Law as Applied to Moldbug

Moldbug is of course malicious. He wishes to propose Justinian/legislative law, because that causes tyranny, and therefore pain and suffering. Very Christian: it hurts, lets do it. 

 

"cops are no different from robbers—the law is, do what you must to dodge their grasp."

Conquest's third law guarantees this is always true.
Which admittedly makes it a bit of a puzzle that it's not too true in Singapore. The cops actually reduce crime there instead of increasing it, and for some reason the CPIB doesn't itself become corrupt. Most curious. 

The nadir of crime in England was ~1850s, precisely because cops were introduced in the late 1800s. Before that the local sheriff was an unpaid 'volunteer' position and bringing a suit to court cost you out of pocket. No subsidies. This was exactly as janky as it sounds, but it wasn't as as bad as having police. Removing police from England would now prevent 98-99% of all crime. No Rotherham rape gangs - at least, not after the first week. Maybe 7 days + the shipping time on the gun and ammo. All of a sudden nobody can stop those fathers from retrieving their daughters, and you'll find concerned fathers can aim better than sex parasites.

"Venezuela, Sudan, Somalia—who wants to live there?"

Good 'ol Satanism.

When Somalia "lost" this "law" it went from bottom-10 African country to top-10. Every measure skyrocketed except female education. They went from importing Ethiopian cattle to exporting.

Of course Mogadishu remained an active battlefield since the international airport is there to resupply the UN troops trying to seize the country, and the Somalians had learned better - they objected strenuously. Journalists, of course, work for the UN and arrive at the airport, so even if they wanted to learn about the rest of the country, they would assiduously avoid it. Moldbug then listens to journalists, because he wants to do politics, not scholarship.

From what we're told about what's happening in Venezuela, everyone ought to have starved to death already. It should be a holodomor. Ergo: I have no idea what's going on in Venezuela and Sudan, and neither does Moldbug.

"threatening this palladium that preserves our nation from chaos, war and barbarism."

America has never not been at war. America has never not been chaotic. America has never not been barbarism - Britain, Borea generally, lost to America because of Britain's own masochism, not any virtue of America's.

"Rather, these places suffer from a lack of order."

He's a Satanist, you realize. It occurs to you: he's using euphemisms. These places, he's saying, are anarcho-tyrannous, and should instead be regular-tyrannous.
How do you think the tyrant loses his grasp? All tyrants are weak. Sickly, bitter mutants who can barely dream of competence. Julius today would wear the rainbow flag. Full SJW. He smells almost exactly the same - merely smarter than his petty heirs.

"And essential to the concept of order—let alone the more refined concept of law—is its uniformity. Neither order nor law is meaningful unless it is uniformly applied."

Tyranny, see? Totalitarianism. 

Your local conditions don't matter. Your local needs, your local desires, your local values - pfah. Nonsense. Only your uniform obedience matters. Christianity; slave morality.

Moldbug says he's an atheist. I should have taken the hint, more fool me. Atheism is a particularly fanatic sect of Christianity. And Christianity is Satanism. Atheism is Satanism with fewer steps.

As Saint Bukele recently showed us so elegantly, the problem is not lack of order, the problem is precisely 'order.' The gangs exist because someone is sponsoring them in a very orderly fashion. If they are not government-subsidized, persecuting them out of existence is a trivial exercise, exactly akin to taking out the trash. 

For Venezuela to achieve order, all it must do is stop digging. Judges already exist. Let them Judge. Let them out of hiding and you will have Law.

Sadly Christianity is not unique in its narcissistic totalitarianism. It's a problem with every system of "universal truths." They always think they can centrally plan a universal government - which justifies defecting on cooperators. What a coincidence.

"How would you start, Kynikos, with this order? Rounding up the unhoused? The underprivileged? Gassing them? We know where this thinking leads."

This line by Simplicio is of course exactly how Fascists talk; projection. They have to create a bogeyman because their own 'order' is so twisted that it only looks good when compared to concentration camps.

"In a modern country, law exists to protect the weak and friendless." In particular they need protection from the homeless, you disgusting Satanist. 

Again, the "order": do you need protection from the homeless man? No, of course not. You're perfectly capable of taking care of that problem yourself. It's only because Simplicio has a platoon of jackbooted thugs ready to stop or punish you that the unhoused creature can be a nuisance at all. Ye shall know them by their fruits: Simplicio can afford platoons of rifles and full gear, but can't afford a few tents. 

This 'Kynikos' doesn't appear to be all that cynical...is this a surprise? Did you predict this a priori?

Any Judge will tell you the bum can't control himself and rendering a Judgment is a waste of time. It's a pest; call animal control.

