Awesome piece that makes a strong argument. I'm sold.
A friend was once called to jury duty and mentioned jury nullification. She was booted immediately. Everyone should be taught about jury nullification and told to keep mum about it during voir dire. We can always overturn a ruling in any instant case by simply claiming justification and that the law is a nullity if the jury decides it so. It's not enough but it's a start.
Great write-up! One of the comments to my piece was particularly spot-on when it said that Islam's strict adherence makes it "strong but brittle". The corralling around what is persuasively (to many) heralded as an infallible source of guidance definitely raises zealotry, but the inflexibility also makes it vulnerable to flanking attacks. I mean, I myself am a case study in this for having abandoned my faith completely and since there's no "living Koran" as you put it, I can't even try and pretend to rejigger it.
When it comes to mimetic warfare between ideologies, it's tough to strike a balance between spread and potency, just like with real viruses that kill their hosts too early to spread. As awkwardly written the Bill of Rights is, there's something remarkable about the enduring resilience of 1A and 2A ideals, particularly when compared to other supposedly developed countries. For example, besides the US I'm aware only of Czechia in recognizing a fundamental right to possess firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic
Dead letter or not, the mere existence of the Constitution acts as a Schelling Point.
For another example for when a de jure distinction that was a de facto dead letter, relevant to contemporary politics, consider the borders of the Republics in the old USSR. In theory the USSR was a voluntary union of independent Republics, in practice no subordinate leader in the USSR was allowed any real scope for independent decisions, so the Republics' borders didn't really matter. Until that is the USSR collapsed and suddenly the borders started mattering very much.
1. Islam had neither an Enlightenment - which created the liberalism that will destroy us, nor a Reformation, that destroyed Christianity, the belief system that created Western Civilization and now is being replaced by a new belief system of Wokeism.
2. The concept of “vigilantism” in a self-governing republic is an interesting one. We the people, by definition, are responsible for our government. Policing is a part of government. We delegate to mere hirelings the act of creating and enforcing laws via our representatives in municipal, state and federal legislatures, and police forces at various levels. When these hirelings reject the authority we delegate to them, the responsibility (which cannot be delegated) to enforce our laws remains ours. “Vigilantism” simply is a citizen enforcing a law his hirelings refuse to. Doing so is his right and his duty.
Haven't finished yet but I had to comment after reading the alt-history section- if you haven't yet you shoudl read the Robert W. Chambers story The Repairer of Reputations. It's set in an alternative 1920 after a limited war with Germany, which started as a conflict over Samoa. All this is just background for a really excellent piece of weird fiction.
Wonderful article. Your 3rd Dark Right, I call The FAFO Law, structured thusly... If a person is in the act of committing a crime, he cannot sue or press charges relating to anything done to him by a vigilante citizen. There is no duty for a citizen to call the police if he doesn't need the help; and the state can likewise neither sue nor press charges against said vigilantism.
There have absolutely been cases decided in the Supreme Court that have revolved around the Ninth amendment. For example, Roe vs Wade:
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
I dream of righteous guerrilla warfare waged in individual isolation against tyrants and their handmaidens and running dogs. Men with no dependents are the likeliest warriors.
BTW, just came across a tweeter thread where an American explains to his shocked Japanese wife how much less the American government keeps track of its citizens that the Japanese government.
I was reading Ted Gioia's piece on whether early laws were in fact sung and not written this morning and it occurred to me why, for better or worse, Islamic (and Hindu) cultures are so resistant to change.
It's not because what is written is immutable, but because so much of the code *isn't* written down anywhere, it's tradition and social pressure, it is networked common knowledge, and therefore it is resistant both to amendment and to lawyering.
Take the hijab - WEIRD feminists correctly point out that head coverings for women is not specifically mandated anywhere in the Koran or Hadiths, but the folks in Pakistan could give a shit. If a girl from a decent family were to go out without a headcovering, the results would be pretty predictable, and no amount of "show me the exact Sura!" would change that. Nor would it matter what that girl thought, what "her Islam" meant or even whether she or anyone in her family believed a word of it.
Everybody in a traditional society knows what their rights and obligations are, there is no making it up as you go along, and if you do otherwise ("I gotta be me!"), you will be brought back to earth in no uncertain terms, and I don't even necessarily mean violence.
Or, to again paraphrase Ted Gioia, you can change the wording of the Constitution, you can get the Supreme Court to agree that the text doesn't mean what it plainly says, you can conjure new rights out of thin air, but you can't change the lyrics to "American Pie" by popular vote or anything else. If Congress were to pass a law stating that, from this day forward, "American Pie" would reference good old girls as well as good old boys, and even if Don McLean were to concur, well, that song is now part of our collective consciousness, and good luck getting people to sing it differently.
Awesome piece that makes a strong argument. I'm sold.
A friend was once called to jury duty and mentioned jury nullification. She was booted immediately. Everyone should be taught about jury nullification and told to keep mum about it during voir dire. We can always overturn a ruling in any instant case by simply claiming justification and that the law is a nullity if the jury decides it so. It's not enough but it's a start.
Great write-up! One of the comments to my piece was particularly spot-on when it said that Islam's strict adherence makes it "strong but brittle". The corralling around what is persuasively (to many) heralded as an infallible source of guidance definitely raises zealotry, but the inflexibility also makes it vulnerable to flanking attacks. I mean, I myself am a case study in this for having abandoned my faith completely and since there's no "living Koran" as you put it, I can't even try and pretend to rejigger it.
