Friday, April 30, 2021

Debt vs. Death and On Judgment

Rectifying the names sullied by Satanic society is not the only important fix. It's also important to rectify jurisprudence. Judge is a phenotype, not a profession. Fake societies appoint non-Judges to Judge positions, who naturally produce corrupt judgments regardless of how well they're trained. (Then they don't train them well.)


It's fine for contracts to fall to an inheritor upon death, including debts, but the inheritor has to be a signatory to the contracts. It can't be a surprise.

"Your dad has gambling debts," yes, well, if you wanted me to be on the hook for that, you needed to have me in the room when you gave him the loan. You screwed up, not me. How would I even know if you were lying? Maybe you forged these documents. 

Limited liability corporations are fine, as long as anyone selling a debt to the corporation knows the liability is limited and has priced the loan accordingly. Anyone pricing such contracts based on general principles has been defrauded. 

In the case of a family business, such as a carpentry shop, I expect it's best if the inheritor can shirk the debts as long as they decline to inherit the business. Ideally the ancestor would set up a limited liability corporation, or explicitly sign their heirs into ownership while still alive, but in practice they'll likely leave things implicit. As such there needs to be a default custom which children will learn about even if they don't particularly investigate. In particular, don't necessarily expect to inherit your dad's shop unless he's shown you the books and you know it's in the black. Except in the case of tragic early death, the child should start working at the shop, and thus know of the business, before the dad dies anyway. 

For proof, consider the contraries. Imagine the son can inherit the shop but not the debts. Highly exploitable. Dad goes way into debt buying expensive tools, then conveniently dies. Son inherits expensive tools free and clear, and the bank has to eat it. Yes the bank should have realized this would happen and denied the loans, but banks are a bit thick and frequently won't.
Now imagine the same, except the dad keeps the debts secret from the son and the son is suddenly surprised with crushing debt when the dad is unexpectedly offed. The son didn't do anything wrong, but gets destroyed anyway. What, are you going to give sons the opportunity to deny their dads' loans, so he can vaguely be seen as at fault? Rationally, he should become a violent outlaw; society has betrayed him. Pro Tip: don't be a traitor. You've put the loans on the son, but they still don't get paid. Everyone loses.

Ironically, democracy is the correct way to appoint a Judge. They are found by general acclaim of the community. Finding the need for judgment, they seek advice from a third party. Someone with a reputation for judging fairly ends up being consistently sought and becomes the de-facto Judge for that community. This also means, by contrast, you can exclude yourself from a Judge's rightful jurisdiction by not seeking their judgment and not interacting with anyone who would.

State "justice" is nothing more than a whitewashing operation applied to raw bullying. The fact they need to whitewash demonstrates mens rea. The Satanic State corrupts the judgment process by claiming that you're wronging them when you're minding your own business, then appointing its own judge, then enforcing the "judgment" with its own thugs. 

P.S. This is as complicated as sociology needs to get. You will note the above isn't exactly a quantum mechanics paper. This is why sociology is the easiest science. It gets a little complicated when people are dumb and/or refuse to make the contracts explicit, but even then even average IQs can understand if it's explained to them. Which is good; to follow rules, folk need to have some understanding of said rules.

I think sociology is so easy that aristocratic families regularly spread sullying propaganda in an attempt to fool their rivals, because fraud is the only way to gain an advantage in this regard. Peasant sociology has been based entirely on this intentional misdirection for every time period I've checked. In present society almost everyone who can counter the saturation-level propaganda uses the knowledge for selfish personal gain, rather than attempting to push back against the bullshit tide. Quite rationally. Admitting you know better merely lets your rivals predict your next move more easily. "Oh, that makes sense. I bet it's not a fuckin' lie. I bet he's going to actually follow that principle."

If the KGB wasn't founded by the sociologically deft, then they would have almost immediately learned due to attempting applied sociology. They would saturate Conquest #1 in, say, well under a year? However, they ended up very sophisticated, which isn't what [someone bumbling forward] looks like.

No comments: