Monday, February 13, 2017

Who Keeps the Laws?

Do they realize this is 100% authentic Steel Anarchism? (Via.)

However, respect for the law does not enforce itself.

At one time there was a place where the respect for rule of Law ran so deep it became true, and Law ruled. A nomoarchy. The King could be tried, and found guilty, and punished. And God's hands reached down and cradled those humble and glorious people. However, this respect did not last, and that land now affords Satan comfortable and well-appointed apartments.

Respect for the law does not propagate itself. The law does not enforce itself. As such, what is Law, from the perspective of the transgressor? Law is whatever the Lawkeeper says it is. If I want the Law on my side, I need a Lawkeeper on my side. I must Secure a Lawkeeper, who in turn must Secure my property.

To Secure my property, the Lawkeeper must have enough weaponry to force other Lawkeepers to respect it.

The problem then is to get a just Lawkeeper. In practice, dire apes are easily tricked, and occasionally directly prefer sick Lawkeepers. As example, American slaves were sold by their Lawkeepers to the Lawkeepers of America, and were primarily slaves as punishment for crimes. If indeed we can hang a werman until dead for transgression of the Law, a fortiori we can merely enslave* him. Indeed, give him the option and let him pick his preference.

(*Any lifelong slaves need to be sterilized.)

The typical dire ape knows nothing of the Law and will never know the Law. It is probably this that killed the respect I saw above. The Lawkeeper bent the Law, said it was not bent, and all agreed. But, inevitably, the bent Law was not worthy of respect, and still ignorant of the delta, true Law and bent Law were discredited both.

Yet, quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Neither can the Lawkeepers be trusted to pick just Lawkeepers.


Garr said...

NYC really is like the lawless democratic Athens that Plato has Socrates describe in REPUBLIC, in which even the animals claim the right of way, although in this case the animals are pitbulls being walked either as living weaponry by men who hate my kind or as combination living-weaponry/boyfriends by women who hate my kind. Lower-class women do whatever they want anywhere(e.g. electronic devices playing without headphones on subways or buses) and respond to mild reprimands with instant defiance. The main job of the police is apparently to guard these people from any possible constraining influences, so that they are in fact able to do whatever they want anywhere. Meanwhile, ordinary middle-class people feel that it's mean to object to lower-class misbehavior. Being somewhat spectrumy, I tend to get into confrontations with subhumans that begin with my objecting to their literally lawless behavior (unleashed pitbulls, devices playing audibly on public vehicles, etc.) I fear eventual arrest by cops siding with the subhumans.

Pseudo-chrysostom said...

> Neither can the Lawkeepers be trusted to pick just Lawkeepers.

Sure they can

Or rather, you have no other choice.

Progs fear and mistrust their neighbors, projecting their own perfidy in the solipsistic presumption that their neighbors are as similarly perfidious as themselves. Naturally this commutes into a fear and mistrust of anyone (else) having (explicit) authority (over them), which also nicely dove-tails with their own sublimated desire for control.

The ur-prog, who lives in a world of natural law, sees nothing besides a right natural order of patriarchal kings. Hence, when he sees political dysfunction, he sees it only involving aristoi or autarchs. As is the way of progs, he immediately takes to pen, and in typical feat of superficiality, concludes that removing aristoi will remove political problems.

The buck always stops somewhere.

The prog tries to trick the buck, hoping it may perhaps eat its own tail and go poof in a puff of circular logic, or at least get lost somewhere in a labyrinth of legal operations.

This always fails of course.

Such sorts of neat little 'closed loops', all wrapped up in a little bow, appeals to the autistic pseuds who are so enamored by such fully automated systemizmatic thinking, as they lack the imagination to interface with Being in more holistic manners. Being is of course always so much greater than the frameworks beings inside of it could possibly dream up.

Be mindful if one ever finds oneself falling into such self-contained Loopy thinking; kantianism of this sort is of course political heresy of the first order.

The result instead is that rather than stopping somewhere explicit and formal that can be easily reckoned with, the buck stops somewhere occulted. Where shall a philosophy of good kingship come from, if there is no demand? The pressure to rule wisely, the meme magic to make good kings, has nowhere to go, if of course there are no kings in the first place. That which is made explicit can become godly, that which is occulted can become demonic.

The compulsive buck-passing of the prog essentially opens the door to rule by demons or demon-possessed.

Pseudo-chrysostom said...

The prog essentially takes on the role of a demiurge; attempting to craft his own universe in miniature, fully self-contained and self-referential. All of which promptly explode upon contact with the greater universe Outside, as is their nature.

As sith lord Kierkegaard might put it: one has to take a radical leap of faith.