Jan 28, 2020, 8:58 AM
–“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy
This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare.
HOW DO YOU FIX IT?
You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it.
And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system.
In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.
- Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
- Our supreme court is a far better solution.
- Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.
A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.
A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.
A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.
The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense
My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.
There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.
However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.
That should provide you with a bit of understanding.