Apr 22, 2020, 12:06 PM The optimum balance between market economy and non-market economy is calculated by tests of reciprocity. In other words, good capitalism is the result of rule of law of reciprocity and bad capitalism is the result of failing at rule of law of reciprocity. Just as good combination of market economy(liberty), mixed economy (freedom), state provision (serfdom), and military service (indentured servitude) is calculated by rule of law of reciprocity. The ((())) lie of the left was another monopoly, another idealism, that one way is somehow superior to tri-functionalism and rule of law producing markets in everything INCLUDING consumption (markets for goods, services, and information) and markets for commons (mixed economy), state production (serfdom) and state military servitude (indentured servitude) Edit
Theme: Reciprocity
-
You say self consistent but you mean circular. instead, any exchange of rights m
You say self consistent but you mean circular. instead, any exchange of rights must be reciprocal – including possible. This is why only negative rights can exist.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-22 00:27:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263627624938602496
Reply addressees: @PaulDesmoParker @TheRealFMCH @Maroeladalx10DB @laurenboebert @austere1717
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263624685599592448
-
Reciprocity – Court
Jury Nullification
Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.
—“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—
So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.
-
Reciprocity – Court
Jury Nullification
Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.
—“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—
So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.
-
Strictly Constructed Natural Law Jurisprudence.
When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent. Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it. Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff. There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with. Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs.
-
Strictly Constructed Natural Law Jurisprudence.
When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent. Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it. Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff. There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with. Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs.
-
Hence my work on natural law
Hence my work on natural law.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-21 22:16:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263594605150236673
Reply addressees: @Maroeladalx10DB @TheRealFMCH @laurenboebert @austere1717
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263594454633508870
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Maroeladalx10DB @TheRealFMCH @laurenboebert @austere1717 And that is a technical way of agreeing with you.
That said, we made many errors in the 20th century not the least of which were blank slate, nature nurture, the malleability of mankind,equality of ability, individual agency, and natural morality. All of which are false.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1263594454633508870
-
Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no i
Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciproal. So no it’s not a right. It’s decided by consequences.And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-21 19:58:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263559811867848704
Reply addressees: @TheRealFMCH @Maroeladalx10DB @laurenboebert @austere1717
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263520322118135809
-
There is no subjectivity to realism, naturalism, operationalism, internal consis
There is no subjectivity to realism, naturalism, operationalism, internal consistency (logic), empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, full accounting, and warrantability. There is only the question of error in interpreting the evidence.
Your faith fails every test.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 16:13:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263140739082526721
Reply addressees: @DSchrooner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263139739944849408
-
The Natural Law Of The European Peoples
The Natural Law of the European Peoples
The group evolutionary strategy of the European peoples has remained constant for thousands of years – through the bronze, Mediterranean, Continental, Steel, Naval Colonial, and Post-war, periods. And that’s because our traditional law that reinforced that strategy remained constant independent of the various attempts at reorganizing rule. But despite this consistency, the west never had a bible – just a Canon; and that Canon was written in multiple frames, including scientific, legal, philosophical, normative, literary, and theological. Philosophy, theology, and tradition are just vehicles for perpetuating a group strategy in a grammar of wishes. Law is the result of what actually occurs – not what is wished for. Our Founding Fathers, after generations of the English civil wars, sought to reduce that canon to constitution. But they lacked the skill we developed in the 20th because of programming, the sciences, and the collapse of the philosophical program. They were successful despite those weaknesses as long as the heroic narrative of the revolution persisted, or what the founders said was dependent upon the moral teachings of the church. The failure of the church to reform in the face of Darwin and the sciences, the replacement of the church with the academy, the capture of the academy by the left, combined with Anti-westernism, under the guise of privilege, colonialism, and slavery provided the means of undermining that narrative. So we must complete the Greco-Roman-germanic-anglo-American research program and produce that bible in the form of a constitution such that no narrative can undermine it, without causing our retaliation. We need to create the white law – a rational, scientific, western competitor to Jewish law and Muslim sharia. A strict construction from our founding differences: sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, judge and jury, heroism and excellence, family and commons, and the market for voluntary cooperation in all walks of life – that together produce the social-political and economic order most rapidly open to adaptation and innovation. We need a constitution and a law closed to interpretation open to innovation, but beyond which no man, private, public, or foreign may tread. Heroism and excellence, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, and Duty, Judge and Jury, and markets in all aspects of life: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war. That is the secret to western civilization. Sovereignty – and its consequences. In this section we codify for the first time, The Natural Law of the European Peoples – not only to explain, and inform, but to prevent repetition of the dark ages past and present, and to provide for the European peoples that which others have codified: a logic and body of law beyond which none may tread by display word or deed – especially those in the military, state, government, treasury, and academy.