«12. . .3,9223,9233,9243,9253,9263,9273,9283,9293,930»
The insult to human respect and assault on human dignity by Orwellian newspeak cannot be overstated. It's propensity to evil is insidious and very difficult from which to recoup. The antidote is reasserting first principles and calling out the error, fabrications, and fallacious nonsense -- as well as exposing the criminal mindset of those who persist in doing so. It is important for civilized society for a certain corpus of words to be fixed, and the others to flow more or less freely depending on intent or purpose. Those who want to change everything are dangers to themselves, their society, their culture, their civilization and a danger others and theirs.
Words that should not change in meaning (other than to adjust for effective communication as the language naturally evolves ((proper English sense not idiot Darwinian sense) and never for the purpose to invidiously effect social-political change (as these are cases of fraud such as gaslighting))) are words of significance for inculcating and communicating self-evidence -- logic, reason, numeracy, rhetoric, truth, justice, goodness (and I would add beauty); the tools of education (proper definition), and morality (proper definition) including responsibility, duty, honor, contract, covenant, and constitution; and the natural fruit of human endeavor so objectively described. The means of communicating may change to better clarify, rectify, or develop our intelligence (proper sense not Behavioralist sense) but must be done without loss, deviation, or occlusion.
Legal, political, scientific, historic, (ad nauseum) communication (objective descriptors of nature (including human nature) and objective jargon to maintain excellence in one's trade, occupation, profession, or occupation, or to be secure in one's rights, privileges and immunities should be very reticent to change in meaning if at all) as these things have been worked out (and are being worked out to mete justice for the last several thousand years in Western Civ in general; and from our Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian roots, and Anglo-American jurisprudence and Common Law from King Henry II to present (except for areas corrupted by Justice Holmes spearheading the move to away from objectivity to subjectiveness for Socialist change) in particular.
Words that need to change are words relating to expansion in understanding, comprehension, and techniques (e.g. development of the human species) within afore mentioned meanings of established words (never unsettling the aforementioned words themselves unless the foundation of the the model of necessity must make it so (e.g. phlogistron vs oxygen, or calorie vs kinesis, for inductive reasoning and things that can be put under a microscope) and not deductive reasoning (even if inductive is used -- e.g., things that have to be looked at with a telescope, or educated-ly guessed at like the social sciences).
Words for informal, colloquial, familial, etc communication ought be free to change and develop as seen fit.
Those are my insomnia ramblings.
Fierrol and Nozick
Resident Biden is going to profane a historic site in Valley Forge by making a hyper partisan speech about how bad January 6 was
Narland, Fierrol, Miami Jai-Alai 3, and Nozick
I just got directed to this fun little clip...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/18faq08/klaus_schwab_acknowledges_that_libertarianism_is/
Cue Bond villain accent: "You have this anti-system movement. What we are seeing is a revolution against the system. So fixing the present system is not enough. Now, there is of course an anti-system which is called libertarianism, which means to tear down everything... which creates some kind of influence of government into private lives. It's demantling[sic] the system"
I find his statement hard to believe at face value.
He knows it is not a new thing that there are those who love Liberty, who have a desire to live free, and who seek to dismantle the power base of despots posing as government, regardless of which generation is doing so or what they call themselves. Devising "systems" that molest people in their private and public lives is the very definition of tyranny. That he and his cadre are doing so because they can is monstrous. Did he not learn anything from his parents or teachers who suffered WW2 or did he learn the wrong lessons? That he is does not care enough to modify his speech to not be considered just another authoritarian powermonger who is a danger to the life, liberty, and property of others is telling.
I genuinely don't think Klaus or his ilk have spent very much time at all attempting to understand the views of those who love liberty. What lessons should one expect him to have taken from WW2? He might have been captivated by the power of Western capital and the role it can play in funding favored regimes (à la Antony Sutton), and in bringing them down when they lose favor. He may have seen the economic miracle of Germany brought about by public-private partnerships and bold national leadership after the chaos of the Weimar system, just as so many have promoted the Chinese system more recently for remarkably similar reasons. Perhaps he was impressed by how productive a workforce can be when confronting national crises when power centers are aligned in purpose. Maybe he determined that American hegemony was an obstacle to new methods in national and international governance. But I could just be cynical.
But he certainly doesn't view himself as just another authoritarian powermonger. He is a visionary and he is determined to act on his vision, and in so doing he seeks to marshal the like-minded in every position of consequence, public and private, around the world to bring his vision to fruition. Not that I take him too seriously on a personal level - rather he is a face for the foolishly ambitious and gives voice to the sentiments of tyrants and would-be tyrants...
