to exist, and that no information is added to the observation but that which can be observed when reproduced by the repetition of those actions, instruments and measurements by others.***