Lynch Law

This is insanely great (second only to NeoCam for absolute attractiveness, and arguably more suitable under predominant rough-and-ready social conditions). First, a little scene-setting:

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no single right and proper method to construct a gallows. A few elements are common to just about every design, but the grim carpenters’ flourishes of the scaffold reflect the tastes of the community and the eye of the builders. There is always a raised platform; there are always stairs leading to the platform, usually thirteen; there is always a crossbeam around which to string the noose; and there is always a trapdoor to launch the condemned into the hereafter. Beyond that, the timbers of the frame are a matter of discretion. Supporting braces and thick beams are common for permanent installations. Temporary gallows will often rely on a nock rather than a full cleat to hold the bitter end of the killing rope. A shoreside hanging can even rely on a high tide and the scuttling claws of the merciless deep to clean up the turgid mess left by a dead man dancing. …

Then the carpentry of refined-incentives governance:

Me: “I don’t know if they still do it that way, but that’s how it used to be. What’s more, even speaking up at a rulemoot can be a death sentence.” It was clear she thought I was pulling her leg. I wish I was. Tolerance for two-bit tinpot tyrants was running awfully low, so Sacramentarians decided to raise the stakes for would-be petty autocrats. “Any citizen can propose any rule change at a rulemoot. To do [so], you ascend the Black Gallows, loop a secured noose of your own tying around your neck, and take the next five minutes and five minutes only to deliver your proposal and your plea. Then there’s some sort of a deliberation process. I think folks can line up to give brief comments or something, after which the assembled crowd votes yea or nay. If the motion passes, it is now law. If it fails, the lever is pulled and you hang by your neck until you are dead, dead dead.”

Anika: “That’s insane! This place must be a madhouse!”

Me: “You might be surprised. Plenty of laws get passed this way. Most of them are pretty standard things: no murder, no theft, no rape, that sort of thing. And nobody’s stupid enough to try to pass a new law if they aren’t very sure they’ll have the support of the crowd.” I paused to consider something. “I’d reckon they don’t have a lot of civic participation on windy days.”

Excessive populism, certainly, but turned unambiguously in the right direction. After a few generations, the genetic selection effects alone would have justified it. The model, clear in context, is an anti-California. If something like this isn’t tried somewhere, social experimentation will have missed out.

December 7, 2015admin 35 Comments »


35 Responses to this entry

  • Lynch Law | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on December 7th, 2015 at 9:01 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    > be Remi Gaillard
    > have terminal stage cancer, doctors say you have three months to live
    > doesn’t matter much if you go earlier but in style, or a bit later, less in style
    > it is a windy day, low participation is further ensured by a Metallica gig in the next town
    > the invitation already went around for the right kind of people on the lulz-chans
    > so that is how you propose a law that everybody must wear pink shoes for a year


    Erebus Reply:

    Within hours, another vote was held. The “pink shoes” law was declared annulled. The man who proposed it was hanged, along with his immediate family. Those who colluded to pass it were also hanged, so as to set an example for future citizens who might consider voting in favor of utterly frivolous and coercive laws. This legal saga eventually passed into legend, and was the subject of educational nursery rhymes and children’s books.


    Posted on December 7th, 2015 at 10:43 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    WALKING DEAD ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AS PHILOSOPHY -AT NRO. T think we need to sue the bastards.


    Posted on December 7th, 2015 at 1:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lynch Law | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 7th, 2015 at 1:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:

    Wouldn’t bleeding hearts just default to ‘yes’, because feelz? And they’re the masters of shaming and gossip. I can hear nogunz saying to NRA: “Not only you cause gun violence in society, but you almost killed Micheal Moore with your vote, you heartless monsters! Thank god the gallows shattered under his weight and he was saved by the grace of his beautiful body!”


    scientism Reply:

    It’d select for the most saccharine populists who could pass laws by appealing to the bleeding hearts. “I just want to tax the richest 1%, you wouldn’t want to kill li’l ol’ me just because I want to help the poor, would you? And, as for the wealthy among you, are you really so selfish that you’d kill a man to avoid helping widows and orphans? Can you perform such a monstrous deed in front of the entire community? They’ll all know it was you!” It would be Admin’s ultimate nightmare: treacly five minute speeches leading always to increased welfare spending. “I’m willing to sacrifice myself so that others can benefit! Think of the children!” This, in fact, is already how democracy works, except we use the stocks rather than gallows. Gallows would only make it worse.


