Force Majeure

I was looking at a Anarcho-Capitalist facebook group the other day, and saw one of the typically silly "stumper" scenarios for ancaps.

Here it is:

"A cloud of toxic gas is headed towards a town of 45,000 people and the only way to escape is underground. A real estate magnate owns an underground city nearby that can fit around 250,000 people, but only those who have membership are allowed in there. The skin-burning acid causes death after about 45 seconds of excruciating pain. Is it morally justifiable to violate this man's property rights in order to save the people of the town?"

Frankly, I've seen much better constructed "lifeboat ethics" scenarios described, but this is apparently the level of intellectual discourse in America these days.

For those not so familiar with anarcho-capitalist debates, this is supposed to show the futility of trying to embrace the NAP or "Non-Aggression Principle" which is the cornerstone of the ancap philosophy.

The point of this being posted up is that it's supposed to reveal the ancap as a hypocrite who would violate another person's property rights, or an ideological fool who would let thousands die for an abstract concept of property rights.

And while this example is particularly dumb, there are more plausible ones that do come up from time to time.  Like whether it's okay to run across a person's property while fleeing a fire even if there is a "no trespassing" sign posted.  Or if it's okay to steal bread to feed a child.  Or can you jump in someone's idling car and take off so as to escape a street gang that's chasing you.

Stealing bread is okay only in French novels.

Notice first that even these "more plausible" examples are themselves somewhat implausible.  Certainly unlikely.  That's because in all cases they are emergencies.  Unusual things not likely to happen in anyone's day to day existence.  That's why they're "unusual".

In fact, one not only can go their whole life without encountering any situations like those, 99.99% of us do. 

But what's the answer?  The answer lies in a little known concept called "force majeure" which is Latin for "overwhelming force".  It's usually a clause inserted into contracts which let a person out of what they said they would do if something major and unforeseen took place that stopped them.

Like if they agreed to manufacture 70,000 widgets in their plant in Haiti and then ship them to France within 10 days, but a hurricane hit and the plant was down for a week.  In this scenario, the force majeure clause would excuse them from being penalized for failing to have the widgets there within 10 days.

However, that does not mean that they cannot be in trouble for not having them there in 17 days, that being the amount of time they said they needed plus the delay time. 

Force majeure can only be invoked in certain situations.  The event must be large enough to actually impact the activity that was to take place.  It must be something unusual that could not reasonably have been expected.  And the person claiming it must make the other person as whole as possible and as soon as possible.

While this most often finds itself in contracts and contract law, the concept applies to any kind of contract, including social contracts and implied contracts.

It is ordinarily understood that we will not trespass where it says not to.  But it is also understood that if a person is fleeing a fire that cutting across a property line is not to be punished.  It's also generally understood that a person might be in a position where the stealing of bread is needful, but this is looked at much more carefully, and will most likely only mean that the punishment for theft is lighter.

As to leaping into an idling car, that is going to be looked at even more suspiciously.  

Which brings us to another point about force majeure.  If it really is, then it should be so obvious that everyone knows it.  If you live in a city where street gangs run wild, then it won't be surprising if you have to jump into such an idling car.  If you live in some devastatingly poor economy, it may be no surprise to a jury that you had to steal bread for your kid.

Getting back to the fantastical example, we can see that there are three mistakes being made.

One is in lifeboat ethics situations being fallacious.  You cannot judge an entire moral system by an extreme so contrived, so out there, as to hardly be likely to ever be seen.  That one can use words to describe a situation that the laws of reality do not forbid is NOT the same as that situation then having any relevance to anything.  "Would it be okay to swear at your mom if an alien landed and said he would blow up Earth if you did not?"  Who cares?

Two, is in not grasping the principle of force majeure and how it could apply to the contrived situation.  Where the folks in danger simply rush in, to avoid being gassed to death, but then leave as soon as the danger is over, compensating the owner for any damages or loss.  Or you swear at your mom and apologize afterward.

Three is in - as is usual in lifeboat ethics problems - overlooking the fact that there are usually moral ways of dealing with an emergency that do not involve force majeure.  Like leaving the town without going underground, by simply going out whatever side the gas was not coming in from.  The author said the "only way" was by underground, but in reality, that is as unlikely as that alien wanting your mother swore at.

This type of thing is seen over and over again.  The man stealing the bread could have asked for it as an act of charity, or offered to work for it, or sought aid from church or family or friends or got a loan from a bank or a payday loan or a title loan or by donating plasma or by collecting cans on the side of the road or going to a pawn store or panhandling or having a yard sale!  

Theft is a thing to be found only at the end of a very long list of options, and if it is claimed those things can't be done, it would involve the person having made a remarkable variety of mistakes beforehand, which then invalidate force majeure.  Because force majeure can't be invoked if it was your fault.

Like if you build your plant over and over again by a river that floods every year without fail.  Or if you get fired, run off all your family and friends with your abusive and irrational behavior, leave church, and destroy your credit - you don't then get to cry that theft is necessary.  Or if you're daring street gangs to chase you past idling cars!

The case for theft being necessary would involve a set of circumstances very contrived and not to be found in any part of Earth save for where massive amounts of war or natural disasters had very recently hit.  And honestly, not even then, in the vast majority of cases.

Thus when you see any kind of "lifeboat ethics" question, you may always dismiss it by citing it's improbability, or showing that there were errors made leading up to it, or that if there were not, force majeure - and the immediate compensation afterward - is a perfectly moral response.

Understanding "Illegal".

I get really tired of hearing from conservatives that they have nothing against immigrants, they just want them to come in "legally".  Then I'll usually hear some pious hypocrisy about "What part of illegal don't they understand?"

First, this really is hypocritical.  Conservatives have famously supported the woman clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals awhile back.  They have famously supported armed ranchers occupying Federal lands and buildings.  They see nothing wrong with holding up the Supreme Court appointment of a President they don't like.

And everyone of those things - and many more - were against the law.  Those who did them were lawbreakers.  I wonder what part of illegal was not understood by these conservatives?

A Middle Eastern family breaks the law to flee to another nation.

Secondly, I suspect I do know which part.  The part of "illegal" that conservatives don't understand is that they aren't the only ones who get to make moral judgments about which laws to obey and which laws to flout.  Others, even others who think differently then them, also have that as a right.

The conservatives - and liberals, too - love to claim that a law is "unconstitutional".  A magical six syllable word that apparently means, "Ignore it as you please."  It would be claimed, and with a straight face, that no, they aren't advocating lawlessness, but that the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", and takes precedence.

And rather than wait to be affirmed in this by the Supreme Court, they feel it's okay to start ignoring that "unconstitutional" law now.

Understand, I actually have no problem with that.  I'm an armchair anarchist, of course I have no problem with that!  But what I find annoying is that these same Constitutional scholars can NEVER point out where in the Constitution the People delegated to Congress, the Courts or the Presidency the right to regulate the free passage of people in and out of the Republic, or to be able to decide who I will and will not marry from a foreign land, or who I will or will not hire from elsewhere!

And yeah, when you forbid an immigrant from coming here, it is MY rights you are trampling upon as well as theirs!  Who is anyone to say who I marry, who I hire and who I feed or clothe or shelter?

In other words, the "law" that those immigrants who ignore it are perfectly well understanding are the laws that are literally "unconstitutional" by any plain reading of the document.  And any conservative who doesn't get that is then free to "yes, sir" any government stooge who might ever - by law - come for any gun of theirs!

Thirdly, we come to the example of the parents of our Lord and Savior Jesus.  A couple who were ordered by their lawful government to take their less than two year old boy child to King Herod.  But instead of complying with the laws of their nation, they willfully violated those laws and escaped - with no papers or permission - into the neighboring nation of Egypt.

Without even checking with Pharaoh!  Without getting permission from King Herod!  Without doing it "legally"!

But...but...but...I hear it sputtered already.  But they were fleeing a danger!  The Christ child was to be murdered!  Obviously that is an exception!

Of course it is.  I'd never deny it.  What a pity then that the conservatives deny this exception to everyone else.  But that is a conservative.  There's not a one of them who doesn't claim that they'd have marched arm in arm with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  And not a one who doesn't whine about BLM adding ten minutes to a commute.