 

"the nostalgie de la boue It is characteristic of the nobility."

Yeah no it isn't. It's a characteristic of degenerate fops - peasants born to noble parents. Disown them and try again.

"Your civilized biped lives in one of two ways: as a responsible adult, or under the care and authority of a responsible adult."

Responsibly allowing [an unaccountable institution which cannot be fired or even sued for malpractice] to ensure their security on their behalf. According to Moldbug. 

"These places are protected from the reigning chaos of the age by systems, institutions and rules inherited from the past: police and prisons and borders."

No. They're protected by the fact that criminals, especially, do not think and aren't aware that there are no prisons or borders. They spread like a silly putty spill and with exactly as much strategy and intent.

E.g. the caravans from South America are being organized by internal USG elements. Bought and paid for by Soros, as it were. 

"I also believe in the rule of precedent, stare decisis, which tells us that past decisions must not be lightly overturned."

Lie. You do not believe that. Present American ""law"" was all decided lightly.

Not believing it is necessary: the principle is wrong. Non-Judges should never overturn a past decision, not even after serious deliberation. Absolutely never. Judges can overturn whatever decisions they like, because they aren't overturning them, they are revealing a previously unknown complication. 

With Law a bad apple does not spoil the whole barrel. Instead it's obvious. Stands out like a sore thumb. Mistakes and corruption are clearly visible due to contrast. The Law which speaks its own name through Judges is not hypocritical. Your intuition may be pinging you: commoners can easily be tricked into thinking the Law is hypocritical, but that's because they're stupid. 

Law which is not true stands out as does any false note in a symphony. It is an anomalous measurement. Detecting it is as easy and straightforward as detecting a bum thermometer. Unless they're not a Judge, of course, and attempting to have ideas above their station, whereupon detecting bum notes is not only difficult, but impossible. If they guess correctly it is exactly that: a guess. They got lucky.

Final proof it was all decided lightly: there are no Judges behind American benches. Of course it's all just politics. Personnel is policy; they're criminals, they will make unLawful rules.

"Burke wrote that the statesman should operate on the state like a surgeon operating on the body of his own father."

Burke was a loser and had loser thoughts. Obvious totalitarianism is obvious. The only thing worse than this America which repudiates Burke would be an America which hadn't.

"Law is valid only because the government has the consent of the people."

Cool. Where do I revoke my consent?

Lel, I already have.

 

"Our sacred Constitution is binding only because it, with its amendments, was ratified by a legal due process. "

(It wasn't ratified by due process, kekekekeke)

 

"There is no “Constitution in exile,” "

There could have been. I am sovereign, as a simple de facto matter. The government really did try to tell me what to do, and it failed. It is too weak.

You can't call me an exile only because my homeland didn't exist and hadn't for decades, even centuries, before I was born. I could have the squatters removed if it were worth the effort. Sadly it isn't, but on the other hand they will be punished by being forced to live with themselves. My ancestors, may they rot in hell, made some very poor choices and Gnon has given them what they asked for.

I do like to repeat the ritual sometimes:

I revoke all consent. I do not consent to be, as they put it, "governed," in any way, shape, means, or capacity. I declare my country wholly and utterly illegitimate. I deny any duty to this dishonourable criminal collective. Any force applied to my person or property will be taken as an act of war. I disown, disinherit, denounce, dismiss, detract, and despise this band of desecration which pleases itself to call a country. It is worthless and less than worthless.

My ancestors clearly deserved the country they experienced. They did not die happy. I will not be so shameful. 

 

Anyone can, as I have, simply remove themselves from the corrupt collective. This is not a difficult idea. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks of it. They simply choose not to uphold a constitution in exile.

Which suggests a story about how the constitution died: it was never alive in the first place. If it wouldn't be upheld in exile, in all likelihood it wasn't upheld domestically either. I certainly see no evidence it has been sustained. If you assume it was a dead letter on day 0 you predict what in fact occurred.

"and it was ratified by the American people."

Cool. How do I un-ratify it? But wait: apparently it isn't valid against non-ratifiers. I didn't in the first place. Did you? Did you even consciously and with full power of attorney join [the American people]?

Lawl.

"Not only is there no such thing as a heritable contract—no one can sign a contract that binds his descendants"

It's not even hard. Indeed it's impossible to sign a contract that doesn't affect your descendants. Every bit of property you alienate is one they don't inherit - they don't get the property back when you die.
Although the constitution is not a contract that binds the behaviour of the descendants, as such things must be specified explicitly.

Also it tends to be a bad idea. Would you agree to sell me your house on the condition of some compensation with a proper interest rate to be performed by my grandson?
If you currently have children, would you agree to sell me your child's future house in exchange for some present compensation? Imagine it as vividly and specifically as you can.
The contracts are hardly impossible, but it's really a bad idea.

