B,TMSR~ and fundamental justice reform.

Motto: Bitcoin was just the opening act,
with the Blockchain ready to take center stage.

Exactly contrary to the above quote from USGⁱ : the SOPS were just the closing act, with Bitcoin ready to start over.

It is an unfortunate but necessary result of the very functioning of the thing that we're about to visit with fire and iron, and salt the ground where it stood, that discussion as well as understanding on any central topic fragments, then loses sight of fundamentals, and then finally turns into disparate tumors resting on ossified sclerotica - like a bizarre coral colony consisting of a multitude of live cells flailing wildly at the extremities of a large construction they don't recall or in any sense master. Yes the coral reef, like what is today left of "law" or "economics" or "computing" or what have you has been actually made by the combined efforts of similar life forms similarly flailing over the centuries. This however does not mean that the chunk of deposited carbonate rock is in any way relevant to the current crop now actively flailing. As far as they're concerned it is insoluble, just another part of the ocean floor.ⁱⁱ

Consequently there exists nobody inside with a firm enough grasp of the fundamentals to be able to carry a fundamental discussion as to the law ; nor, of those who might with some effort within human capacity aquire such a grasp is anyone free of the delusions that erroneously misrepresent reality to them, such that they don't even try because they mistakenly imagine "they don't need to" or "someone else will" or, everyone's favourite : "gotta pay teh billz!", and so the whole charade should be safe ; except that to everyone's [mis]fortune I do happen to find myself in a position to carry this discussion, through the grace of having grown up outside of this whole system, and having enjoyed what I could best term an antisocial educationⁱⁱⁱ. And so by god we shall carry this conversation. Hold on to your seats.

There is a scene - because for reasons aforealluded we must start small, and we must start afar, and if we must we will - there is a scene in a movie we recently discussed. It goes like this :

Stone: Hello?
Shifflet: Hey, boss, it's Deck.

Stone: Oh, hey, Deck, how you doing?
Shifflet: Good. How are you?

Stone: Well, I'm cool.
Shifflet: Are you here?

Stone:Well, I'm here and there.
Shifflet: Ah, yeah, here and there. Listen, I got a stolen-evidence situation.

Stone: OK. Stolen evidence, uh... Let me see, uh... OK. The De Soto case.
Shifflet: De Soto?

Stone: Carmine De Soto. You remember him?
Shifflet: Club Ruby.

Stone: Uh-huh.
Shifflet: Where... where do I find that?

Stone: Uh, around '92, you'll find it, uh, let's see, Southwest second.
Shifflet: Boss, you're a lifesaver. '92?

Stone: Yeah. Club Ruby case.
Shifflet: '92...

Stone: Carmine De Soto.
Shifflet: Carmine De Soto.

Stone: Club Ruby.
Shifflet: Club Ruby.

Stone: It's from the appellate court.
Yeah. It kind of rings a bell.

~

Shifflet: I got it! And from Bruiser, of all people.
Baylor: Bruiser? I thought you didn't know where Bruiser was.
Shifflet: Well, I don't, but I got an emergency-contact number. I call them, they get me in touch with him. Look, Rudy, nobody knows more than Bruiser about stolen evidence. You might say it's his stock and trade.

Baylor: Good morning, your honor. Sorry I'm late, sir. Approach the witness, your honor?
Hale: You may.
Baylor: This is the claims manual that was given to me by Jackie Lemancyzk.
Drummond: Objection, your honor. Stolen work papers. Inadmissible. You ruled on this.
Kipler: Sustained.

Baylor: May we approach?
Drummond: I thought this matter was already settled, your honor.
Baylor: Your honor, I just this morning found a case that is controlling in this factual situation.
Kipler: What do you have?

Baylor: If you'll just take a look at this ruling. It's Club Ruby vs. Carmine De Soto. Copy for your honor and one for Mr. Drummond. Number 585, southwest second, page 431, argued by Bruiser... by J. Lyman Stone. And it shows very clearly that stolen documents are, in fact, admissible if the lawyers played no part in the theft.
Kipler: Well, according to these head notes, this case will overrule your objection. Sorry, Leo.
Drummond: Oh, I'm sure you are, your honor. But note my strong objection.

Kipler: Objection noted.
Baylor: May I approach?
Kipler: Do so.

What the fuck just happened there ?!

Obviously what happened first and foremost is just good cinema. On second pass what happened there was a short stocky law partner I'd kill for and never ever desert^iv, and other matters dramatic. But also, edged in edgewise, barely connected to actual substantial reality of the working of the courts^v yet connected nevertheless is some side commentary on ossification.