There are people in other lands in danger.  A danger as great, and as real, as the danger that faced Jesus Christ.  Those refugees - and their parents if they are minors - are guilty of only one crime.

The crime of wanting to live.  And to this end they willfully and with desperate hope aforethought, look towards America and see a glimpse of a giant Statue of Liberty holding an invitation.  An invitation specifically for them.

Inviting these "huddled masses", beckoning to the "wretched refuse" of all the "teeming shores" to come over and be free.

They heed that invitation.  They come, because to not come is to die.  To not come is for their children to die.

And no sooner do they do so then a Trump supporter who'd be the first to claim that he'd carry Christ's cross, hide a Jew from Hitler, help a runaway slave escape, leaps to his feet to baaa, baaa, baaa about "What part of 'illegal' don't they get!?" and "I love all of them, I just want them to come in legally!"

There is no love.  Not of the immigrants who trust the invite here, and not of the Law.  Conservatives have no more or less love for the law than any liberal.  Which is to say that they love it when it agrees with their mood or their feelings, and otherwise ignore it.  Same as liberals do, same as everyone does.

Would that they did love immigrants.  Would that they did love mercy.  Would that they did love aiding those as Christ commanded we aid them.

Then they'd be quick enough to be smuggling the refugees across the border.  They'd be clamoring, "Mr. Trump, tear down this wall!".  They'd be feeding the poor refugee, clothing the poor refugee, sheltering the poor refugee, knowing that these were part of the "least of these my brothers" that Christ spoke of.

Instead, they fear the foreigners, as the Levi and Pharisee feared the injured man on the road to Jericho.  They hurry along the other side of that dusty road, aiding not, and excusing their lack of charity by going on about the dangers, the disease the this and the that.

They fear job competition.  Or bird flu.  Or terrorism.  So many different reasons cited, but as any who have raised teens know, if several different reasons are given you, you may be sure that the real reason is being hid.

Try and explain that if the workers are legalized, that they'd have a harder time competing - it won't make an impression.  Explain how if they are in no fear of arrest, they'd go to a doctor to avoid disease - it won't make an impression.  Explain how the 9/11 terrorists came in "legally" - it won't make an impression.

Because those reasons aren't the real reason.  The real reason they oppose open borders is the same reason that anyone opposes anything good or harmless - their own petty personal prejudices.  The conservative just doesn't want the foreigner here.

The conservative doesn't want other faiths, other languages, other ways of doing things, right in his backyard.  Understand, liberals have their own equal idiocies, their own petty personal prejudices, but this one is the conservatives.

And as surely as a liberal reacts like a scalded cat to any suggestion of a person having to "earn" something, so does a conservative react to hearing that "different" might be coming.

It's sad.  It's un-Christ-like.  And it needs to stop.

(And no, this isn't just a conservative problem.  That "liberal" still in office, President Obama, could normalize the status of all 12 million "illegals" right now.  Remember that if and when President Trump tries to round them up - the Democrats had it in their power to stop that.  If such are to be rounded up, it will be the fault of liberals and conservatives alike.)

Sharia Law

I've traveled far and wide in my life. Visited many places, seen many sites, spent 10 years in Alaska, flew over to Berlin when the Wall came down and chipped away some of it to sell, seen six countries and two continents.

You come across odd things. I was in a place that had not just regular courts like any place would have, but religious courts.

These were "courts" where you could be falsely accused, have your accuser sit in judgment over you, have no jury, no advocate, no right of cross examination and no real appeals process. Your guilt, instead of being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, was assumed from the start and your only chance at even some mercy was to confess at once.

Why? Because it being a religious court, the presumption was that the judges were all divinely appointed and divinely inspired, such that they'd hardly call anyone before them unless they were already divinely inspired to know of their guilt!

"Confess that ye be a witch, and be saved!"

Such tribunals would mete out punishments ranging from loss of status and privileges and rights to even internal or external exile. And if any disagreed with these courts or their rulings, they were said to have turned against the Prophet, the Faith and the Creator!

Sound like hell? I thought so. Sound like why some of you don't want Sharia Law to have any place in the United States?