Speaking of, Davos meets this coming Monday: "From Lab to Life: Science in Action"
World Economic Forum Releases Global Risks Report 2024 Ahead of Davos Forum Gathering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6gkAZQgs6k
Auxorii lets roleplay; remember though that the war is NOT CANON!!! We could roleplay as characters or governments?
What kind of rp are you thinking of doing
either an alliance / treaty or two people interacting
I’ll respond if you wanna pick up the last roleplay where we left off, but unfortunately I’m too busy these days to be too involved.
Special address by Javier Milei, President of Argentina | Davos 2024 | World Economic Forum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog
Based Javier.
I like Milel he ticks the right people off
Narland, Fierrol, and Miami Jai-Alai 3
I do not have much time to be online at this time, and when it comes to Klaus he is not an advocate of free enterprise but of stakeholder old-world corporatism and whatever it takes to maintain a "modern monetary", globalist authoritarian order. If he is interested in Libertarians it is not to emulate them but to study them in order to assimilate what can be assimilated and defeat what must be subjugated in order to maintain his sense of law and order (which is not in any sense classical liberal, objective realist, nor industrial objectivist). He is the happy inheritor of the old Tri-Lateral commission, IMF, Bush 41 New World Order, and European Old Money financial hegemony come into alignment at a time when Liberalism in Europe has long been dead and it's instruments of state ripe for takeover.
I agree. I also observe that he is a mechanical engineer by training, and I think this plays at least some role in his tendency to look at society as a system and people as components in this system, divorced from their actual humanity. He seems to me to be concerned with productivity, efficiency, and monitoring each of the components of this global system to ensure that they are operating within acceptable tolerances. He doesn't like when government and industry are at odds - or indeed, even when firms within industries are in competition with one another - this is not efficient and will hinder output. And what good are laws and norms like what one finds in the Bill of Rights that obstruct the optimal functioning of a society? And should we allow things like sovereignty get in the way of consensus? He is partly the modern reformer who encounters Chesterton's Fence, and is intent on removing it without understanding its purpose.
In other words he lacks both the natural intuition of the value of liberty as well as the wisdom to understand the consequences of its disregard. But yes, these are not just his sentiments in the broader sense. The underlying oligarchical elitism and libido dominandi (and some may argue murderous psychopathy that seems to motivate the Malthusians in particular), married to romantic ideals of noblesse oblige and putting right the mistakes of the past while charting bold new courses of civilization, have long preceded him and will persist long after he is gone.
At this point though, I don't know what else he can get from studying libertarians that he will value. Perhaps the rhetoric of liberty while delivering its opposite? They do like rhetorical inversions. They're old hands at advocating for giving up your liberty to keep your liberty... but that's hardly new. How does one get libertarians to cooperate with economic (and one could say social) dirigism? Play down the government role and play up the nominally private corporations... of course you would probably lose the progressives with this approach.
Another primary win for Trump time for Nikki to drop out
Federal Courts: Warnings from Mason and Jefferson
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2024/01/federal-courts-warnings-from-mason-and-jefferson/
One of George Mason’s leading objections to ratification was the structure of the federal judiciary. Thomas Jefferson signaled that he liked it at first, but in the years to follow, considered it the leading engine of consolidation, and the destruction of the constitution.
I think this is a timely topic from the TAC.
Mason is one of my favorite founders.
The checks and balances stopping faithlessness in the judiciary are very weak. Congress needs to have a Standing Committee Regarding Judicial Good Behavior, and hold regular judicial impeachments for the most egregious mis and malfeasance from the bench.
Federal Legislation allowing for input from the State's legislatures most oppressed by faithless and bad adjudication (the 9th Circuit Court comes immediately to mind) to writs and injunctions directly to the clerks of the Supreme Court. That would stop a lot of judicial activism and fiat legislating from the bench.
A lot of Conservatives do not like to hear this, but we do need to have the federal court increased to 17, 19 or even 21 justices, or at least the current judges need to be reallocated over the 90 some Circuit and Appeals courts to better match the States and People.
Thanks for bringin up the TAC. I almost forgot they existed.
The President sets them up and Congress knocks them down? But I'm a little concerned about their possible enthusiasm in dealing with judges appointed by more populist (or otherwise outsider) presidents, or who themselves make more heterodox, albeit constitutionally faithful rulings that run afoul of the centralizing, establishment orthodoxy.
