Artificial intelligence and Law. - Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt, the WHO.

5 Janvier 2023, 08:55am

Publié par el-theus

eltheus, [05/01/2023 08:32]
Is this what people want? Not to know what is a woman? Artificial wombs, fake robots, instead of human beings? what is their problem? what is this fascination for robots? and hatred for women?

eltheus, [05/01/2023 08:35]
Law is a command, a top down level or normative order on Hans Kelsen theory of law. But is it so? This was his system (a Jew) his theorization of Law. A Grundnorm above all the other , (the COnstitution) that is conventionaly agreed upon. But is THAT Law? That is the 'rule of law' system written by Hans Kelsen in his view & understandng, or special interest of law. Carl Schimtt has theorized instead the Nomos of the Earth. A concrete terrestrial boy of law.

eltheus, [05/01/2023 08:43]
This is already a major point. We have a system on law based on Hans Kelsen theorization of Law. Does that make it the law? Is Jean Jacques Rousseau theory of the social contrat, and the political contract the correct theory of law? Or Hobbes Leviathan? They have theorized views that have brought us exactly to this totalitarianism. Absolutist States. In Hans Kelsen theory, The State is a hierarchy of norms. Thus the WHO organization becomes a sort of BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG STATE on top of all of us. Why? Cause Hans Kelsen (a Jew) decided it had to be so. But Carl Schmitt for instance had a more adherant to reality earth, more grounded view and theory of law. One by wich law is not man made, positive, posed, imposed, but one that is discovered, found, and derives from the physics, geophysics, of Nature, LAND, territory. The NOMOS OF THE EARTH. A very different thing. But of course the mainstream had to demonize Carl Schimitt as a Nazi, and as such discredit his views, theory, book. Turn him into a paria, an outsider of the politicaly correct 'rule of Kelsen Law' system, that founds the basis of modern constitutional theory. Our States are based on his theory. But WHY? Is it correct? it is uprooted, withput rooots. Delinked from any grounding or concrete reality. It is just man-made. Positive law. Not ius, but lex.

eltheus, [05/01/2023 08:53]
This is a big difference. Laws of nature, called natural law, has its own laws that are created by someone that is far bigger than man, or Kelsen. The laws of Life, the origin of Life, it's certanly not Kelsen to have written them. Nonetheless, he made up a system by which what binds men is the 'authority' of the 'majority', 'some elites', 'some chosen 1%' 'some powerful people' to make the laws binding everybody. is that correct? Fair? Or even valid from a ius point of view? It isn't. It's arbitrary. It's the system by which a powerful class only is admitted to legislate, vote, make the laws according to their class status, if owners, proprietaries, landowners, or landless, haveing a certain revenue or not. A class system, by which only the rich, the lords, can vote. But LAW, ius, does not depened on the will, or special interests of the 'owners', the rich, the powerfull, those that by some criteria have been chose to sit in Parliament. Law, natural Law, is something of its own. It's God made, given to man. In nature.The danger of not respecting or willing to put into account, consideration this type of law, this view, conception of law, implicates that what positive law becomes completely separated, detached, and de-rooted, up-rooted, without roots from real life, real beings, animals, plants, rivers, nature, functioning of human beings, and becomes an arbitrary will, imposed upon others in mandatory ways without justification, just because of the specific interest of those making the laws in Parliament, writing the laws, for weverybody, binding everybody, when only in the interests of a few. The Owners.

Commenter cet article