    Erebus Reply:

    There’s an easy solution to that, which happens to be the Athenian solution: Restrict voting rights to the yeomanry, and make everybody else a ward of the state.

    In ancient Athens, voters were uniformly male, possessed a significant degree of wealth, owned land, and had all completed military training. (Most were active hoplites or ex-hoplites.) Children, women, resident foreigners, and men too poor to outfit themselves for military service were disqualified from voting — as were felons, cowards, the disabled, the weak, and other undesirables.

    …”Think of the children” won’t work on hard men. If one’s audience is comprised solely of wealthy land owners and the hard-working men who run farming estates, “tax the richest 1%” won’t win one any cheers. Suicidally brave populists might give such things a shot — but I doubt it. In any case, it’s extremely likely that such men would know how to take care of their widows and orphans, and wouldn’t need to be told.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The most direct way of achieving such a state of affairs today would be to immediately purge the citizen political leadership (ie all political parties) and just make the military and the government one and the same.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    PS the greatest weakness of NRx is that its proponents aren’t army officers.

    Posted on December 7th, 2015 at 1:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Lots of ideas are good in theory as long as you don’t hack them.

    The U.S. federal system was such a good idea until it was hacked in a multitude of ways.

    I want to build a hack-resistant governance system. *Read “trustless” for hack-resistant if you like.)

    So I don’t like this gallows system because it’s obvious how to hack it.

    All of the decision making will be done informally, ahead of time, by organized groups of voting blocs, and the ones who get on stage will already know in advance who exactly is going to vote yes for them, and they’ll be holding a majority ahead of time. Informal populist consensus building and tit-for-tat cronyism will be the inevitable result.

    Oh, and the principle actors are never going to get on that platform. Even after the de-risking of informal consensus building, the actual proposals will all be done by expendables.


    bomag Reply:

    the actual proposals will all be done by expendables

    This could be handled in several ways, e.g. the proclaimer is selected by the opposition. So for the latest pink shoes statute, my side votes to put Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, George Soros, etc. on the high dais.


    Posted on December 7th, 2015 at 5:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Nothing in post to disagree with….


    Posted on December 7th, 2015 at 5:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Neo Soliar Says:

    @frank This so much this.


    Posted on December 8th, 2015 at 4:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Certainly an interesting thought experiment.

    As a practical matter, it’s still voting. Which means ownership is obfuscated. In a brutal environment, someone will take slaves and force the slaves to make their proposals for them.

    Another thing you do is achieve consensus informally before the vote, making the vote a rubber-stamp committee for the village elder / local Sophist.

    Ultimately someone is going to own the thing. The question is whether we acknowledge they do so or not.


    Posted on December 8th, 2015 at 6:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seth Says:

    “Skin in the game” is the principle best illustrated by this example. The West today is largely built on the opposite principle: “distributed risk.”

    In reality, very few individuals care enough to get involved in civic or political affairs, and these few are generally not to be trusted. The lesson is that society should be skeptical of anyone who would dictate the law. There needs to be a mechanism whereby legislative idiocy and legislative failure visit swift and immediate pain upon the legislator. An incentive for good legislation.

    And of course that’s a problem with democracy. Who is the legislator? The people. Democracy is the ultimate system of “distributed political risk.” No single person or small group takes responsibility for legislative idiocy, they just sit around all day and blame someone else for it. And elected representatives speak for “we the people,” as if a man had stepped up to the gallows under the pretense that he was simply proposing what everyone in the crowd had already agreed upon. Can’t pull the lever in that case.


