Now that we have a much better picture in our head of what a better system could look like, tell us about the constitution you’re writing – how does it build on the original constitution, what does it add or clarify, make more thorough – tell us about it.
Let’s do a little course correction here.
I’m overemphasizing government so far.
The law creates the market for via negativa suppressions of parasitism and in doing so forces us into productive voluntary cooperation.
Government is just a system of organization and rules that divide the labor of commons production within that market for the suppression of parasitism and production of cooperation.
The people have been fooled by the attempt to justify democracy that it’s the government that produces goods. It’s not. And the evidence of governments around the world is that the method of government is immaterial, but the independence, and dependence of the courts to rule according to reciprocity determines whether any kind of government prevails. This is another example of the conceptual change in the 20th and 21st century from justification and via positiva to the importance of falsification and via negativa. So the government really doesn’t matter one tenth as much as the law.
The optimum government is a benevolent monarchy – that’s without question. The problem is whether the military, the sheriffs, and the militia will uphold the law and the findings of the court according to law that makes prosperity and non-corruption possible. Participatory government in other than via negativa form as was the original british parliamentary model, the germanic model, and the western indo european model, is simply disastrous. It’s only use in history has been to seize power as the aristocracy makes possible rule by the middle class. But rather than thinking in terms of monopoly power, we should think in terms of adding middle class commons production to aristocratic rule production. And then adding church insurance and governance of the family once that group is sufficiently organized under the law. The problem we face in the west is that our church is incompatible with our rule even though it is compatible with our ethics.
The reason I have to write a constitution is to reform the law to defend our people against future repeats of current crimes against them both in government and out. So I am not writing a new constitution, but a set of amendments to the constitution that replace existing articles and amendments on a one by one basis. The constitution is an attempt at natural law in the western indo european, aristotelian, germanic, and the british, and american tradition. I’m just hardening it, and suggesting how we might restore its original intent as a collection of european states seeking mutual military insurance, monetary exchange, and dispute resolution,while pursuing our individual and divergent interests.
The policy recommendations could be implemented in our current constitution. But they would not be durable. And they would only solve some of the problems. The fundamental problem is the law does not serve as a market for the suppression of parasitism – trespass in all its forms – but as an instrument of arbitrary rule.
Our government is not such a bad thing – it’s the vulnerability of our government to judicial activism instead of following the constitutional process. The industrialization of lying by innumeracy, sophism, pseudoscience, and denial using mass media, education system, and our vulnerability, particularly in finance and education, and the systematic destruction of family, incentives, knowledge, reason, tradition of truth, commons, and empiricism, that’s the problem. In other words it’s not the government so much as the second conquest of our civilization by lying and the destruction of our middle and working classes by design.
So I don’t want to convince anyone that government is that important. Government just produces a via-positiva market for commons. I want people to understand it’s the market for via-negativa suppression of parasitism that’s our problem and what makes good government possible. And That we need to modernize that system of via-negativa suppression of reciprocity, falsehood, and deceit that is our central weakness. It’s the law that produces a via negativa market against parasitism and predation that is the underlying problem, and our government has been slowly usurped for the purpose of empire building and ideological conquest at the expense of our people. By weakening its ability to spread falsehood and ir-reciprocity and restoring the market for prosecution of offenders that we call the courts.
And I think that this is the great failure of the 20th century thinkers, and the success of the jewish and cosmopolitan, french illiberal, and anglo liberal new england movements that succeeded in creating a new era of ignorance and deceit. And our conservatives failed because they lacked a means of articulating their ideas. Well, we don’t lack it any longer, and science has demonstrated particularly in response to the left, that conservative vision of man is correct: we are animals like any other and we domesticated ourselves partly, and animals partly and the job is undone, because many of us are still insufficiently domesticated.
So just as we discovered the scientific method is falsificationary only, that the logics are falsificationary only, that the law is falsificationary only, and that we can only know what is false and irreciprocal. And we must rely on markets to determine the good. Anything that is not false or irreciprocal is good. We can never know the non-trivial true. We can only know we speak truthfully and reciprocally by eliminating every opportunity for falsehood and ir-reciprocity. If we wish some condition that requires cooperation even if there are irreciprocal and disproportionate elements, but reciprocal and proportional aggregate outcomes, wecan produce contracts to do that. So any system of government is possible as long as it’s truthful, accountable, and variation is subject to the market for suppression of falsehood and ir-reciprocity that we call the court and the law.
Changes to the constitution preserve the government as a going concern and do less disruption international strategy and economy. If our debt position was worse (it’s not) then there would be value in replacing the government instead of altering the constitution.
So the changes to the constitution that I”m writing includes preambles that declare properties of man and mankind, the law of reciprocity, and the construction of the law, and how to construct the law in algorithmic terms in operational language and some other criteria I won’t go into here, but formalizes what is currently called ‘principles’ in law school and theories of jurisprudence. This is an increase in precision in the law that eliminates sophisms and pseudoscience and deceit from the law. These two sections Man, and The Law, are the principal innovations that I’m bringing to the constitution, and all constitutional sections, articles and amendments, all legislation, regulation, and executive order, and findings of the court, must be stated in and justified by, adherence to these forms and criteria. Legislation and regulation must pass assent by the constitutional court, but only after it has passed assent by the houses of government.
This does not mean threat the government nor the court cannot err. It just means that we do not have to wait for the market to establish the reciprocity or falsehood of legislation, regulation, and order, before a finding of law is rendered. It means that the court can veto an act of legislation, regulation, or order before it enters the market, but that the court cannot be involved in the negotiation itself. And that the court might still find that the THEORY (all such issues are theoretical until tested in the market), proposed in the legislation, regulation, or order does not in fact produce the ends, or produces irreciprocal and false ends once implemented.
All signatories to such acts are also liable for the outcomes, and bound to revisit them if they are found wanting by the court. In other words, any acts you pass haunt or herald you for life. You are never free of responsibility for your political Acts. This gets technical so I don’t want to bury the audience in administrivia.
- The Demographic issue is solved by the organization of the polities and the devolution of the government to a larger number of new states.
- I escalate this to repatriation of all who came here illegally.
- I escalate this to revocation of all citizenship and rights back to the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965.
- I escalate this to forcible repatriation of everyone back to hart stellar act, or taxation of 30%
- I escalate this to forcible repatriation of all non-whites and non-slave immigrants. And taxation of additional 50%.
I also include but have not published restitution for the crimes of the hart cellar act that grant restitution to people here before that act. This is probably the most interesting topic but I want to save it for later in the revolutionary cycle. This would effectively restore ethnocentric rule despite polyethnic polity, and turn the USA back into a european colony.
So the point here is to present a mutually beneficial solution that degrades to more favorable to the right as resistance is met.