The fundamental problems are of course,
- That we are wealthy enough to create our own government suitable to our preferences, and we want to.
- Heterogeneity is a bad thing, that the west has been under an organized attack by the global left and domestic christian and and jews desperate to restore a monopoly and priesthood where we have had rule of law and markets.
- The empire is simply to big, too diverse, and whites – or at least middle and working class whites – unwilling to give up our way of life and descend like others to another dark age.
- Worse, Christians are natural leftists. Who side with the right only because the state wants to replace their moral religion of asceticism with one of pseudoscience, sophism, immorality and hyperconsumption. So it’s more to say that the rational center is carrying the burden of two anti-rational wings: The christian conservative, and the feminist, neoliberal, globalist, progressive.
FIRST, PROBLEMS WITH JURISPRUDENCE
- To understand improvements to the law we have to understand the current problems and debate within the theory of jurisprudence that our state and courts operate under, and our academy seeks to undermine.
- Variation in the theory of jurisprudence from natural law (conservative) meaning ‘rule of law’, that constrains us all, to fully arbitrary pretense of law, that is just discretionary command. There are names for each of the four main theories of jurisprudence. But they are just the degree of divergence from a formal logic to ‘whatever i say so’.
- Liberals don’t believe in the rule of law, they believe in rule by command. Not logic but discretion. That’s the difference between via positiva law of the left: force change, and the via negative law of the right: prohibit bads, and all else is good.
PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW
- There is no distinction between law, findings of the court, legislation, regulation and command, and the inequality of their decidability.
- There is no requirement that legislation pass test of construction by the court before ascent. (this used to be the function of the house of lords)
- There is no means by which the undecidable conflict is returned to the state, and where the state is compelled to repair the legislation, or it will nullify. In other words, no means by which bad or insufficient legislation can be forced back into the legislature or state.
- There are no via positiva purposes stated, nor limits stated, so that the law cannot be extended to purposes outside of its intentions. The 14th is the canon example.
IMPROVEMENTS TO JURISPRUDENCE
- Given three human faculties intellectual-rational, intuitionistic-emotional, and sensory-physical.
- Disambiguation by the methodology of deflation, operationalization, serialization (because operational is complete, and logic and loading are not : logic(rational), loading(emotional), and operating (physical)) This is important since all three must be tested for completeness to exist.
- This method is then applied to testimony (speech) producing what we might call a checklist of tests of the possibility of testimony – which tells us whether a statement CAN be truthful.
- The result of applying this method is unification of math, science, logic, philosophy, and law under a single, value-neutral, paradigm, logic and language – making all human statements commensurable.
- When applied to law, produces a formal logic of legal decidability or what we call jurisprudence – and this jurisprudence is the formal logic of what we have, since the time of Aristotle, called natural law: the necessary law of human cooperation.
- This formal, operational logic, is a little closer to writing software (programming) than writing law today. Although I think most people know that writing contracts is very similar to writing software. We can now write all law very similarly to writing software.
- What does that mean? It means it’s testable and will calculate, balance, and compile, or it will not. Why does this matter? It matters because:
- it allows us to complete the anglo legal program from aristotle to Jefferson, and write an articulate, internally consistent constitution of natural law that repairs the vulnerabilities created by the limited knowledge of the founders, the compromise necessary to approve the constitution, and the abuses of the constitution in the civil war period, and the war against rule of law by the pre-and-postwar left. it eliminates findings of law, legislation, regulation, and commands that violate natural law.
- it eliminates legislation from the bench and solves the problems above.
- It separates Law (jurisprudence via negativa ), from Commons production (Contract). As such conflicts between different groups across political borders are rationally resolvable, but each polity can produce the commons it wants as long as stated as contract for the people by the people.
- The dirty secret of rule of law, of reciprocity, sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and all of western civilization is that it’s softly eugenic. And it is this eugenics that is as responsible for our success in the ancient and modern world as much as our traditions, law, and institutions.
- And this entire debate is over visions of a desirable polity. The right has always been aristocratically egalitarian – meritocratic. And the goal has been to create an aristocracy of everyone, and a hierarchy of the classes working together for mutually beneficial ends. This is very different from every other civilization. But in practice it means a middle class civilization, and so far we are the only people to do it. And everyone else is hostile to it. For good reason – it’s eugenic.
Improvements in Law itself, rather than jurisprudence
- As for the basis of specific questions under jurisprudence, meaning the law itself, we call these rights and obligations. This means that we take the rights and obligations we know of and reconstruct them (or invalidate them), by strict construction. Those are too numerous to go through here without someone saying but doolittle, you forgot this… I didn’t forget anything. I just can only go into so much detail at one time.
Improvements in Policy under the law
- Family as the central unit of policy not the individual. Meaning that The Law, Policy (legislation), Norms, Traditions, and Education serve the interests of producing competent intergenerational families resistant to reduction to the mean. (this is again, eugenic). It’s this resistance to reduction to the mean that’s the problem. What the left sees as senseless suppressions of individuality the right sees as costs against which a competent self sufficient intergenerational family producing commons rather than consumption. That’s the thing. Westerners produce commons. They have a higher return than consumption, and they decrease demand for income and spending. So we have this golden goose and we’re letting the left kill it because the right doesn’t know how to articulate it. So I gave the right the language to articulate their moral intuitions in rational, scientific, economic, and legal, terms. The human mind cannot calculate or reason with what it lacks language to calculate with. I provided that means of calculation.
- The restoration of voluntary association and disassociation
- The restoration of defense of life, property, and common property by every citizen.
- The most important innovation is the extension of warranty of due diligence in commercial speech to that of political speech in public addressing the public. This innovation offsets the principle innovation in parasitism in the 20th and forward has been sophistry, innumeracy, and pseudoscience creating a new age of mysticism just as hayek and poincare predicted.
Age of Mysticism
- The 20th will be remembered, as will the current age, as a repeat of the jewish, christian and islamic attempt at the destruction of the ancient world, this time by false promise defeating darwin. The playbook is rather obviously the same, it’s the same playbook females use to undermine each other and dominant males.
And we are terribly vulnerable to it because we are not, like Keegan and Van Creveld, conscious of the different means by which war is conducted by genders, elites (classes), and civilizations. And that we cannot defeat this wave any more than the romans, egyptians, north africans, persians, caucasians, byzantines and indus valley people did without adopting the other side’s strategy. And this is the fundamental problem. Our civilization is the product of our strategy.
Law vs Religion
- Reason has been under intentional attack by Theologians and the faithful, Marxists, Postmodernist, Feminists, and Neo-liberals. While these groups claim that the right believes in falsehoods this applies only to the faithful, and then only to the devout. This doesn’t invalidate that mythological expression can be commensurable with natural law in behavior, and outcome even if not in testimony. yet the anti-reason left asks us to state comforting falsehoods that are contrary to natural law in both word and behavior.
- Religion requires indoctrination, false promise of impossible reward to a family tribe, and army that doesn’t exist. Religion conquers by undermining the established order, by justifying some set of behaviors that produce beneficial results for the group at the cost of modifying behavior. on the other hand, Law creates a market for the suppression of contrary actions, and doesn’t require indoctrination. This difference is via positiva vs via-negativa. This is why societies use law. It adapts constantly to constant change. Religion resists change. This is why monotheistic religions created the dark ages that we are still trying to escape: people want constancy so that they can limit demand to adapt, yet it is demand to adapt that creates prosperity, and constancy that creates poverty.