Monday, July 4, 2011

Two Federal Circuit Judges Play into the Hands of Reaction

By way of Pluralism and Clarity, we have the story of two Federal circuit court judges playing into the hands of reaction by ruling, in a purely Orwellian fashion, that the 14th Amendment rather than forbidding discrimination before the law, requires it, thus overturning an anti-discrimination law passed by the voters in Michigan in 2006.

How, might you ask, does this play into the dread grasp of Reaction?
By enraging those sections of the conservative and moderate population that are paying attention. See, for reaction to prevail, one needs to destroy, weaken, and/or subvert the fundamental centers of power in our society. The Judiciary is one of the big ones in my model, and one of the biggest edifices in Moldbug's Cathedral model as well. For my brand of reaction to prevail, the population needs to go through these steps. Most of them require my adversaries to score lots of 'own-goals'. Fortunately, they frequently do that.

1. The population most become convinced that the Judiciary is not like them.
2. The population must further believe that the Judiciary is their enemy.
3. The population must believe that the Judiciary has breached the rules of engagement substantially enough that it is no longer legitimate and possesses only brute force.
4. The population must believe that it is 'cricket' or 'kosher' to use naked political aggression against the Judiciary
5. The population must be willing to remove Judges by any legal means under the formula--what is an impeachable offense---whatever the requisite majority or supermajority SAYS is an impeachable offense. This is the reciprocal of Judges deciding that a law or constitutional provision or administrative ruling means what they say it is by their respective required majority, plain meaning of the text be damned.
6. The population must be willing to employ 'Fight Club' style Jury Nullification as a means of raising the escalation temperature with the establishment. Such jury nullification occurs by setting the acceptable probability of convicting an innocent person at a level beyond the resolution of one's senses. If you have a 1 in 10^15 probability of perceiving the entire court trial incorrectly, as in some sort of extended delusion, and you set your probability of acceptable condemnation of a person who is not guilty to, say, 1 in 10^18, you'll never convict anyone---anyone, that is who the Who...Whom rule applies to. Frankly I wager that most court trials scarcely pass even the 1 in 10^6 level in practice.
7. I won't talk about 7 here, in keeping with the 'Fight Club' convention. Suffice it to say that when around 10% or so of the population hits stage 6, I don't think that the Judiciary as an institution can survive.

Every ruling like this helps advance the population along this spectrum. Almost everyone is at stage 1, and an awful lot of people are at at least stage 3. Iowa recently shows that majorities in certain areas for stage 4 are available (I wrote on this earlier as the Iowa Solution) when they are sufficiently antagonized. Stage 5 and 6 are on the near horizon. Some of us are already there.


Aretae said...


if you're giving less than ~1 / 100 chance of most trials being wrong...I think you're nuts. No way we have reasonable doubt at 10^-3 levels.

Jehu said...

If we use an ordinary person's definition of innocence rather than a strictly legal one (i.e., one that doesn't care about the particular instance of robbery, for example, just that the convicted has committed it or a greater crime at least once for which he is yet unpunished, my guess is that such wrongful convictions occur far less than 1 in 100 times). 'Fight Club' jury nullification simply ratchets the probability to a level that can not be met in the real world. That's the point. It never breathes the fact that it considers the law or the application thereof illegitimate, although that is in fact what is really happening.