No idea what you're trying to say with this honestly.
I was, perhaps, being slightly "facetious" in imitating those mimetic shifts that the "frogtwitter" crowd so like to use... It happens that I find the study of youth and their discontents an enlightening activity, though perhaps only to set me apart, or distance myself from, the chagrining of alcoholics and incels over the age of thirty...
I think that a large part of the political playbook is trying to juxtapose "settled law" with positive political action, balancing out campaign promises with what is
actually achievable through the accepted structure of democracy. In a state of emergency, or in a degenerating polity, this is
kinda hard. Not only because our understanding of political accountability doesn't always align with how power is distributed in the government, or how policies are enacted, but also because the affirmative push toward "substantive right" and rule of law considerations are sand in the gears for what people consider the "values of democracy", which from the "nonjudicial" side of the aisle amount to vague considerations about rights-based guarantees for the subjects of a state (living constitutionalists i.e leftists will advocate for, say, a constitutional guarantee to an abortion, because there are some "critical rights which no majority should be able to deny or disparage.")
I say "ius" over "lex" in the sense of Roman Law, that positive statutory law ("lex") is just not enough to achieve "structured discretion" for state actors who lack the accountability that other political entities have, for instance unelected judges and NGOs. A "lex" is only concerned with settled or expected outcomes, whereas an "ius" is rightly concerned with the general principles which constitute jurisprudence--the higher sources of law, which are derived from natural law. A lot of living constitutionalists deny natural law (except for when it comes to rights, in that case
rights have an organic telos and are applied in the most general ways imaginable), as do a lot of constitutional libertarians (even conservatives do) which seems to me completely wrongheaded.
Anyway, those are my two cents. I imagine that my thoughts on political doctrine are a bit "out of touch" with the concerns of people today, partly informed by my experiences in the subcontinent and elsewhere. I had once associated with a large cohort of Communists, Trotskyites, and back then what I can now call "Bioleninists", some of whom belonged to various paramilitary organizations around the Indochinese belt; a lot of their discussions galvanised my own thinking, but ultimately led me to become disillusioned with their politics, which I saw as a Virago of fancy in the way of hopeless utopianism, the "thrill" of samizdat activity, and a pathological, almost neurotic, aversion to inequality.
These were justifiable in the context of their own governments (Thai monarchists are known for their bureaucracies) but were still nonetheless "too radical" for me. And even back then I was still a bit of a thirdworldist in Arghiri Emmanuel's sense, though only as an economic
curio which had a great deal of explanatory power at the time.
Coming back to the first-world, I can't help but feel that many of the political concerns shared here are exaggerated, oftentimes treating, for instance, the right for minors to have access to hormone replacement therapy, as a "self-evident" principle which aligns perfectly with our models of governance, captured so perfectly in cheap phrases like "the government should stay out'a our 'biz" and so forth. Coupled with the moral grandstanding of our nu-liberals (the embassy shooting the other day and bsky responses, for instance), the current case for liberalism is not compelling enough for me, as it is, and I suppose I never had the youthful violence to pay progressivism any mind (a distance niece of mine, I believe, whom was still a little child in tams the last I saw her, is now a full-on "wokester" the last I hear). Granted, "rightoids" don't exactly cut it for me, so I'm not fully endorsing their own handwringing either.
TL;DR, you
will have a consistent application of natural law and you
will be... nationally sovereign?