Well, surprise, because that place I described was Springfield, Illinois and the "religious court" was not Islamic, but from a Christian church I attended. How did I escape it's theocratic judgment?

By resigning. Because, oh yeah, freedom of religion. Which is what gave that church the right to have it's own courts, and me - and anyone else - the right to accept or deny it's jurisdiction.

That's the good news. That no one in the U.S. is required to submit to Sharia Law, Catholic Law, Methodist Law, or the Hearing I was once threatened with. Each of us is free to accept the justice of any of those courts, or to make our own personal judgment call as to the fairness of any of those courts.

Which is why I don't think Mayors and Town Councils should ban such religious courts the way they did in Irving, Texas. I don't think States should. And I sure don't think the Federal government should. It's an infringement on the 1st amendment rights of any who care to submit to such courts.

People forget - other courts, religious or otherwise - are perfectly legal. As long as they still are submissive to the over-riding authority of the United States. As long as one is not compelled to attend under threat of loss of liberty, limb or life.

You've all done it. If you've ever gone to arbitration over a contract or labor dispute. Or been to a college "Honor Court". Or accepted a write up from your boss. Or appealed to a zoning board or unemployment review. Or ran to your Dad to have him decide whether you or your brother was the biggest idiot in whatever your latest dispute was.

All these things - and dozens of more ways of conflict resolution - are "courts" in a sense. Some more than others, obviously, but all serve the same purpose. To resolve issues between two or more people.

Religious courts are legally unique in one way, because technically, though this is largely ignored nowadays, they are Constitutionally protected. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..." about religion, not "some laws about their means of conflict resolution".

Thus the Catholics are able to have their Ecclesiastical Courts. And the Methodists can judge their members based upon their scarily titled "Book of Discipline". And any church can excommunicate - after a court room trial by U.S. judges and juries? Nope, after their own trial done by any rules they care to have.

The court I was to be tried in, without advocate or jury or even the allowance of truth as a defense, was perfectly legal. And no Mayor or Governor would dare to try to forbid it. Because of it being one of the Christian faiths. It wouldn't even occur to them to try to forbid it.

The Islamic churches should have the same rights. To have their Sharia courts, hearings, and what not. Not to force women into hijabs or burkhas against their will. Not to insist that once a Muslim, you must forever be one.

But to aid in the disputes unique to them, involving property and marital issues in which all concerned are voluntarily accepting the judgment of their religious authorities and any are free to decline to accept such judgments if they do not find them fair.

And yes, it is perfectly acceptable and proper for secular judges to take religious law into account on things like divorce and family issues. One obvious example would be judging the validity of a marriage contract from an Islamic nation when the couple is in the U.S. and seek divorce.

This all has worked good for nearly 250 years, and without anyone being stoned for adultery or having had their hands cut off for theft.

I'm sure it can still work now.

That Cheater

There is being a cheater in a relationship, then there is being "that cheater".  You know what I mean.  A cheater betrays the relationship, and when caught is apologetic or defensive.  Contrition or justification.  And you can take it or leave it.

Worse though is "that cheater", the one who chooses to go on the offense by taking you down an entirely irrelevant side road, usually involving blaming you, the victim.

Example:

You:  I saw your email exchange with the neighbor, and know you've been going over there for a nooner those times you told me you were going to the store!

That Cheater:  What?!  You went through my emails?!  You know what a breach of trust that is?!

You:  I was only trying to check my own email, you hadn't logged off is all!

That Cheater:  Honestly, this hurts me.  I can't believe that just for me forgetting to log off that you'd take that as an opportunity to be so sneaky and under-handed!  You read my diary, too?

You:  No!  I haven't read your diary!  But wait, what does this have to do with you cheating on me?!

That Cheater:  I could have any explanation in the world for whatever you think you've learned about me, but do you expect me to try and explain anything to someone so mistrustful who finds sneaking about behind my back to be appropriate to a relationship?  I'm sorry, but this is making me seriously reflect upon whether this relationship even has a future!

See how that works?  Maybe your relationship will continue, maybe it won't, but this will be dependent upon whether the person who betrayed you can ever forgive you for discovering that!

