Rules Based Order

Posted on March 27, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a “rules-based order” would have everyone follow the same rules. That ours has a clear double standard, whistleblowers are vilified, and law enforcement serves power instead of justice… suggests ours isn’t a rules-based order, but something else. On the other hand, rules require morality to carry them out. If those who enforce, write, and adjudicate the law have no ethics… law serves them, not justice. The rules then, under such a system, exist to enrich and empower those that write them. Such a paradigm is highly corrosive of trust in institutions. Our governments lie to us constantly, get caught but don’t appear to lose credibility. They abet billions in fraud while jailing anyone who chisels a dime on their taxes. Meanwhile, that same government doesn’t even follow basic Constitutional rules.

The US Constitution is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of the US government. In the Federalist Papers Madison argued against the Bill of Rights by saying, anything that is not given to the government is restricted from it. If playing jacks is not in it, they cannot play jacks… The Bill of Rights converted the empowering document Madison envisioned, to a limiting document. It strictly limits the power of the federal government. The Bill of Rights then became a keystone article. Such things as media manipulation, false flags, banning public Christian speech, the bureaucracy, closing churches, forcing vaccines, censoring speech on social media, courts overruling the President, limiting guns, accessing person information, etc… are not in accordance with the US Constitution.

The rule makers don’t even follow the rules they are supposed to follow. In a rules-based order you would think the rule makers would follow the rules? That they don’t suggests the rules serve a purpose other than justice. If the rules served justice, they would be equally followed, enforced, and prosecuted no matter the status of the accused. Here’s a metric you can use… If some people in your nation are as far above the law as you are below its protections, the rules serve the rule makers, not justice. There is a tension here, because a rules-based order is sold to us as a means to justice… not the enrichment and empowerment of the rule makers. So, if you see that the elite, (rule makers) are above their own rules, let alone the Constitution, your nation’s laws serve the elite not justice.

Trust is stupidity when invested in those we know can’t be trusted. People who lie, commit fraud, and exploit the law to their own ends, have no ethics. Judges who use their authority to thwart justice clearly have no morals. Elites who molest children, eat human flesh, and worship Satan are probably not the most human hearted people. If we are shown the quality and caliber of our rule-makers are of this persuasion, common sense requires us to withdraw trust in them. Such people will abuse our trust in the most vindictive way, then claim to be the victims when exposed. Indeed, claiming to be a victim while being the villain is truly a detestable act of horrible people. In this case, trusting such people is a sure path to ruination.

If the rules-based order doesn’t serve everyone equally, it isn’t a rules-based order. In such a case, the wise withdraw their trust and support. They move their trust to the community, those who show they can be trusted, and set themselves to building new institutions with moral and ethical people running them. They then replace the rules-based order with a morally based one. Enforce morals with ostracism, ridicule, and derision… as they were in the past. If a lack of ethics gets someone banned from office, mocked mercilessly, and ostracized from society, few will lack ethics. Law uses merciless punishments, morality must use other means. If we want a moral based order to arise from the ashes of the rules-based order the elite destroyed, moving our trust to the trustworthy is only wise.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Posted on March 26, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

They hate the family and vilified the wife,
Legalized abortion to create much strife,
Dying alone and lonely,
A faction evil and comely,
Convincing women it’s better to choose the slut life.

To be wise is to see and know intuitively,
It’s not to be the acme of conformity,
But are the arrogant sane,
Saying mankind is a pain,
Because true wisdom requires humility.

There once was a rino named Pfluger,
With the cunning and morals of a cougar,
Could you check my back,
For the knife there Mac,
And now he has all the appeal of a booger.

The elite consider us but feeders,
To be swatted like tiny skeeters,
Why do we lack an ethic,
Confucius’ axiom mythic,
That people follow their leaders.

Manipulating people to self-____,
The arrogant so often do _____,
A backstabbing _____,
Eating our lunch,
And leading us to moral alarm.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Ironic Cycle of Civilization

Posted on March 25, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, there is an Ironic Cycle of Civilization. In one sentence… it is that societal trust builds prosperity, and prosperity erodes trust, that lack of trust then ushers in poverty. If people come together in that poverty, the cycle can renew, but if they remain islands without trust, the cycle is broken and perpetual poverty results. This happens because a poor society is best served if they pull together, instead of apart. A society that pulls together naturally is more prosperous and has higher trust. The prosperity generates a need for more laws to guard that prosperity. The simple fact that there is a need for more laws makes people less trusting. As time goes on, laws replace morals, until trust is obliterated. That’s when laws fail to control and so collapse happens.