When it comes to mimetic warfare between ideologies, it's tough to strike a balance between spread and potency, just like with real viruses that kill their hosts too early to spread. As awkwardly written the Bill of Rights is, there's something remarkable about the enduring resilience of 1A and 2A ideals, particularly when compared to other supposedly developed countries. For example, besides the US I'm aware only of Czechia in recognizing a fundamental right to possess firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic
I am french and it's basically the smartest thing I've read on HOW TO ENFORCE FREESPEECH since the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
I also love this kind of open-ending that really open the way for the future of Network States.
Dead letter or not, the mere existence of the Constitution acts as a Schelling Point.
For another example for when a de jure distinction that was a de facto dead letter, relevant to contemporary politics, consider the borders of the Republics in the old USSR. In theory the USSR was a voluntary union of independent Republics, in practice no subordinate leader in the USSR was allowed any real scope for independent decisions, so the Republics' borders didn't really matter. Until that is the USSR collapsed and suddenly the borders started mattering very much.
Intriguing piece.
Thoughts:
1. Islam had neither an Enlightenment - which created the liberalism that will destroy us, nor a Reformation, that destroyed Christianity, the belief system that created Western Civilization and now is being replaced by a new belief system of Wokeism.
2. The concept of “vigilantism” in a self-governing republic is an interesting one. We the people, by definition, are responsible for our government. Policing is a part of government. We delegate to mere hirelings the act of creating and enforcing laws via our representatives in municipal, state and federal legislatures, and police forces at various levels. When these hirelings reject the authority we delegate to them, the responsibility (which cannot be delegated) to enforce our laws remains ours. “Vigilantism” simply is a citizen enforcing a law his hirelings refuse to. Doing so is his right and his duty.
This is stunning!
Haven't finished yet but I had to comment after reading the alt-history section- if you haven't yet you shoudl read the Robert W. Chambers story The Repairer of Reputations. It's set in an alternative 1920 after a limited war with Germany, which started as a conflict over Samoa. All this is just background for a really excellent piece of weird fiction.
this is brilliant
Wonderful article. Your 3rd Dark Right, I call The FAFO Law, structured thusly... If a person is in the act of committing a crime, he cannot sue or press charges relating to anything done to him by a vigilante citizen. There is no duty for a citizen to call the police if he doesn't need the help; and the state can likewise neither sue nor press charges against said vigilantism.
Btw, don not dawn.
There have absolutely been cases decided in the Supreme Court that have revolved around the Ninth amendment. For example, Roe vs Wade:
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
I'm very curious how you've come to the conclusion that the Ninth isn't used.
Those images made the essay. Man, that just perfectly captures the vibe you're going for.
I dream of righteous guerrilla warfare waged in individual isolation against tyrants and their handmaidens and running dogs. Men with no dependents are the likeliest warriors.
I believe DeMaistre made a similar point about written constitutions.
If you notice certain parts of the unchanging Bible, Christianity is also enforceable by ad hoc individual violence if led by God's voice: https://redstatesecession.org/god-chooses-men-to-kill-wicked-government-leaders-a-bible-study
BTW, just came across a tweeter thread where an American explains to his shocked Japanese wife how much less the American government keeps track of its citizens that the Japanese government.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1691918078693785826.html
The beginning of it:
Ruriko: So when do we register with Chicago?
Me: We don’t.
R: So how does Chicago know everyone who lives in Chicago?
Me: It doesn’t.
R: … Does America have a government? How do you even do population statistics?!
Me: Count every ten years.
R: You ARE TROLLING ME.
The last few minutes have been her working through the implications for every benefits program administered locally, with increasing levels of horror.
Ruriko: Wait you mean Chicago Public Schools literally does not know Liam and Lillian exist unless we tell them that.
Me: Yep.
Ruriko: So there’s no form to tell them that we are putting our children in private school?
Me: No form.
Ruriko: So if a child is just not enrolled they…
Me: Hopefully are seen by truant officers who will eventually cause someone to ask about the circumstances.
Ruriko: TROLLING.
I was reading Ted Gioia's piece on whether early laws were in fact sung and not written this morning and it occurred to me why, for better or worse, Islamic (and Hindu) cultures are so resistant to change.
It's not because what is written is immutable, but because so much of the code *isn't* written down anywhere, it's tradition and social pressure, it is networked common knowledge, and therefore it is resistant both to amendment and to lawyering.
Take the hijab - WEIRD feminists correctly point out that head coverings for women is not specifically mandated anywhere in the Koran or Hadiths, but the folks in Pakistan could give a shit. If a girl from a decent family were to go out without a headcovering, the results would be pretty predictable, and no amount of "show me the exact Sura!" would change that. Nor would it matter what that girl thought, what "her Islam" meant or even whether she or anyone in her family believed a word of it.
Everybody in a traditional society knows what their rights and obligations are, there is no making it up as you go along, and if you do otherwise ("I gotta be me!"), you will be brought back to earth in no uncertain terms, and I don't even necessarily mean violence.
Or, to again paraphrase Ted Gioia, you can change the wording of the Constitution, you can get the Supreme Court to agree that the text doesn't mean what it plainly says, you can conjure new rights out of thin air, but you can't change the lyrics to "American Pie" by popular vote or anything else. If Congress were to pass a law stating that, from this day forward, "American Pie" would reference good old girls as well as good old boys, and even if Don McLean were to concur, well, that song is now part of our collective consciousness, and good luck getting people to sing it differently.