Some of you are thinking, "Amicable Anarchist, that's just silly!  Yeah, I suppose some white trash, yee-ha trailer court living red neck might be able to bamboozle his poor uneducated common-law wife with that kind of thing, but what does that have to do with politics or anarchy?"

Glad you asked!

I was reading an article in Slate today, and one of the articles was blaming Russia's leak of Hillary's emails as "a" reason for her losing.  They didn't claim it was the only reason, but they were very sure it was "a" reason.

And that's entirely false.

What did help her lose, what was "a" reason for her losing, was that she was "That Cheater" during the election, and she acted like "That Cheater" when those emails were released.

America:  Hillary, we saw your email exchange with the DNC and know that you rigged things to steal the nomination from Bernie!

Hillary:  What?  Russia leaked my emails?  You know what a breach of trust that is?

America:  We were only reading the news, it's not on us that Russia hacked your server!

Hillary:  Honestly, this hurts me that Russia would try and sway an election and that Trump would go along with it and that any of you would take it seriously!

America:  No!  We're not pro-Russian, and we've not decided whether to vote for Trump or not!  But wait, what does this have to do with you being so corrupt?

Hillary:  I could have any explanation at all for any of that, but I'm not going to dignify that stuff with a response.  I'm too busy being upset over how Russia and Trump - and maybe you! - could be so faithless as to listen to this kind of thing!  Makes me seriously wonder if there is a future for us!

You get the idea.  And while she sure intended that this would shame us into accepting her anyway, it was her utter failure to even acknowledge these kind of scandals - let alone address and answer them - that was "a" reason, and probably a large one, for losing the election.

When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, crying, "You weren't supposed to be home yet!" is no defense.  And when you're caught in a variety of dirty and unethical behaviors, crying that Russia isn't supposed to try to influence our elections is no defense either!

Hillary did not lose for Trump being a political genius or tapping into hate or media this or Russia that or Wikileaks the other.  She lost for being the very "crooked Hillary" that a demagogue named her.  She lost because if you don't want people to leak dirt about you, don't be dirty!

She lost because she honestly thought that America was as dumb as that put upon kitchen drudge who dropped out of the ninth grade to marry Billy Bubba the cheater!

America wasn't that dumb.  We had the choice between an utter buffoon and a "That Cheater" who thought we were "That Dumb".  We chose the person who while perfectly up for urinating on our leg was at least not going to try to shame us into agreeing that it's rain.

An Open Letter

Dear "Those who are protesting in the streets because Trump won",

I know that if Hillary had won, and Trump's supporters protested in the streets, that you'd be writing all kinds of posts, blogs and articles about what poor losers they were, and how we all should always accept the outcomes of elections so as to support democracy!

I know that you would cite not only "democracy", but America, civility, apple pie, and probably all of our dear old moms while doing so.

I know this because before the election, when you thought your gal would win, you were already castigating the Trump fans over Donald not committing to whether he'd accept the election results.

I remember that you thought that was pretty bad of him.

Well, guess what? I don't like Trump either, but he did win, and you look like a bunch of fools to protest it in the streets and not accept the results and to go on and on about ways to overturn it.

Whenever you catch yourself doing something that you - and everyone - knows you'd condemn in another, it's time to stop. Pause. Reflect.

And then move on with your life. He was elected President, not God, I'm pretty sure you'll live. I'm pretty sure we'll live. If the Republic truly rose or fell based upon one man, then we deserve to fall anyway!

Move on! Few of us like the guy, but I guarantee that we'll each be putting on our jeans one leg at a time as usual. We'll pet our dogs or cats, we'll drive our kids to school, we'll go to work for our idiot bosses, we'll go to the gym, the PTA, church, etc.

Marathon watching a Netflix Original Series with your honey will still be a thing!

Life will continue. The sun will still shine.

Sincerely,

Libertarians, Greens, Independents, Anarchists, Socialists, and everyone else who loses every four years but still manages to live happy and productive lives

Revenge of the Masses

Oh, the media. How they are scrambling to report to us on why it all happened, and how Trump won! Yet those who read the stuff I put out knew that I - and many others - already knew how he could win.

And why he did win.

It was the Midwest, Texas, the old South, Florida and the Northern states that put Trump in. The "fly over" states. The "yee-ha" states. The states that the liberals, the educated and the city slickers of both coasts love to pan on.