Each individual fiber in a rope may be strong but twisted into a united strand they become an order of magnitude stronger. Trust is the winding of the societal rope. A culture then that has a high trust ratio could be said to have a good wind to it. It will be much stronger than one without a twist. Just as a cord is strongest when wound properly. Taking the analogy further, we can say that a strong rope is capable of more work than a weak rope. It’s also more durable since a tight weave sheds water and grit. Such a society then, one that is tight-knit is going to be more prosperous. Just as a tightly wound rope is stronger than a bundle of loose fibers. Societies then that fail to come together in poverty, often because trust was completely lost, stay poor for generations, due, ironically to that lack of trust.

Wealthy civilizations erode trust with laws written to benefit those who write them, at a cost to those who don’t. This creates a situation where political power is of the utmost importance. Parties will spend whatever it takes to get power. This is because everyone wants to benefit from such a system and not be extracted from, by it. As a result, factions will spend billions to get their preferred candidate elected. Next comes the double standards. This is a consequence of elites exploiting their power. Laws go from being regulative to extractive. Once people recognize the double standard and the extractive nature of law, they lose faith in the system. Trust is lost and often lost forever. Once law is seen as unjust, no one follows it. Without morality or law ordering society, the cycle turns and chaos follows.

Civilization is all about interpersonal trust. Where people act morally there is natural trust between them. The result is civilization. A civilized person will hold themselves to their word. When that is the case, there is little friction to win-win interactions. Indeed, every interaction becomes a win-win. This leads inexorably to prosperity as well as resiliency. Profit is ever-present, because if every interaction is a win-win both sides profit. Once the phase shifts from a moralist regime to a legalist one and trust is lost… every interaction becomes at best a win-lose, or often lose-lose. Once a handshake is insufficient contracts become required. Then once lawyers and courts have nullified the utility of contracts with loopholes, what’s next? Other than chaos and collapse?

The ironic cycle of civilization is only ironic because of human nature. Not the nature of the average man or woman, but the nature of any of us once in power. Give a saint unlimited power without consequence and they will busy themselves with tyrannizing mankind for our benefit. Meanwhile, they sleep with a clean conscience. Most of us aren’t saints though. As proven by history. Ironically the very thing that powers wealth creation, trust, is eroded as wealth is created. So if, as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” then the ironic cycle makes perfect sense. The power to write law must be invested in someone, and if that power corrupts them, that seems hardwired. I wonder though… would it be possible to break that cycle?

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in economy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Posted on March 24, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

To the elite crimes are like confections,
Sweet and delicious without objections,
Showing law is uncouth,
Here’s a nasty truth,
They’re as far above it as we are below its protections.

In the UK things are going quite swell,
Collapsing services and crime do tell,
The elite do okay,
What did he say,
Incompetence seems to pay so very well.

There once was a SCOTUS quite lazy,
On the Constitution that were a bit hazy,
Serving the deep state,
Abandon us to our fate,
To create a world that is totally crazy.

The economy is going on a tear,
Crime is dropping everywhere,
An abashed elite,
Down to defeat,
So they have to get Trump out of there.

In the legalist regime Thrasymachus was _____,
Chaos is just grand when seen in profit’s light,
The courts do ____,
A swindling scheme,
So counter examples are dealt with political _____.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Posted on March 23, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

There once was a despot known so well,
A real killer of innocents so many fell,
A prideful man,
A different Klan,
And his eternal reward will be in Hell.

A naïve attitude just begs to be burst,
Believing the elite are just cursed,
There is a way,
The wise do say,
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

I’ve heard of a counterfeiter called the Fed,
By them corporations and deep state are wed,
Interests align,
Elites do fine,
But to pay for it the rest of us run in the red.

There once was a central planner from Ottawa,
With regulations that gave the people whip saw,
A dead weight,
Despotic state,
Now the citizens must live by tooth and claw.

The hell-bound believe themselves ____,
Delivering failure in bulk and in ____,
Extracting for ______,
Skimming the top off it,
And Ruling over people that they despise.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Revolutions Derail

Posted on March 22, 2026 by john

Dear friends,

It seems to me, there’s a reason most revolutions end in more despotism and not less. It is because most revolutionaries want to replace the people who write, and thus benefit from the laws… instead of create a moralist society. The US founding fathers were singular in this regard. They openly sought to create a moral society capable of self-regulating. Mao, on the other hand, wanted to apply law to solve all of society’s problems as he saw fit. The US for awhile was a moralist nation with few laws. China under Mao became a legalist despotism so utter that tens of millions of human beings were murdered by it. The human hearted goal then should be to move our societies from legalism, to moralism… without the collapse it usually takes.