Specifically : the judge as the role works today couldn't care less. For as long as you don't outright pull out a spiked club and start dispensing the Lord's own justice upon the witness, jury and court clerks, for as long as you "maintain order", which is to say keep to decorum^vi, his role in the proceedings is purely passive. If the parties have a dispute, he will adjudicate it. If the parties don't have a dispute he has no business and just sits waiting. That's the whole job - not so different in the end from that other fundamental aspiration of black people in the US : being a bank guard. He sits there in his uniform with his rolled up copy of the Washington Post and prevents crime. Don't look at me strangely, you're the one that thinks this works.

Moving on to the fundamental part : why is this how it works ?

Now, in scholarship there are many ways to approach a question of "why". One's historical. We could if we felt so inclined write a few tomes about the numerous steps, junctures and tiny evolutionary steps that take us illo tempore ad praesenti litem, and in the process aquire all the accolades of being scholarly, learned and in general one of those good boys that never spills the salt^vii. Somehow I suspect your patience wouldn't carry.

Another's fundamental. Someone who already has done all that legwork can simply fill in the correct conclusion, which you'll then take as granted. Lacking the basis upon which to discern whether the conclusion is correct or not, your practical choices are exactly two : either turn into some sort of stickler^viii, enthusiastically swallow everything coming your way, or else live without the entire line in your life. Upon examination, obesity in the English speaking world is suddenly unsurprising, is it ? Once you've decided your only practical avenue is to swallow everything, you can't hardly be faulted for actually doing a good job of it, can you ?^ix

So here's the why, then : the judge became an exceedeed housewife the same day the reality he had to handle became complex.

But... why did such reality become complex ? It became complex sometime ten centuries ago, when the king who ran the court of justice as just another blacksmith's by the castle discovered that there's a lot of power in this line, and decided to make it a central underpinning of the world. This happened in Russia only recently owing to the fact that those barbarians are about a thousand years behind now, up from the ~500 years they were behind cca 1200 ad. It happened in England more or less at the time of the French invasion.

Originally, the powers of the court were codified exactly, in writs. Just like proper medicine works, which is to say "we don't cure people, and we have have nothing to do with health - we merely have this list of procedures to be applied in these circumstances, yielding with this probability these results". Back then, the court wasn't the place where "you went to be done justice", it was a much more instrumental office than that. You went there if you found yourself in any of the situations on the list, for the court to do what it says it does in those situations.

This arrangement was the only practicable arrangement at the time, for no reason other than people being free and used to their freedom. In that situation, the only possible way something like a court could work was through a limited and clearly specified list of enumerated powers. But then, as people got lazier and lazier, their subjective feelings of entitlement grew^x and soon enough there was "need" for more and more and ever more writs. This tide was briefly stemmed by a decree that no new types of writs may issue, and within a few short years this resulted in a fundamental redefinition of the legal process, towards "justice" and away from writs.^xi

The Obamacare of the legal profession had succeeded, carried by the happy applause of a large herd of newly imported low information voters (at the time, "professionals" and the burgeoning commerciant class), who were in short order the ones to regret the result, and their lament reaches us through just about forty generations. They "thought it would be ok" because "they only wanted to" and here we are.

Nevertheless, the system is untenable. Even leaving aside how rotten to the core it is - a minor point that one will bemoan but that will not ever drive the bemoaning one, even the best sort of one, to any sort of actual, positive action - the system is untenable in pure thermodynamic terms. This wasn't much of a concern for as long as it could simply steal everyone's property in any form to sustain itself, but on one hand the ever increasing costs^xii of maintaining the charade and the other the unyielding quality of Bitcoin, completely immune to the sort of leeching SOPS needs to survive as it finds itself means it's the end.

Not just the end of Goldman Sachs. Not just the end of the evil and corrupt government that spawned Goldman Sachs. Not just the end of the country that was once great and is today a rotten stump. It is the end of the very possibility of the "justice system" as you presently know it.

Bitcoin is ready to start over, in the sense that for years it already has. Enumerated procedures of relief and no general remedy has been the rule in Bitcoin ever since forever. Copying this is not optional, but mandatory. Just like making a signature and registering it in the WoT is not optional, but mandatory : for the SEC, for "the press"^xiii and for everyone else. Not like Bitcoin distinguishes between any of these anwyay.

So... yeah. The "Justice System" was just the closing act. Bitcoin's ready to start the show over.