I see the NYTimes is busy saying that this is because of folks like us being left behind in the recovery. And yeah, that's part of it. But it goes deeper.

Liberals, though they are far more for the little guy than the Conservatives are, have a really bad habit. And that's their habit of "condescension". And "contempt". Expressed towards the masses.

And frankly, we've been sick of it for decades.

Not actually an average Midwesterner.

Never is there a show or a movie in which the Christian isn't the dullard or hypocrite or serial molester/killer. Never is there a Southerner but that he is inbred and illiterate.
Any thing good or decent that any in the heartland can value is held up every day and in every way as backwards, bigoted and bumpkinish.

And this is all done by the liberals in Hollywood. And the liberal media. And the liberal colleges. And the liberal political establishment in general.

Radical feminism. Homosexual marriages. Gender neutral bathrooms. Islam in Public Schools, Christ out of them. No Christmas decorations in public. Marijuana decriminalized. Drug use winked at. Perversions declared normal. Abortion all but a sacrament. Partial Birth atrocities declared "choices".

They placed their hand on the back of our heads and ground our faces in the filth that they find to be normal. They spat on our values, our beliefs, our customs and our traditions.

And while the economy was good, they were mostly getting away with it, at nothing more than the cost of us sputtering in impotent rage at the injustice of it.

But then the economy tanked, and it was darn obvious who did it. The elite. The very liberals, the very wealthy, the very educated who had mocked us all along. And there they now were, voting themselves billion dollar bail outs while seizing all our homes.

What does that have to do with Trump, who by all sane accounts is a part of the elite, the privileged, the wealthy, the educated, the above it all?

Well, it's like this. Some in the Red States voted for Trump because he lied and said some of the things conservatives want to hear. Some few probably voted for him out of the racism or misogyny or religious bigotry that he exemplified so well.

But a lot of it? A desperate desire to stick it to the man. To game the system. To make a difference, any difference, even a bad difference, if it but annoyed their oppressors. Their mockers. Their rulers who sit in their high places, above the law, while our own kids suffer record incarceration rates for the pettiest of offenses.

Hillary Clinton represented everything radical feminist, everything liberal, everything wealthy and privileged, everything anti-value, anti-religion and anti-God. She was the perfect embodiment of the Establishment Elite that loves nothing better than to stand around at cocktail parties comparing yachts and jets while the masses work three part time jobs to keep the lights on in their trailers and apartments.

Trump was not regarded by many of us in the Midwest as a "little person". "Country don't mean dumb" no matter the opinion of the coasts. Everything bad that could - and was - said about Trump was heard and understood by the masses. And even pretty much agreed with!

Here's the thing. It was obvious this time that the only reason Trump was nominated was so that Hillary could have the easy win. That the elites knew that Hillary was hated, and so gave us a buffoon so buffoonish that we'd all have to vote for the Queen who would rule us in contempt.

But as the German and Russian aristocrats learned in the early 20th century, sometimes the people are so fed up that they're happy to throw a monkey wrench in all the plans, just to express their anger. That they're up for it all burning - and taking themselves out in the blaze first - if only it'll singe the eyebrows of those who feed off of them while laughing at them.

So they vote for Trump, not for necessarily hating Muslims or Hispanics. But for being tired of being ridiculed all the time, mocked all the time, spit on all the time, and paying for it all the time. They vote for Trump not for him to win, but to send a message to Hillary by making it real close.

I understand this. I do. Heck, I contemplated voting for Trump for just that reason. And the only reason I didn't was because as a student of history, I know where that game leads.

It leads to where we are. When so many vote for the bad man - sure that he can't win - that he then actually does win. Then you've the Nazis with a majority in the Reichstag and a paper hanger as a Chancellor. Or the Republicans with a majority in Congress and guy who's never even been dog catcher now the President Elect.

This was what it was. A big thumb on the nose to Hillary and the Establishment Elite. And now it is what it is. A man who cares less for the little people than any limousine liberal ever did. And that's a darn low level of care.