That could be interesting. Can you conceive of a situation in which a state with less constitutionally faithful designs might appeal to SCOTUS to intervene on a more constitutionalist court's adjudication? Perhaps not right now, but within the realm of possibility? If the SCOTUS's composition swings to have more living document believers, would this proposal be counterproductive?
In what way would you propose to reallocate judges over the courts?
As an aside, I was hearing recently an opinion about a similar need to dramatically increase the number of Representatives in the House, for the purpose of combating voter apathy and disengagement from the civic process by having every citizen know their representative and be able to hold them to account.
Happy to. I always make sure to catch Michael Boldin's Path to Liberty thrice per week.
Jefferson and War with the Barbary States
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2024/01/the-big-lie-jefferson-and-war-with-the-barbary-states/
Both left and right have been more than happy to perpetuate a huge lie in order to justify unilateral executive war powers never delegated to the president in the Constitution. They do this by telling a false story of how Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary Pirates in 1801. Learn what really happened with a timeline of events.
Sorry, I don't like posting links on too frequent a basis nor to be overreliant on a single source, but TAC had another good podcast recently that analyzes claims of historical precedence in supporting presidential prerogatives to respond to or engage in hostilities towards foreign antagonism. Spoiler: Jefferson's military engagement with the Tripolitanian pirates was not borne of unilateral diplomacy (or lack thereof), nor did it rest upon the pretense of executive authority of the President, nor was it against any but one of the Barbary states (in the First Barbary War), nor did it extend beyond defense until Congress authorized offensive actions.
One of the things that attracted me to Ron Paul's candidacy was that he would declare an end to all wars, and demand congress revoke the War Powers Act, Emergency War Powers Act, the so-called Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security act (ad naseum), so that Congress would take responsibility for its duly constituted power to declare war.
Fierrol, Auxorii, and Suzi Island
Ron Paul's speech on the ME that is being circulated again really hit the nail on the head
Nikki Haley: Has become the Chris Christie of the Republican Party, nothing but Trump bashing. She is staying in the race in the hope something bad happens to President Trump with the charges against him, by certain leftist democrats.
But lets see what happens after she looses her home sweet state of South Carolina by a considerable margin on election night. or if she stays in the race and then drops out, if certain leftist democrat donors of hers drop her and certain Republican donors drop her.
There cant be any political deal on illegal immigration with Biden and the leftist democrats. Biden and his people created the US open borders illegal immigration crisis. By destroying President Trump's, remain in Mexico Policy, remain in Guatemala and other nations Policy. By catch and release, and parole millions of illegal migrants into the USA. By going after Texas illegal migrant policies. There does not need to be any number of illegal migrants, for this law or any law to kick in. Because one illegal migrant person, is one illegal migrant person too many. He can undo all of his illegal migrant, open borders policies if he wants too. Biden is Playing Politics.
We all support Israel and the Jewish People, against the Hamas fighters who did the terrible acts against the Jewish People of Israel. President Trump and me, GMS Cuban are strong supporters of Israel and the Jewish People.
President Trump is popular in Israel, has many places named after him in his honor in Israel, and he even has Jewish grandkids in his family.
All American Presidents have responded with military actions against forces who have attacked American soldiers all over the world. It is the right thing to do.
All American forces have the right and need to defend their self's.
The government of Iran is not our friend, they are our enemies no matter what.
Just like the eternal communist socialist dictatorship government of my native Cuba, who say they are the continuity of the eternal revolution this statement says it all and proves it all.
Just like the eternal communist socialist dictatorship government of Maduro in Venezuela. Maduro once said when will they, the political bourgeoisie opposition going to learn the revolution is here to stay, this similar statement says it all and proves it all.
In both nations the communist socialists, political leadership live like rich $ upper class capitalists. Like I have proven with links in the past.
But Biden and his people are afraid of being too tough on Iran, because of x number of leftist democrat supporters of the Palestinian Arabs and Arab Americans supporting the Palestinians of Gaza and the Hamas fighters, especially in Michigan and other US states during this election year of 2024.
I think there are persons who confuse Republican Neo Cons with leftist democrat new world order globalists, they are not the same or similar. Leftist democrat globalists, are Pro leftist democrat policies all over the world.
Republican Neo Cons are Pro USA, economic and political interests all over the world. They support nations who support the USA. Are Pro Peace Through Strength.
Most Republican Neo Cons, don't want war at all costs, only when there is no choice left.
Don't confuse Republican Neo Cons with leftist democrat new world order globalists. They are not the same or similar to them.
