Democracy is but a test of Concurrency, not a Right of Imposition under pretence of legitimacy.


1) There is no evidence that democracy is a ‘good’.

Instead, a constitution of rule of law of the concurrent(vote), common(court), natural law(science of cooperation), and transactional change to the law(originalism) under those constraints (natural law sovereignty) is a good – and voting is simply a necessity of determining concurrency.

You will find more comprehension of the Anglo-American system of government in that one sentence than in all the volumes written on the subject to date.

Under the Natural Law (Science of Cooperation, by the natural law of decidability) using Concurrent(positive, voting), Common (Negative, court dispute resolution), recorded as transactions against a ledger (textualism) whose terms (think prices) correspond to those weights and measures of those terms the time of recording (originalism), the law, whether finding of the court, legislative contract beween classes and regions, or regulations necessary to implement them, is a record of our agreement – not a means of forcing behavioral change by authoritarian imposition. As such all legislation and regulation is required to be settled law. As such he sovereignty of the people individually, in classes, and in regions is maintained, by tests of concurrency and commonality.

2) That’s because it’s the optimum means of requiring the public accept(legitimize by consent) legislation and law – thereby forcing the people to adapt by consent rather than by political force imposed under law.

3) Democracy is just a test of concurrency by class and region.

4) Which parties undermine that rule of law of natural law?
a. The right favors concurrency, commonality, and conformity in order to maximize commons.
b. The right is trying to restore rule of law but as an anti-intellectual tradition, it uses moral and religious language.
c. The right is naturally eugenic (via anglo), puts the production of the intergenerational family ahead of the individual; minimizes incentives to resist maturity into productivity, responsibility, and liability; maximizes the rate of group production, innovation, & adaptation.

5. AFAIK the left favors irresponsibility, non-adaptability, non-conformity, consumption over commons, individual over family, dysgenia, and deliberately destroys institutions of cultural production that enable cooperation in a division of labor at scale despite our inequalities.

6. So AFAIK the left represents the feminine dysgenic instinct to maximize numbers increasing demand for income and consumption – and the right represents the eugenic instinct to maximize group advantage, while reducing demand for income by production of discounts via commons.

7. So since these biases (a) are immutable instincts (b) we are prosperous enough to follow our sex bias in political orders just as we have demonstrated sex bias in morals, occupation, and aesthetics (c) then why don’t we just separate into polities we prefer and trade(not war)?

8) I don’t think enough of us are intellectually honest to grant the opposition’s instincts their due, and separate into regional states (as did christian and protestant europe) so that we split happily into M:European(Aristocratic) tradition and F:Semitic(Marxist) tradition.

9) So why is it that the right no longer comprehends its tradition of rule of law of concurrent, common, natural law if the founders wrote it down, the English, Germans, the Romans and Greeks practiced it? And why does the left try to REDEFINE rule of law as majority democracy?

Leave a Reply