Now we have to wait for it. Wait and see what it will be. On the street, the rumors are flying. I've got four calls today from potential guests, current guests and former guests - "Is it true he's cancelling LINK?" "Is it true he's cancelling Obamacare?" "Is it true that there's to be no more social security?"

My answers are "probably not, probably he'll try and definitely not". But who knows? And will he really round up immigrants? Muslims? What of the Supreme Court? Will we see gay marriage overturned - but labor law gutted? Will we have new taxes on workers, less on businesses? What wars are we in for?

And Russia? Will his cozy relationship with Putin last as long as Hitler's did with Stalin? Will it have the same ending?

Time will tell. But I think we'll survive the four years. I think that one man can't do half as much damage as he - and his detractors - think. And then hopefully we'll have all learned a valuable lesson.

1. Elites, don't mock the people.
2. People, don't try to set the elites on fire unless you enjoy burning up first.

Rule of Men

According to the Constitution of the United States, Hillary Clinton is not allowed to be President.  No woman is.  Surprised?  Here’s how that works:

When describing any of the other offices, the Constitution uses the gender neutral pronoun “they”.  As in “they shall serve”.  But when describing the office of the President, it says, “he shall serve”.  The masculine pronoun.

And sure enough, at that time, no women were running for any office, let alone the Presidency.

Now some would say, “But Mr. Amicable Anarchist, didn’t the 14th amendment change that, when it mentioned ‘equal protection under the law’?”

No, it didn’t.  I say that because while the equal protections clause has been applied to many things, it most notoriously was not applied to the issue of women participating in elections.  Which was why the 19th amendment was later needed, so that women - equal under the law since the 14th amendment - could then vote.

But while the 19th amendment spoke of women voting, it did not speak of women serving as President.  Thus we have a situation where the Constitution describes the office of the President as being for men, the 14th amendment never being applied to women and elections, and the 19th amendment not addressing the issue of a woman President.

Thus only men can be President.  By a plain reading of the Constitution any way.

Why do I bring this up?  Because it demonstrates how we are no longer - if we ever were - a “nation of laws, and not of men”.  We are governed not by a Constitution, but by whatever the men in power say, and it’s past time we all realized that.

You see, that silly argument I made - while true - has not even come up as an issue, nor will it.  Just like the part in the Constitution about how you have to be a natural born citizen to run for President doesn’t come up as an issue when it’s Ted Cruz - a Canadian - or John McCain - a Panamanian - running for the office.

The Constitution serves only one function, and that is to let the masses imagine that they have rights and due process and that they are ruled by some kind of noble principles rather than men.  Men who are capricious thieves and ideologues, who care nothing for them, but only for their own power, prestige and pomp.  

Need more evidence?  How about the Supreme Court’s own words?  Marbury vs. Madison ruled back in 1803 that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

They emphatically say what words in
English - and thus your reality - really is.

Bear in mind that this was entirely a self-awarded power that the court gave itself.  At no point in the Constitution did it delegate the power to the Supreme Court to overrule the dictionary.  Which is really the only thing needed to “interpret” the Constitution.

Think about it.  In a “nation of laws” what could be needed to “interpret” the law other than a copy of the Constitution and a three person panel of English professors with a dictionary?

But in a nation of men, there is no objective law to appeal to.  Examine the Bill of Rights.  Can you find a one - any one at all - that hasn’t been interpreted into meaninglessness with the endless exceptions, qualifications and permutations assigned each one by the Court?  How does “Congress shall make no law…” turn into “Congress shall make any and all laws”?

This is why people get so anxious about who gets to appoint vacant seats on the Supreme Court.  Why?  If we were a nation of laws, it would scarcely matter who was appointed, would it?  But as we’re a nation of men, ruled by men, and at the whims of those men, then it is of vital and consuming importance who is seated.

Thus the insanely un-Constitutional game of not confirming the appointment of a Supreme Court judge until after the upcoming election.  A game which, by the way, will undoubtedly lead to an even more liberal appointee when Hillary wins, as she is almost certain to.  

So there you have it, that is the game.  And there is nothing really to be done about it.  As long as the functions of law and justice are monopolies, it will always be that way.  Only with a privatization of the courts could any semblance of Objective Law, and thus Justice, be achieved.