US Military spending $ does help the US economy. I used to work under Republican President Ronald Reagan, at Northrop Grumman US Defense Systems division in Chicago's 2 suburb locations, I am very proud of it. I helped campaign for him twice. We had so much overtime work at our work room, we could hardly walk into our work room. At great Pay $ and great corporate benefits.
Like a 401 K account, stocks and bonds purchases, and no deduction from my paycheck for health care, I just paid x amount when I visited the doctor, which was not often.
------
Not that you necessarily hold to this, and I am preaching to the choir in Libertatem, but it bears repeating. I reject the Marxists concept that if the will of the people facilitates Socialism it is Democracy, but if it facilitates Anti-Authoritarianism (especially when dismantling the failed planks of Socialism,) it is de-facto populism. That is nonsense.
Communists like to conflate and confound (classical liberal) constitutional self-governance with their straw-man caricature of Populism inferring that it is Fascist (rejecting the fact that Fascism (and that Communist twin, National Socialism) rests on a state that de facto or de jure has capitulated to practicing all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto under color of authority or force of arms -- the very definition of Socialism). Regardless, a well informed populace of moral (people trained to understand fully the consequences of their actions (individual, corporate, and in the aggregate) with no unintended consequences) and educated (real education not academia and schooling masquerading as education) Citizens can govern themselves better than a state (European sense) or Marx's quixotic stateless state. I feel strongly that a Federal judiciary lawfully allowed to meddle in State (American sense), and local affairs, needs more checks and balances at those levels than our Framers could have conceived of during the short time they had at the Constitutional Convention to produce the awesome document that they did. The American revolution was populist, as has been at it's frontier(s) from the beginning. That Communists hate this such that they preach that America must be fundamentally changed tells me that lovers of Liberty are on the right track.
Some central American countries have a constitutional panel in their constitutions that restricts the the faithless act of judicial activism, but that creates its own problem (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- those pesky janitors.). I like what Honduras iic has a mandatory constitutional review by its lower house every x years to determine if they have performed in good behavior, and if not are dismissed unless the president vetoes it. Some countries the review is every five years, but they tend to be places where the judiciary can alter or prescribe law instead of rightly adjudicating it. Some countries a life appointment only lasts 20 years (like it was assumed some of our founders but not others), and still assumed by our civil servants (20 years and then join another department for another 20 to double-dip). What I like is that that this is a Senate appointment and the House provides an extra check. Since it is a public act that invites public discussion, and input from State infected by that judges decisions can testify adds some balance.
Yes to all of these questions. But the people get the government they (morally -- see earlier definition) deserve. 75% of Palestinians in Gaza would re-elect Hamas back into power if they had their voting rights restored -- and 85% of the men. They made their political bed and are as at fault if not more so as the Germans that voted Hitler to power. I do not feel sorry for any American City who like Detroit has had +50 plus years of Democrat rule and the people of those cities keep voting in Democrats and their policies that have failed so spectacularly as to make their cities the hell-holes that they are. But there are plenty of places that have better ideas from which to draw and reality has a way of proving delusional people wrong in spectacular (but horrific) ways. Appealing to Nature, Nature's God, and Heaven (with others in meaningul discourse) for liberty and equality are our best course of action. Truth, Justice, and Goodness objectively shown in their self-evidence -- and it takes a generation. Having a diversity of 50 States, +3000 Counties ~20,000 civil corporations (villages, towns, and cities for those of you in DC) makes for an excellent laboratory. And in a free country I can vote with my feet and move to a place of my liking (as I have already done -- Esto Perpetua).
I am being facetious but as disruptively as possible so they get used to it. :) Since our founding we have gingerly tried to find ways to make our growth as a nation regarding the expansion of the Federal Judiciary as painless as possible. Not that we achieved those ends because sometimes it was messy. But they should be re-allocated using the same principles as at our founding. One of those is to examine the population of states (the nation) vs. the area jurisdictions (the country), and find a mean such that each SC Judge presides over a roughly equal caseload according to the region of the country with similar polity. California and Hawaii fit together better in a circuit than California.
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_federal_courts
I am open to suggestions. One of the books in law school was on the history of the growth and development of the federal court system. I wish I still had it, because that is where most of the good ideas for judicial reform came from.
The best way to combat voter apathy is to limit government to its duly constituted contractual obligation with vigorous sunset clauses voted on by the people. Also there have been studies that show that the smaller a legislature in proportion to the the state, the more interest people take in their legislator -- probably due to our envious nature as humans.
«12. . .3,9223,9233,9243,9253,9263,9273,9283,9293,930»
Advertisement