    Posted on December 9th, 2015 at 12:12 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    once wrong things got implemented and it become obviouse. sane approach would be to reverse it and do not do that againg. in politics it cannot be reversed, because new policies gaining it support base. when there is no way out, there always a way further in. there is nothing sane can be practically implemented via poltics as a tool.

    as some one wrote in recent article – ‘nerds do not like politics because they do not understand politics’ nerds dont like politics because they dont like stupid things. does no matter how it was cooked output in polotics is always stupid.


    Posted on December 9th, 2015 at 1:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2015/12/09 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Lynch law. Read the whole story. […]

    Posted on December 9th, 2015 at 6:42 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Something tells me this is important:

    If only there was a book out there on the nature of nomos. One written by a total nazi. Oh wait, lucky us.


    Wagner Reply:

    Schmitt really gets to the gears of civilization


    Wagner Reply:

    “Tell that to the Judge.”

    The Judge: “So you’re telling me to call YOU ‘Your Honor’.”

    Seriously tho, I think of Brexit in this context. “What about the values established by the EU founders?” Simple. Do what they did. See there’s a kind of hidden relativism in “establishing”.

    Might be helpful to add that Machiavelli teaches us that when imposing new modes and orders one should do so gradually, and under the guise of the old ones…


    Wagner Reply:

    “So you want to troll the United States, do ya kid?”

    (The revolution will not be democratized, the revolution will not be democratized)


    Wagner Reply:

    We all know it has to be done. The only question is who does it.

    Wagner Reply:

    I like the way Ancient Greek looks

    We need a new Φύχη πόλεως ή πολιτεία.


    Wagner Reply:

    If you understand the basic idea of Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction you might conclude that this is one of the greatest ironies of the 20th and 21st centuries:

    “The Enemy”, The 👽, or as I’m starting to see him, The Dude

    There’s a connection between Xenosystems and Xenia.

    If we take The Odyssey as a symptom of its times, we could deduce that it was a common superstition among the ancient Greeks that strangers could be “some god in disguise”- so you better be nice to them!

    Notice we have a strong sense of hospitality in the west for strangers, just *certain kinds of strangers*, i.e. not clear DEVILS like Schmitt.


    Wagner Reply:

    “The decision on the exception is a decision in the true sense of the word.”

    Regime-change is the decision of decisions. All the decisions we make in our humdrum workaday world, what are they next to that? Might start to get an idea of what I mean by ants.

    When will politics be about decisions in the true sense of the word decision???

    It’s time to decide to Decide.


    Wagner Reply:

    The (unconscious on my part) switch from Leary to Schmitt keeps making me smirk. Remember the scifi-psyphi causation? In a way Leary’s psyphi is still scifi itself, so I (unconsciously) was like, let’s see, how do we make this psyphi? This is a blueprint for futurism as such. The next step after psyphi is reallife. So many potentialities exist in the clouds for us waiting to be actualized. Yes I do want future generations to look back at us all as dim-witted apes because they’re all born with 250IQ, and yes I do want the future Billys of the world to have the option to fly around in space when they turn 16.

    Don’t worry, this is all just a prank, it’s not a real alternative to the future that the Hegemonic Left wants, speaking of dim-witted apes.

    “You’re not supposed to phrase things like that, Joe!”

    I try to give people the most accurate picture of how I see things going if we continue on our present course.

    Wagner Reply:

    The corporacracy, the owners of the mind-numbing TV channels, the plastic politicians, the bankers who deserve, roughly, none of their wealth and influence, the careerist ideologues of the academy, are all in cahoots with one another, and the only way, T H E O N L Y W A Y to get rid of them and free the people of America from their mind control is through the installation of a benevolent tyrant with a keen sense for corruption and justice, one with impeccable taste, and with the conviction that brutality is necessary.