1. Through its wholly owned Agency of Goldman Sachs.

   You will note that while the twerps in question no doubt think themselves clever, they are actually following word-for-word the playbook published early 2013, and written who knows how long prior :

   Yet another one of them is that consumers revolt, entrepreneurs intervene, before the end of 2015 there's about a thousand to a million different Bitcoin forks, each with its ten million-ish monetary base worth about a dollar, on global average. The size of the inter-Bitcoins market, the complexity and confusion ensuing makes pretty much everything unmanageable for the "ordinary person". Hedge funds and banks (the ones a little ahead of using Excel) that trade in this murky complexity make a killing and become the principal driver of economic growth worldwide. Not only is the consumer about as screwed as is currently the case, but to everyone's benefit he has just been clearly proven yet again that revolt = being fucked in the ass harder, longer, with a thicker implement with sharper barbs on it. Also conveniently, the thing to revolt at has become much more vague and intangible. On the balance of probabilities this would seem the most likely outcome, strictly because history unerringly flows in that direction which most cruely rapes the "average person".

   What chances the USG has in succeeding at whatever its stated or real goals while following to the letter the playbook written for them by their enemies is perhaps best surmised from surveying their history in the Middle East : they'll blather on about how they're on top of things, just until the final moment. [↩]

2. One could patriotically, facetiously or otherwise stupidly declare that such is the problem of English speakers, congenitally dumb as they find themselves and always have. This isn't true - not because we aren't racists or aim not to be or seen as racists - but because it actually isn't true. The only reason $languagespace, $culture or $meta-anything doesn't exhibit these problems is because it hasn't lived. [↩]
3. The fundamental problem with college debt isn't, as you no doubt erroneously think (see above) financial. The fundamental problem with college debt is cultural.

   I came out of college with a faint disdain for both the teachers and the principle of the whole thing. This is natural. I also came out of college not owing anyone one red cent. This is pivotal, because like this I'm perfectly able to tell anyone and everyone to go get fucked. The similar kid born of an English speaking woman in Ohio is open to the rebuttal that "well how you gonna pay back then ?!?!?" where I am not. This is important. In fact, this is what's important : even should they through magic, or the grace of God himself, acquire freedom from the financial entanglement, this cultural entanglement into a dead society, signed by a youthful brain is, at least in principle, unredeemable. [↩]

4. Especially not for a woman, what the fuck is wrong with you people! [↩]
5. Which really don't work this way in detail. For instance, if so surprised a judge would probably call a recess that's not pictured because it'd break the dramatic tension - which is specifically why the judge would have had it. [↩]
6. Are you familiar with the psychotic situation around many Thanksgiving dinners where every felony is acceptable as long as the shit's covered in a veneer of "polite" and there's no cursing at the table ? Same principle.

   You'd think you'd care about a little more than mere form and formality, if you ran the table. But then again you're young and know very little. Neither will last : soon enough you'll be old and know nothing at all. [↩]

7. Romanian expression - spilling the salt at the table foretells domestic arguments. [↩]
8. The stickler is the man who tries to navigate unknown waters with an amulet.

   The housewife that lacks the intellectual ability and the scholarly sophistication to discern whether her sons are good or bad, so instead simply contents herself with insisting they don't use "foul language" at the table is a stickler : she's trying to navigate the world with her amulet of "proper language". It doesn't usually work.

   The bureaucrat hiding behind so and so paperwork is also a stickler. He's hoping that "the process" somehow magically might steer him true over the incomprehensible waters of "holy shit what are these people saying". That's his amulet.

   The "pick-up artist" with his amulet of "knowledge" of "how to [insert here] women" is a stickler, just like the sour hater that "all women are whores / untrustworthy / the cause of ruin" is a stickler - just because his amulet is shaped in the form of a hole doesn't make his hole different from the other's worshipped hole.

   The list goes on. [↩]

9. Hence the disconcerted, disbelieving airs of the Mayo-gendered - that first generation of idiots ever&anywhere that have to be actually explained why and wherefore their disease is bad. This is what's diving them : they're doing to their bodies exactly what their society has decided everyone must do to his mind. Mens sana in corpore sano, right ? Whadda ya want from them then ? They're doing it! You're the one that's living in a state of sin! [↩]
10. These two are cognates, laziness and entitlement. What promotes laziness - not the common, subconscious, biological mechanism of saving energy, but the conscious echo of it, a refusal to put in the effort, wilful if lying about its wilfulness - is also what drives entitlement : a sense that in any case the desired outcome will be obtained. Hence Lord Newton's rebuff of the lazy house slave, that if there's no need to shine the shoes today there shan't be any need to eat, either. Exactly on point, this. [↩]
11. If this brings echoes to mind of what the Argentines factitiously refer as "derecha no es mismo al derechos" you're exactly on point. It's true that the US, being delayed on the socialist route to famine and poverty, currently finds itself a little further up the stream going from one liberty to a collection of "rights". Nevertheless, it's the same stream. [↩]
12. The SOPS needs everyone's bank account by now to support itself, fancy that! Where could it possibly go from there ? [↩]
13. I can't recall the correct log point for this and after having spent five minutes on it I can't actually be arsed. It's in there somewhere, I'm sure. [↩]