Anyway the constitution is clearly an unconscionable contract. USG can jail Americans for noncompliance, but Americans can't sue USG for failure to deliver. As I call them, a gift contract: you don't need a piece of paper promising to give cute little Suzy a present on her birthday, and if Suzy's mother starts insisting on one, you have discovered an unLawful traitor. 

"but the American people lives forever. "

Any specific definition of 'American people' will point to an entity that never existed at all.

"This kind of rhetoric drops the veil of rational contractualism and returns to a fundamentally spiritual and poetic conception of government.

"Very well! Government is a spiritual and poetic thing,"

Well isn't that Satanic. 

Two Satanists have found a common profanity. Are you happy for them?

"It is possible to believe in inherited contracts—if you also believe in ancestor-worship."

Atheist are in fact Satanist blah blah etc. 

If you get your head out of your narcissistic ass and look at actual ancestor-worship, you find it's extremely contractual. The ancestors have duties and not fiddly-widdly things like 'upholding' the 'American people.' One of the reasons for the present unpopularity of ancestor-worship was attrition from ancestors failing to uphold their end of the deal and losing the ancestor cult as a result. 

"Man did not need to study his conscience and say, “This is just; this is unjust.” Man believed that the sacred hearth, in virtue of the religious law, passed from father to son; from this it followed that the house was hereditary property."

Problem: they did need to study their consciences. Their Laws had travesties in them, which is why you are now here instead of somewhere else. This is why I was born and my ancestors weren't hanged instead. 

Rather than acknowledging the transcendent imperfection of the world and striving to improve, they Pridefully assumed perfection.
There is no stagnation. If you're not growing, you're dying. Perfection is nonexistence; trying to act perfect is a prayer to Gnon to cease existing.

Gnon answered this prayer. Hubris => Nemesis, and his name was Jesus Christ. He really did come bearing a sword, to set you against your kith and kin. Did you believe him?

"which makes no sense without both the premodern assumption of ancestor-worship, and the modern invention of “law as code.”"

You mean: makes sense as neither. It's ancestor-worship without ancestral consultation, and it's an unconscionable contract. Fake fake fake. America invented plastic politically long before it invented it materially.

"We no longer worship our ancestors; often we positively scorn them."

If worshipping your ancestors brought you America, what use were your ancestors? 

Here's my radical thesis: worship glory, scorn profanity. Do not ask: were they ancestors? Ask: were they worthy of scorn?
Satanism again. Denial of Reality.
Don't wait for them to become ancestors. Scorn them right now.

The Satanist finally derides scorning your ancestors now that they richly deserve it. Those idiots signed and ratified the constitution. Dig them up, desecrate the bones, shred the constitution, and put it down the hole the bones came from. 

My grandparents were actual criminals. They should have been rotting in separate jails rather than giving birth to my parents. Worshipping my ancestors is downright heinous. 

"Yet there is still a rational place for old things, which have proven their worth."

So...not the constitution. "Under the Constitution" Lie. "America became the greatest" Lie.

"Yes; they built a thing that worked"

They very clearly built a thing that didn't work. Insofar America isn't the worst hellhole in the world, it's despite America and Americans, not because of them. 

"Therefore, when we ask whether Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Adams would be racists today"

It is obvious to the point of tediousness. They would be antiracist today. Egalitarians gonna Egalitariate. 

That and power addicts are addicted to power. They might have a clever twist on antiracism that let them seize more power than their dull descendants can grasp, that's all. 

I am reminded that in the England of the 1300s, you could sell infangthief, the right to hang thieves found on your land. It wasn't a duty; the thing had a positive price. To this 'primitive' legal system, it seemed natural that political objects were also objects of commerce and property. Ecclesiastical rights were also matters of contract; when Henry seized the monasteries, he did it because they owned a bunch of worldly goods, and he did it by arrogating the contracts for those goods to himself.
If you wanted these rights to be 'inalienable' all you had to do is choose to not alienate it.

The idea that Americans were ever 'contract law nerds' when you couldn't sell your legal rights is pure comedy. Laughable. Ludicrous. The 'free' (looool) American stock of 1700s was clearly so inferior to English stock of 1300s that they didn't even feel the need to address the vast lacunae in their childish political "engineering." Didn't even know there was more to know.

That or they were just a bunch of traitorous criminal scumbags, the kind of mafia shithead who burns a man alive in his house over an abstract disagreement. Mandela's necklacing was traditional. The Founding Mothers were never trying to make a good nation or even a lasting nation. Their principle then was the same as it is now: I get mine. 

And you idiots went along with it.