Defining the Indefinite Terms

The terms of the social contract are indefinite. They can be changed by fiat, which is why American Revolutionaries rejected it for “consent of the governed.”

Government by consent is ruled (measured) by natural law, by the numbers. The rule of law forms the foundation of The Republic with the attributes of the Commonwealth (i.e., having definite, measurable terms with verifiable authority on demand). With the 2014 midterms being the latest example, The Revolution re-formed the perception of the risk, and we’ve been reforming it (reinventing the terms of the contract) ever since.

(Articles on “novation of the risk” by griffithlighton can be found on the World Wide Web.)

Remember back to the mid-term realignment of the Clinton era. The term “realignment” suggests that something is out of alignment. To make the contract align with the numbers, Newt Gingrich decided it was necessary to restate the terms but, of course, the terms are chiseled in stone–the Constitution! (At the time, I was sure to say that the terms of The Contract are just fine…and I’ll say it again–congressional compliance with the terms is “the change we really need!”) Non-performance of the contract is a reoccurring tort civilly prosecuted on demand. Some propose we have term limits, but that limits the choices in zero sum. No. What we need is term compliance, not limits.

Terms are naturally limited by application of consent, empirically verified by the numbers. The terms of the contract are indefinitely definite–naturally endowed…inalienable…non-negotiable!

If we have to realign the inalienable, there is something fundamentally wrong.

What are we waiting for?

Something with indefinitely definite attributes is hard to describe. Some say it is empty (a world of ideas in which, paradoxically, there is no measure but, nevertheless, exists all measure of things, measured against the ideal form, defined by the utility of its current value, always being now). Being nothing (infinitely zero and not existing by the numbers), what reality definitely is, then, is indefinitely negotiable, but then, the risk shows up, passively resisting what we don’t want to be, becoming what “IT” is on demand, without really expecting it.


About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Political-Economy and Philosophy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s