Theme: Reciprocity

  • Judicial Independence is a Consequence of Rule of Law of Reciprocity

    Judicial Independence is a Consequence of Rule of Law of Reciprocity https://propertarianism.com/2019/09/17/judicial-independence-is-a-consequence-of-rule-of-law-of-reciprocity/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 21:46:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174077300092145664

  • Judicial Independence is a Consequence of Rule of Law of Reciprocity

    Well, judicial independence is in turn dependent upon which theory of jurisprudence, which interpretation of the constitution under it, the limits to Rights, legislation, regulation, findings (judicial discretion), which limits to interpretation of texts used. Fix 1st things 1st. If we use reciprocity (tort, trespass), strict, textual, operational construction of rights from it, strict, textual operation construction of constitution, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings from it, then fine. That’s Rule of Law and judicial independence. But whether discretionary rule by a dictator, an oligarchy, a legislature, a bureaucracy, or a judge makes no difference.  And the left has done a fine job of inserting dictators who violate that law to the bench – a fine enough job to discredit the judiciary. Our constitution was a good first draft of legal expression of the scientific evidence of the natural law of reciprocity – our customary law for millennia. But judicial independence is a consequence of that one law of reciprocity. Government is just a means of producing commons under that law. And the insurance of that law, those judges, against that government and the people who would usurp it, the only insurance possible. It’s exasperating that a hole in our constitution that neither demands ascent of the supreme court, nor demands warranty by its legislators, nor provides means of returning an undecidable case to the state, is obfuscated by discussions of independence instead. ( Apologies for letting me rant a bit on the primary subject of my work. 😉 Let’s fix the constitution with a third american revolution…. )

  • Judicial Independence is a Consequence of Rule of Law of Reciprocity

    Well, judicial independence is in turn dependent upon which theory of jurisprudence, which interpretation of the constitution under it, the limits to Rights, legislation, regulation, findings (judicial discretion), which limits to interpretation of texts used. Fix 1st things 1st. If we use reciprocity (tort, trespass), strict, textual, operational construction of rights from it, strict, textual operation construction of constitution, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings from it, then fine. That’s Rule of Law and judicial independence. But whether discretionary rule by a dictator, an oligarchy, a legislature, a bureaucracy, or a judge makes no difference.  And the left has done a fine job of inserting dictators who violate that law to the bench – a fine enough job to discredit the judiciary. Our constitution was a good first draft of legal expression of the scientific evidence of the natural law of reciprocity – our customary law for millennia. But judicial independence is a consequence of that one law of reciprocity. Government is just a means of producing commons under that law. And the insurance of that law, those judges, against that government and the people who would usurp it, the only insurance possible. It’s exasperating that a hole in our constitution that neither demands ascent of the supreme court, nor demands warranty by its legislators, nor provides means of returning an undecidable case to the state, is obfuscated by discussions of independence instead. ( Apologies for letting me rant a bit on the primary subject of my work. 😉 Let’s fix the constitution with a third american revolution…. )

  • But judicial independence is a consequence of that one law of reciprocity. Gover

    But judicial independence is a consequence of that one law of reciprocity. Government is just a means of producing commons under that law. And the insurance of that law, those judges, against that government and the people who would usurp it, the only insurance possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 21:40:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174075760807677952

    Reply addressees: @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174075232962973696


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute But whether discretionary rule by a dictator, an oligarchy, a legislature, a bureaucracy, or a judge makes no difference. Our constitution was a good first draft of legal expression of the scientific evidence of the natural law of reciprocity – our customary law for millennia.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174075232962973696


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute But whether discretionary rule by a dictator, an oligarchy, a legislature, a bureaucracy, or a judge makes no difference. Our constitution was a good first draft of legal expression of the scientific evidence of the natural law of reciprocity – our customary law for millennia.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174075232962973696

  • If we use reciprocity (tort, trespass), strict, textual, operational constructio

    If we use reciprocity (tort, trespass), strict, textual, operational construction of rights from it, strict, textual operation construction of constitution, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings from it, then fine. That’s Rule of Law and judicial independence.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 21:36:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174074689611862016

    Reply addressees: @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174074128275582976


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute Well, judicial independence is in turn dependent upon which theory of jurisprudence, which interpretation of the constitution under it, the limits to Rights, legislation, regulation, findings (judicial discretion), which limits to interpretation of texts used. Fix 1st things 1st.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174074128275582976


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute Well, judicial independence is in turn dependent upon which theory of jurisprudence, which interpretation of the constitution under it, the limits to Rights, legislation, regulation, findings (judicial discretion), which limits to interpretation of texts used. Fix 1st things 1st.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174074128275582976

  • Who is “They”?

    Those who seek to destroy sovereignty, rule of law by reciprocity, the intergenerational family as the purpose of policy, the compromise between the genders and classes, the markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, nations.

    Reductively, “Parasites.”

    “You”

    😉

  • Who is “They”?

    Those who seek to destroy sovereignty, rule of law by reciprocity, the intergenerational family as the purpose of policy, the compromise between the genders and classes, the markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, nations.

    Reductively, “Parasites.”

    “You”

    😉

  • Those who seek to destroy sovereignty, rule of law by reciprocity, the intergene

    Those who seek to destroy sovereignty, rule of law by reciprocity, the intergenerational family as the purpose of policy, the compromise between the genders and classes, the markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, nations.

    “You.” 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 21:16:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174069584036544512

    Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @sarahfranks2120 @DineshDSouza

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174066673499770880


    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/1174066673499770880

  • “Nature doesn’t contradict itself, neither should law if it’s based on nature.”-

    —“Nature doesn’t contradict itself, neither should law if it’s based on nature.”—Daniel Jordan


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 19:38:00 UTC

  • That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring to survive because they have no o

    That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 18:45:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174031716463325184

    Reply addressees: @JaneCaro

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JaneCaro But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after?Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JaneCaro But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after?Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785