    Posted on October 10th, 2019 at 10:43 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    A comprehensive explanation of Brexit in terms that Americans can relate to –


    Wagner Reply:

    Is the EU really thought of as the boss over there? “Don’t laugh at the king, all real court-jesters get the axe” – great look.

    Given that politics has replaced religion, this wave of atheism can get messy. They should probably start training therapists, because the existing therapists, being educated by the increasingly-obsolete religion, will need their own therapists. “Well then WHO trains them? Others with a similar education?” You’re the British, you’ll figure it out. “No we’re cosmopolitans!” Oh 6od I can see the schizophrenic mind-splits now… Well, I know some lads on the internet who could give you some advice, though you might consider many of them a little rough around the edges, you’ll get used to it.

    Think about it though- people who have been told they’re “equal” all their lives, that diversity is strength *winces* Political death of god in action. Consequences will include nihilism, anarchy, hedonism. Also a new hope, a new beginning, new horizon, all that jazz.

    See what I mean by shock-reduction? I can also tell you from personal experience that if you deconstruct feminism you can probably expect some revenge.


    Posted on October 10th, 2019 at 6:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    He argues that modern law is secularized theology and that our founders’ deism played a role in their decision to eliminate the state of exception.

    If neither the government nor the people can do anything about all the entrenched corruption it follows that we need a new “theolawgy”.


    Wagner Reply:

    There should be some studies done on these international bankers. You know the kind I like, them stopping and wondering “Do I really deserve this?” No, probably not. Some of it, maybe. You’ve clearly gone overboard. What happens is they have a status quo opinion then they make a bunch of money and decide to spread what they believe to be true like anyone else. I doubt I could discuss my disagreements with them in the terminology of Socrates, all they know is $. Looking at the world now, I would say they are proving my thesis. If they have control and this, *this* logical mess of a belief-system they’ve constructed is bringing about the result of most Americans wanting to overthrow the entire government, one would have to inform them, politely so as not to make them lash out in revenge, that this is theirs, what we are experiencing in the US, with the skepticism surrounding elections and the paranoia about corporations being in control of how we think, is what they, in fact, deliberately bring into reality, cha-ching.


    Wagner Reply:

    Apply this to our Age of Atheism:

    We have no Sovereign. We have lots of sovereigns. If a couple of these sovereigns are in desperate need to have their heads bashed together we have no Sovereign to will that.

    Provisionally we could define sovereign as a person or entity that doesn’t have the interest – or the best interest – of the people in mind, yet has control of them in some way. And Sovereign would be one that has the best interest of the people in mind and eliminates those sovereigns that don’t.

    “You really just go out of your way to justify killing and imprisoning a bunch of people day after day don’t you?” What about it?


    Wagner Reply:

    Okay I’ve realized that Some Marxists read these comments and consider me The Enemy. For one, we’re friends.

    Hate to read that?

    Anyway, for fun, I’ve “decided” we should rekindle this old debate:

    Benjamin died too young, Schmitt was ostracized too early.

    That’s your idea of fun isn’t it?

    No no we censor The Enemy. No dialectics with The Enemy.

    Wagner Reply:

    They must hate it when I tell them I see them as bourgeois. In the System to make sure they make Capital. They hate when I tell them this. Neech is my savior in a way, Marx is yours. You don’t partake in Marx’s nature by writing on the JQ as he did because they are the crypto-order carrying out Marx’s plans. And what about the esoteric practices of the left? No, this isn’t one of them of course, only silence on this subject. And on the subject of esotericism itself.

    Censorship results from a bioleninist, implicitly-democratic agreement that life should carry on without certain truths manifesting in the consciousness. “We” have “decided”. The uneducated mob ruled by oligarchs, is that who you mean by “We”? The real Enemy.

    Posted on October 18th, 2019 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment