Who, Whom? Justice and the Judiciary.

I am a legal formalist, a political formalist, a neo-royalist and a neo-cameralist.

I regard the Anglo-American Justice system with horror and grim humour.

Earlier, we looked at power and the press, this time let’s look at the judiciary.

Moldbug:

The reactionary is always a Machiavellian. She devotes her attention to reality, not form. So, for instance, I call USG “USG” because that’s what the people who work there call it. I feel that if you’re interested in learning about USG, you’ll learn a lot more here and here than here. (Memo to the Washington Post Company: while it’s fine to begin a domain name with “who,” follow it with a dash, or a word that doesn’t start with “r.”)

To the reactionary, USG is an unlimited government – a true sovereign under the classical law of nations. Everything that happens in the United States (if not the entire world) is either caused by USG, or allowed to happen by USG. If there is some domain of human affairs in which USG does not intervene, this is too is USG’s choice. There is certainly no domain from which any force, other than USG’s own will, precludes it.

Therefore, USG deserves full credit for anything good that happens in the United States, and bears complete responsibility for anything bad. Who invented the Internet? Whoever it was, USG caused it to be done. Why did USG’s financial system collapse? USG mismanaged it.

It is a truism of reactionary political science that every government which is truly sovereign contains some individual or committee which holds the imperium maius – absolute power, subject to no contradiction. In USG, this committee is the Supreme Court.

While in the 20th century, the Court’s imperium is maius without a doubt – not even FDR could quite break it – it is also extremely weak. This is not a contradiction in terms. Custom limits the Court’s imperium to the slowest, most reactive process in slow, reactive USG: the law. Who has the final word in this process controls USG, but only in the end. The Court’s sceptre cannot be used for proactive, executive action.

Thus, while the Court holds imperium maius, just as Augustus did, it cannot actually use this power as Augustus used it – eg, it cannot declare a state of emergency and rule by decree. At least, any attempt at classical imperial government by the Court would violate the true and ancient customs of the Beltway. I still think it would probably work, but there is a significant chance of just breaking the instrument.

Moreover, the Court is weakened as an institution by its nomination process. While the political arm of USG can be broadly described as vestigial – most of the real power is in the civil service, the press and the universities, all of which are strongly shielded from “politics” – the White House retains some genuine responsibilities. One is nominating judges.

Given the pendulum of party politics, in which each side must sully its reputation in turn by serving as figurehead of the good ship USG, and the biological facts of life expectancy (note that Judge Sotomayor’s diabetes reduces her expected term by 15 years), this creates a Court on which the most important fact is not the identity of the members, but their partisan ratio – as in any legislative body. Any truly studly Court would choose its own replacements, like the Israeli Supreme Court.

It so happens that Judge Sotomayor is replacing Justice Souter, a typical late 20th-century Justice – an Outer Party nonentity who betrayed those that brought him to power, and became a consistent Inner Party vote. Thus, the replacement does not change the partisan ratio, and again is interesting only as an illustration.

(This pattern of systematic treason (there’s really no other word for it) is a legacy of the era in which Inner Party domination was so total that the Outer Party had no scholarly institutions at all. With new institutions such as the Federalist Society, it probably won’t happen again. The Outer Party has no shortage of sound, talented ideologues. This, in itself, is a problem for the Modern Structure – though not yet a major one.)

Judge Watson and Attorney General  Chin are not formalists. Chin says that he will not just “read the text” but pay attention to the “flashing lights” saying “Muslim ban.”

legal formalism is the simplest thing in the world: Judges ought to be professionally, ethically and legally bound to apply the law to the best of their ability, not apply whatever moral standards they have, or make decisions because it gives them 15 minutes of fame or because they are part of a poltical gang and are thus helping their fellow gang-members out.

A political formalist is someone who believes that political form (who we think has power) should match political reality (who in fact has power). The essence of  Moldbug’s formalism, is that with a clear, articulate – indeed certain – set of rules that all parties agreed to which defines people, property and power, then you have certainty of decision. And certainty of decision, the removal of politics, will eliminate conflict and thus violence.

The AP article also highlights that crucial reactionary theme of Imperium in Imperio.

What a ruling in 4th Circuit in favor of the administration would do is create a split in authority between federal courts in different parts of the country,” he said. “Cases with splits in authority are cases the U.S. Supreme Court exists to resolve.” 

Split in authority, who,whom?

It is very clear that the President has the legal authority  and historical precedent for this order.

In a state where authority is not vested in one man who acts as ruler, judge and general, who can override any and all other persons in the sovcorp, then you get politics.

And then, you get this. 

So, the lives of the American people will now be in the hands of nine “unelected lawyers.”

You Boy! Least you git da sign on da dotted line when U become a serf in shit for some big shot corporation, but here! Motherfucker! You git told wat to do boy by dem folks in da black robes. It be like a case of yessa sir! No sir! Three bags and full sir!

 

 

Standard

Brief Reflections on the Restoration in Turkey.

A well know popular theory (faith?) says that history moves in a certain direction.

The theory says that everything gets better.

The theory says that nations and peoples all move towards democracy, equality and liberty and peace and so on and so on.

Some people say that democracy, freedom and equality is the best because it provides for recognition of the uniqueness of each, individual person.

Other people, naturally disagree.

When Germany was made to transition to a democracy (a real democracy), what occurred?

A struggle for power occurred, and the Nazis won.

When Iraq was made to transition to democracy (a real democracy), what occurred?

A struggle for power occurred, and ISIS won.

Isn’t that interesting?

How interesting would it be to do a compare and contrast analysis of the Nazis and ISIS?

Then, after that, complete a compare and contrast analysis between ISIS and the original companions, between the Corporal and the Prophet – wouldn’t that be interesting?

Turkey!

The Muslim success story.

Well.

Many governments can be criticised for courting dangerous nationalism these days, but few crush their citizens’ spirits like Turkey. The land of dazzling cultural conflicts, soul-stirring ballads and wonderful food has turned into the land of authoritarianism, hate-filled polarisation and burgeoning depression and suicide. The mood could darken further after a fateful referendum on presidential powers in April.

The Endarkenment proceeds.

After the horrific coup attempt in July 2016, a brief breeze of optimism blew through Turkey. Citizens across the ideological spectrum stood up against the putschists, and felt united in their devotion to parliamentary democracy. Intellectuals and the mass of the people agreed that Turkey did not want another military takeover, and that the plotters should be brought to justice.

When the Coup failed, a more rational response – if you were a progressive – would have been pessimism, because now the AKP has it’s golden moment, it’s “green restoration.

The climate of unity did not last long. The ruling AKP party started a massive purge and they never stopped. Soon it became painfully obvious that unbridled government power under the state of emergency was being used to target every form of dissent. Civilians who had nothing to do with any violence were lumped together with plotting army officers. Many innocent citizens were detained, arrested and imprisoned. Nurses, teachers and officials have been sacked. Kemal Kılıçdarog˘lu, the head of the main opposition party, estimated that a million people were directly affected by the purge. The crackdown on journalists and scholars was especially severe.

This moment would have been foreseen years ago, by any clear sighted realist. The military saw this, but the fools – in Turkey and in the West – presumably did not.

Nearly 5,000 academics have been discharged from universities across Turkey in recent months. Their careers may never get back on track. In prisons and detention centres there are over 100 journalists. That makes Turkey the world’s leading jailer of journalists, surpassing even China.

They languish in jail without knowing what exactly they are accused of. Every writer now knows that a comment, article, or mere tweet could very easily get them into trouble. Words feel heavy. Speech, which was never fully free, is now dangerous. There is intimidation, paranoia, fear and thus self-censorship.

Whatever you want to say about the AKP, they know their business all right.

Against this background, on 16th April, Turks will head to the polls. If the “Yes” vote wins, Erdog˘an—who has been actively campaigning, even though the constitution obliges him to stay neutral—will be endowed with rights that even Atatürk, modern Turkey’s founder, never enjoyed. The AKP claims that the new system will bring stability. They insist that their “reforms” will unite the nation under an uncontested leader. Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım went as far as tweeting that under the new presidency, the nation would not waste time on such things as elections.

Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!

The AKP came to power in 2002 through parliamentary democracy, but—except for the first few years when they adopted a pro-European Union and pro-reform rhetoric—have shown no gratitude to that system since. Turkey’s establishment continues to confuse crude majoritarianism with real democracy. A pluralistic democracy requires more than free elections. The rule of law, free speech and scholarship are indispensable too. Without these checks and balances, the ballot box is not enough. Turkey is heading towards one-party government under one man.

What is a “real democracy”? Democracy simply means majority rule. Nothing more, nothing less. Notice the transition between “real” and “pluralistic democracy”. This is an Orwellianism.

What has scholarship got to do with democracy anyway?

Nothing.

What Prospect Magazine is complaining about is that the Turks don’t like the Modern Structure: power in the hands of the press and the public policy makers.

As for the “rule of law” Turkey will have Sharia law.

The “No” campaign cannot find a space to voice its views. Campaigners are attacked verbally, branded “terrorists” by AKP hardliners, and sometimes physically assaulted too. Erdog˘an announced that voting “No” means “siding with 15th July”—insinuating that his legitimate opponents are closet putschists. Every legal check on the president is held up as fuelling political chaos, and to blame for Turkey’s tanking economy. Tired and fearful after multiple terror attacks, many Turks may be drawn to the AKP’s demagoguery. 

Real democracy, as defined by Moldbug, is a “civil war by other means”. The use of thugs and paramilitary forces in democracy has a long and sordid history – think of Milo’s thugs in Rome, or the IRA and SF in Northern Ireland.

What, however, is the difference between democracy – REAL democracy – and “demagoguery”?

The Turkish restoration proves (again) that progress is a myth, it proves that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the West (in every and any form) and the Islamic world; it proves that the Islamic world is the ISLAMIC world, a people “convinced of the superiority of their culture, but obsessed with the inferiority of their power. ”

The new Sultan has made statements calling on Turkish Muslims to have “five babies” and that they are the “future”; he has claimed that no European will be “safe” in Europe. (They already aren’t.)

Turkey is now an enemy of the European Union. The AKP is an enemy of the progressives. Islam is violently hostile to the Modern Structure.

This need not be the case, if things were different in the West, with a different political structure and set of values; however, it would probably make no difference.

A violent clash between Turkey and Europe now seems highly likely in the future.

A Turkish alliance with Russia in a new European war is a realistic prospect.

Turkey, acting as the spear-point, of an Islamic Middle East assault on Europe is a realistic possibility.

In a little red book (not Mao’s little red book) there is a rule which says:

Crush your enemies totally.

Leave no ability for them to ever threaten or take revenge against you.

Turkey’s new sultan understand this.

Does the West?

Wait and see.

One of the most important things in life is the ability to switch frames, to switch perspectives.

All those “Muslim colonists”, those “invaders”, those Turks who think they will one day drive the “best cars” and live in the “best places.”

Well.

Well.

The West is sneaky and deceptive in its wars. For example, after the recent terror attack in London, the establishment talked about fears of a “backlash.” Of course, no Muslims will be targeted – no Muslims in England anyway.

Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, meanwhile, will face a backlash called “drone warfare.”

Look at this way.

9/11 happened then USG and its allies proceeded to fuck up Muslim country after Muslim country. It has been building itself up, perfecting its technology and practising its skills in war, all the while it has allowed the slow build up of rage and frustration of millions of its citizens, and the consternation of its police and army.

Turkey’s actions will only provide the EU with more reason to build itself up, including the building of a military.

For ordinary citizens – the EU’s serfs – this means less freedom, more taxes, and more risk of violence.

Muslims are filled with pride, but burn with resentment; Muslims are boastful, but are continuously beaten down. The Progressives, meanwhile, act like cowards and imbeciles – but don’t be fooled by their feminine ways, because they will strike -with rage and decision on the one hand, and sorrow and disappointment on the other.

The Muslims have no idea what they are up against.

Welcome to the Endarkenment.

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

I Will Be the Judge of That.

Look at this mess. 

One of the key principles of reaction is that politics is the struggle for power.

In a democracy, division is permanent.

In a democracy, struggle is permanent.

In a democracy, politics is permanent.

Permanent division means permanent strife, permanent strife means permanent incoherence.

Incoherent government means inefficient, ineffective and irresponsible government.

Men love power, so said Hamilton. Men are greedy, vain and ambitious. They are also fearful.

One of the primary positive principles of reaction is the elimination of politics.

One eliminates politics by establishing a competent, secure authority.

Chain. Of. Command.

What should be done?

Executive Order Zero: A Declaration of National Emergency.

1. Declare Martial Law.

2. Take control of all communication and media centres.

3. Arrest all Supreme Court and Federal Court Judges, pending investigation and indictment.

4. The reason for this is simple:

Treason.

Treason against the Constitution.

Treason against the lawfully elected Executive.

Treason against the American people.

How

Many

Americans

Have 

To 

Die

In 

The 

Streets?

Law is simply the formalised process of promising, and the consequences of breaking one’s promises. The ruling elites have broken their promises to the American people, and then some.

So, Daniel Horowitz, what should replace America’s “judicial oligarchy”?

To a first approximation, the final decision on all questions regarding the law should be in the hands of the Executive.

Naturally, the Executive is a busy man, or woman – should a woman ever ascend to this august position; thus, the Executive appoints a panel of judges to decide vexed questions.

The judges, however, operate on the principle, as all public servants ought to, of the “hire and fire” principle.

The truth, however, is that entire legal system of America needs a reboot, because it is nothing more than a sick joke. This dude agrees. So does this dude. (Begin watching at the 40. min mark.)

8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) provides, in relevant part:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The key phrase in that statute is “by proclamation.” Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all issued proclamations under § 1182(f), and there was never even the hint that the notice-and-comment process was required.

There are about five dozen entries in the Federal Register that reference “[§] 1182(f)” in the context of denying entry to certain aliens. How many were formal rulemakings? Zero. Why? The executive order isn’t a rule, but an articulation of the United States’ foreign policy. In the words of Solicitor General Verrilli’s U.S. v. Texas brief, such “general statements of policy” are exempted from the APA altogether (p. 65).

From a pragmatic perspective, it would be absolutely insane to require the President to go through a cumbersome rulemaking process to react to a sudden change in diplomatic relations or our national security. Can you imagine the President responding to a surprise attack by ordering his lawyers to speedily put together a Federal Register notice?

“Absolutely insane.”

Damn Straight.

Do you know who is in command here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Chain Of Command Part 2: The Procedure.

Outline.

The background of this thought experiment can be read here.

This thought experiment is designed to examine problems involving “chain of command” sovereignty, responsibility, and the distinction between Form V Reality regarding problems of Neo-Royalism, or Neocameralism.

I defined Form V Reality in the following terms:

“  Form is defined here as formal, legal, bureaucratic procedures governing and regulating human behaviour, specifically sovereign behaviour. 

Reality is defined here, expansively, as actual human psychology. Specifically, human emotions such as fear, pride and anger. Furthermore, the reality of human coalition building, factionalism, lust for power, and the fact that humans bend, twist, subvert, abandon and work around rules and procedures for their own benefit.”

For example, formally you are supposed to do X – such as having no conflict of interest while serving in government; however, in reality, you have a “sweet heart deal” with a large corporation after you “retire”. In return for beneficial regulation, you get a nice little job in the private sector arranged by the corporation.

Another example is with, say, employee misconduct. Formally, you are supposed to follow the rules and punish them, with procedures, records etc. However, you have a “quiet” word with the employee.

Again, the object here is to:

 present a hyper-formal picture of a “case” involving a corporate or organisation problem. The reader, however, is invited to offer a Real picture. That is, when I say XYZ formally, the reader is invited to offer up possibility ABC in Reality.

Using the “ship of state” metaphor, we are examining the problem of a bad, or irresponsible or incompetent ruler. The set-up is that the Captain of the ship is suffering from a progressive “mental instability” that will, according to the ship’s Doctor, impair his judgement to such an extent that it will put the lives of the crew in danger. The Captain, however, refuses treatment because it would mean that he would have to relinquish his command. The problem for SS Fredrick is that it is stranded in space (it could just as well be the ocean). Thus, there is no “higher authority” to appeal to. The problem must be dealt with internally.

Informal background.

Before presenting the formal procedure, let’s consider how the background might play out informally.

First, the doctor may have a “quiet” word with the Captain, perhaps over drinks, a card game or something. The Doctor might simply drop some “hints.” If that didn’t work, suppose that the doctor confronted the captain in a mock, semi-serious, angry way. He might say, with an exaggerated imperious voice: “you better relax and get some treatment, or I will have you relieved of your command.”

This approach is a signal to the Captain that provides him with serious, potentially humiliating information, but does so in a way that allows him to save face.

Suppose this does not work, however?

The next step would be for the doctor to have a “quiet” “heart-to-heart.” The doctor appeals perhaps to the Captain’s sense of duty and responsibility: the possibility that he is putting the life of the crew in danger. In short, the Doctor is using “tact” and informal persuasion.

Suppose this does not work?

Perhaps, the next thing the Doctor will do is to go to the Councillor, and try to get (her?) to have a quiet, friendly chat.

Lastly, perhaps the last thing that could be tried is an “intervention” with the senior officers present – where they plead for the Captain to “get help.”

Finally, after these informal ways have failed what next?

Formally, there is the “procedure.”

Informally, of course, there is a “coup” or mutiny.

Let’s now turn to the formal procedure, however.

The Procedure.

1: Doctor.

The Doctor prepares a dossier detailing the symptoms, giving the diagnosis, outlining the prognosis and providing his conclusion in writing that the Captain is no longer fit for duty. However, he details that the Captain has failed to respond to any informal advice numerous times, including an intervention from the Councillor, and a meeting of the senior officers.

Branch: Would/should the Doctor get a second opinion? On a ship, a second opinion from another doctor may not be possible because there is no other doctor. Maybe, the nearest thing would be a “nurse” or a surgeon. The point here is that the Doctor’s judgement is backed by another medical specialist.

Another possibility is that the ship may have an AI that could also assist in the diagnosis; furthermore, the Councillor may also be trained in basic medicine, and could also offer a second opinion.

One problem, however, is contamination of opinion. Ideally, the Doctor would want to have the “second” provide a judgement on the case that is not tainted by awareness that the subject is the ship’s Captain. An AI poses no problem here, but maybe the Doctor would need to engage in some subterfuge if he was getting a human opinion – pretend that the dossier is not on the Captain, for instance.

Finally, the Doctor presents his dossier to the Provost Marshal (PM).

(If this is all not clear to you, the analogy here is like a Supreme Court Justice preparing a case that the Executive has “violated the constitution.”

See this also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Fox#1788.E2.80.931789:_The_Regency_Crisis )

 

2: Provost Marshal.

The PM is the chief legal officer on the ship. He is basically a judge who will adjudicate court-martials. On the ship there are rules or laws. And the PM is the person whose job is to understand those rules, and to exercise judgement regarding those rules. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Provost_Marshal_Generalv

Branch: Does the PM reach verdicts himself or does he simply administer “points of law” and let a jury decide? I am going to go with points of law and jury.

Branch: Is there only one judge or could there be more? For example, you may have a permanent, professional judge but who is also assisted in a court-martial with the XO or Captain.

Let’s go with just one judge.

So, the Doctor hands the dossier to the PM.

The task for the PM is to read the dossier and come to a judgement that the evidence presented in the dossier is or is not sufficient to trigger a hearing on the Captain’s competency. Note, the PM is not deciding that the Captain is competent or not, or that the doctor is correct in his judgement, but that the evidence is sufficient to trigger the need for a hearing.

Suppose the PM reaches the conclusion that a hearing is necessary, what next?

Formally speaking, his next duty is to communicate with the XO (Second in Command) and the Security Chief (SC).

3: XO and Security Chief.

The Provost Marshal must inform the XO and SC.

Why?

Firstly, because the Captain will need to be temporally relieved of command, which means that the XO will have to take command. Secondly, the SC must be informed because he will have to order his men to escort the Captain to the hearing, and ensure the “smooth transition” of power.

The XO and the SC will then need to decide when and where to begin the procedure.

Let’s suppose that they decide that the next day, at 6AM, when the Captain is awakened by his aide, the SC will inform the Captain of the summons. At the same time, the XO will move to the bridge, where he will formally take command and control.

4: Escort.

At 6AM the next day, the Captain is informed by the SC, assisted by a sergeant at arms, that the Provost Marshall has summoned the Captain to a hearing. At the same time, the XO is on the Bridge and takes command and control of the ship.

The Captain is promptly escorted to the PM.

5: Preliminary Hearing.

The Captain is escorted to the PM.

The PM, the Captain, escorted by a sergeant at arms, now begins the preliminaries.

The PM informs the Captain of the nature of the summons. He informs the Captain that the Doctor has submitted a dossier that claims that, according to the Doctor’s judgement, the Captain, due to a medical condition, is no longer fit to serve without treatment.

The PM informs the Captain that the summons does not mean that the Captain is actually unfit, only that a sufficient body of evidence warrants, in the judgement of the PM, to hold a hearing.

The PM hands over a copy of the dossier to the Captain. The PM then begins a negotiation over when the Captain wishes to have the hearing, as he will need time to prepare his case, if he wishes to contest the Doctor’s judgement. The Captain, indeed, wishes to contest it, right here and now.

The PM, however, stipulates, much to the disagreement of the Captain, that two days, with the possibility of an extension, will be provided for the Captain to prepare his defence.

The Captain is then escorted to his quarters, where he is confined; however, if anyone wishes to visit him, they must first get permission of the PM. The Captain can, of course, request people to visit him.

6: Hearing.

The hearing’s purpose is to reach a determination whether or not the Captain is fit for duty.

The PM presides over the case, and adjudicates over points of law – procedure. It is the task of the jury, however, to reach a verdict as to whether or not the Captain should be relieved of duty.

The question now is of the makeup of the jury.

7: The Jury.

Firstly, the Doctor must be excluded.

Why?

Because he is, in a way, the one who is making the claim and the supposition here is that he would not be impartial. The point of the jury is to be “impartial”. Evidently, this raises something of a problem because the person who is most capable of making the judgement of the Captain’s fitness is the Doctor. Yet, the Doctor is excluded.

Ideally, a different doctor or another medical professional should serve. However, what if they provided the second opinion? Should they be excluded?

Secondly, we exclude the XO. Why? One reason is the possibility, in a case such as this, that the XO is working to have the Captain removed from command. If the XO is not a member of the jury, then this limits the possibility of a conflict of interest.

Thirdly, should the Councillor be exempted from the jury?  They tried to persuade the Captain to relieve himself, so they might be biased. A more general reason, however, to exclude the Councillor is that having them serve on the jury would compromise their position as a kind of neutral “sounding board”. However, the Councillor may be one of the best crew members to actually participate in the jury because of the presumed skills in human interaction that they have. Perhaps, a deputy or junior Councillor could perform, provided there was one. Finally, the Councillor is, in fact, a witness, so one would have to exclude them because of that.

The Jury thus consists of:

The Security Chief.

The Chief Engineer.

The Chaplain.

The Commissar General.

This, however, only has four jury-members. Suppose we want to have an odd number. In order to reach an odd number, let’s suppose a junior officer, or a senior NCO is drafted.

Branch: Is the make-up of the jury a good one? Would a different make-up be better? Would a random selection be better? Each of the officers selected are tasked with key responsibilities; accordingly, the presumption is that they are the most capable of forming a judgement as to the nature of the evidence, and also the possibility that if the Captain goes untreated, there is unacceptable risk to the crew.

8: The Procedure of the Hearing.

A: The PM opens the hearing. He begins by asking if the Captain needs more time to prepare, and if he has reason to complain of unfair treatment, or actions that have hurt his ability to have a fair hearing.

B: Next, the PM explains the nature of the hearing to the jury.

C: The Doctor delivers his presentation to the jury.

D: The Captain, who has chosen to represent himself, cross-examines the Doctor.

E: The PM calls witnesses whose testimony was part of the Doctor’s case.

F: The Doctor examines the witnesses.

G: The Captain cross-examines the witnesses.

H: The Captain then delivers his opening speech to the jury.

I: The Captain then provides witnesses, if he chooses to bring forth any.

J: The Doctor delivers his concluding statement, as does the Captain.

K: The PM delivers instructions to the jury.

L: The jury retires to deliberate.

Branch: Should the Doctor be conducting the hearing in this way? He is the one, however, who is best to deliver the presentation, and question the witnesses. Clearly, there are different ways to conduct a hearing such as this. Is the above the best one, however?

9:Verdict.

The jury concludes their deliberation.

The jury delivers their verdict.

Branch: The question is should the verdict be unanimous? Majority vote? Is there a right answer here? Let’s stipulate that that the verdict must be majority based.

The verdict of the jury is that the Doctor’s judgement – that the Captain is no longer fit for duty – is valid.

Branch: Does this verdict mean that the PM must and will relieve the Captain of command at once? Will the PM post-pone this to a later date? Is there an appeal procedure?

Let’s stipulate that the PM determines that he will execute the verdict of the jury at once, and that the Captain will be removed from command and placed under the care of the Doctor.

10: Conclusion.

The formal procedure is concluded and the Captain is relieved of his command.

As we have noted at various branch points, there are many possible ways that the outcome could have been reached. I do not present this as the best procedure, only that it is plausible one. The reader is invited to offer comments and criticisms and suggest alternatives.

Now, this is what is SUPPOSED to happen IF everyone follows FORMAL PROCEDURE.

The task now, is to consider how such formal procedures could break down, how they could be gamed, exploited or just ignored.

To take one simple example, suppose at step 3, the XO refuses to accept the judgement of the PM and orders the Security Chief to ignore all orders from the PM. The XO does this because he is (irrationally?) loyal to the Captain.

What then?

Does the PM order the SC to arrest the XO for failing to carry out a legitimate order? What if the SC simply tells the PM to “fuck off”?

What if the XO and the SC bicker, with the XO refusing to cooperate with the PM, but that the SC is willing to follow orders?

There are many ways formal procedure can break down, or not be followed.

So, my invitation to readers is to consider these possibilities, and what, if anything, can be done.

Again, the point of this exercise is to consider how the problem of an incompetent, dangerous or irresponsible Sovereign can be dealt with that is  smooth, stable, effective and as non-violent as possible.

Here is what I wrote in Part 1:

Let’s name this Problem 1: the doctor judges that the Captain should be relieved, and that the doctor intends to have this judgment enforced.

Problem 2 is that the Captain refuses the doctor’s request to relieve himself voluntarily.

Our problem, the problem we want to consider as “political engineers” is: What Should Happen? What rules, or procedures, should be in place to handle this conflict of 1 and 2?

Call that Problem 3: What Should Happen Formally.

However, we have Problem 4.

Problem 4 is the problem of thinking, designing and deciding the answer to Problem 3, from the standpoint as political engineers who are considering the Real, as opposed to the Form of Problem 3.

In the next part, I will consider some Real scenarios.

 

 

 

Standard