A revolution is always fueled by resentment. Happy people have little incentive to undergo life threatening travails for nebulous benefit. Contented people are generally content. Revolution, though, requires people to resent those in power. To that end a demagogue is the ideal tool. You might say Thomas Paine served as the rabble-rouser in the US revolution. The demagogue, however, makes a poor leader. Such myopic vision leads one to tragic mistakes. That was shown when Thomas Paine backed the French Revolution. This is because the nearsighted can only see the close at hand, they lack the ability to see the distant landscape. The result is that people who lack vision only see a group of people in the way of universal brotherly love, so… kill them and everything will work out.

Armed conflict selects for those with martial ability, not moralist thinkers. Lenin was ruthless in his usurpation of power. Any one or faction that stood in his way faced the most brutal death imaginable. This application of brutality has been emulated by revolutionaries across space and time, obviously, because it works. If brutality didn’t work then it would quickly be discarded as a tactic let alone a strategy. This gives those without humanity an advantage in ascending the power structures of a revolution. The humane and human hearted, like George Washington, need to be wise as a serpent, fast as a cat, and as ethical as a saint. Such men are few and far between. The heartless ones are a dime a dozen though… so they make up most of the marshal men in a revolution.

The one kind of revolutionary then seeks to create a human hearted civilization, while the other seeks to exploit the legalist power of the system. As we discussed above, most revolutionaries are heartless demagogues, only the rarest are human hearted. The result is that most revolutions create even more despotic conditions. Tyrannies where the top extracts from everyone else at the point of a gun. Such legalistic systems even twist filial love into a tool of the state. They do this by imprisoning family for three generations for the slightest wrong-speak. This perverts even the love for family into a legalist trap. A few rare examples replace legalist systems with moralist ones. The one kind of revolutionary then rules by the brain, and the other by the heart.

Moralist systems by their nature are not extractive. This is because the laws are few and only needed to control the uncontrollable. Strangers can do business with little friction, tragedy is taken care of locally and personally, and communities stay close knit. No system is purely moral or legal however. Peak prosperity comes at a point close to moralism but far from legalism. As in the early years of the US when labor couldn’t be found. There was too much opportunity to work for wages. Legalism, on the other hand, allows the Thrasymachians of the world to exploit the law. The more laws, the more extraction. Legalism becomes a boon to despots and curse to the people. This explains why so many revolutions fall short of their early promise. It’s the nature of revolutions.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Mercy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Posted on March 21, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

There once was a red herring that worked,
Before the naive it jerked and twerked,
Smartmatic logic,
Rare demagogic,
With a darkness behind it that lurked.

Mexico is a failed state for sure,
Embracing the politics du jour,
The result of corruption,
A violent eruption,
That doesn’t have an easy cure.

Americans live in a delusion,
A fanciful and wonderful illusion,
To police the world,
Protect a small girl,
An imperium establishing collusion.

The CIA really has some gall,
Like Lucy with a football,
Serving darkness,
Moral wilderness,
And it’ll be the death of us all.

When elections are a swindle on __,
Chaos is created it’s a social ____,
Propaganda ____,
Hegel is proud,
As we all ride on a careening bus.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legislating Morality

Posted on March 20, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, Pareto’s elitists claim you can’t legislate morality… then set themselves to doing just that. Laws today are rapidly replacing morality. This is done by thousands of bureaucrats working diligently at their cubicles legislating the state’s morality into law. Many people believe the Legislative Branch creates law, but it has given that ability to the bureaucracy. This was done because so many laws had to be passed and a legislature is way too slow. So they delegated that authority to the bureaucracy. Since then, the bureaucracy in every nation has regulated everything it could find. In doing so transferring what was controlled by morals to law. In other words, law replaces morals. This inevitably leads us to conclude, the elitists are legislating their morality.

When charity is illegal, laws have fully replaced morality. In some places it is illegal to feed the homeless without a license (permission) from the government. There were some news stories about the practice of fining independent soup kitchens and other private charities for violating such laws. Since then, the practice has become normalized, so it goes unnoticed now. The reasons feeding the homeless is illegal in many places are myriad. Some claim that if the food isn’t government checked it could be unsafe. Others make the argument such behavior attracts crowds and thus becomes a public nuisance. There are those that also make the claim that without permits, there is legal liability should someone have an accident. All are spurious arguments to replace morality with law.

Every time a judge makes an absurd ruling, they move the needle further from morality as a regulating factor in human interactions… to law. There is a semi-famous case of the burglar who broke into a house and cut himself on the window he broke. He sued the homeowner and won. Then there is the famous case of the woman who sued McDonald’s because she spilled hot coffee in her own lap. Every time a lawyer finds a loophole in an otherwise just contract, and a judge goes along, diminishes the utility of contracts… but increases demand for lawyers to close all loopholes. These don’t exist in a vacuum, they are perturbations in the trust networks people have established. When trust is destroyed the fall back is the force of law. This is another example of law replacing morality.

All commerce requires some level of trust. If there is no trust, no commerce can happen. This is when everyone becomes an island. There may be archipelagos of family clusters, criminal associations, and warlords, but in a zero-trust paradigm chaos is the result. As morality and ethics are reduced, people still want to do commerce, so they use law to force others to be moral and ethical. As law replaces morality, however, people stop asking if this is moral, and instead justify their actions with, if it’s legal, who cares? From this all sorts of fraud will develop. Each instance requiring a new law. Thus each instance moves the ball down the field and closer to a touchdown… legalism. Where laws are so extensive, the moral and immoral are equally criminals, but the immoral are adept at avoiding laws.

The most moral culture has within it the seeds of its destruction. Moral people will see someone acting immorally and will demand a law to stop it. This leads people to question, if morality is enforced externally, why self-regulate? Starting a runaway engine to legalism. This is the cycle of civilization. Each has risen in virtue, (morality), and that virtue was legislated, and so external replaced internal ordering. This led to their downfall. Since law serves those who write it, especially in an immoral society, double standards arise. Judges add to the chaos by ruling in self-interested ways. This eventually causes a collapse in trust. Commerce comes to a halt, because if no one can be trusted, and law has collapsed, total destitution must arise. This chain is why you can’t legislate morality.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Law, Mercy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Limericks

Posted on March 19, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

Many struggle and do what they can,
Wanting to appear good so they scan,
Go to the right places,
Ignoring poor faces,
But God often appears as a homeless man.

The elite have always been bums,
A cabal of people with all thumbs,
It’s not their fault,
They’re in a cult,
And are only happy when we live in slums.

There once was a central planner Dan,
With great ideas for the lot of Man,
He connived at night,
By pale moonlight,
And cooked our futures in a frying pan.

There once was a crew fast and furious,
Of guns to cartels they weren’t curious,
A donkey’s bray,
The CIA,
And to national interest they were injurious.

Reality is often different than it seems,
Our eyes mislead us by cultural ______,
The elite are not ____,
They’re more like lice,
Providing no value but regulating by _____.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Discerning the Role of Trust

Posted on March 18, 2026 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, history is unambiguous, every moralist society has evolved into a legalist one, and then collapsed. This appears to be a natural law like the Pareto Distribution. Moreover, that collapse appears to be semi-permanent. The Mongol Empire rose overnight in virtue to conquer most of the known world at the time then collapsed in corruption just as fast, never to rise again. It’s like there are two phases, a moralist phase and a legalist phase of human ordering. In the moral phase, people leave their doors unlocked, because there is no need of locks. In the legalist phase, people have bars on their windows and doors, to no avail. What happens is that in the transition between moralist and legalist, people exchange their morals for laws. Then an immoral society arises that can’t be controlled.

History teaches us that empires and great cultures rise in virtue and fall in corruption. Not one has survived the ages. For all the honor we give the Athenian democracy, it lasted only a few generations. By the time Thrasymachus was arguing with Socrates, the phase shift had already happened. Socrates was arguing about a moralistic society that had transitioned to a legalist one. Even as Thrasymachus was arguing the system they found themselves in was inevitable because it was expedient. They were arguing past each other. Each was arguing in a different regime. The moralistic phase or regime that Socrates thought was self-evident no longer existed in that time and place. The days of not locking your doors in Athens had passed and Alcibiades was the result.

Rome began fully in the moralistic phase. So much so the rape of Lucretia by Tarquinius Superbus‘ son caused such an outrage that kings were sworn off forever. It took hundreds of years before Marius and Sulla obliterated the moralist culture and replaced it with a legalist one. Moralist societies require people to self-regulate. When people don’t, that moralist culture is replaced by a legalist one. Laws must take the place of morals… because people have rightly lost their trust. This is why Marius slaughtered a fair share of the Roman aristocracy, then Sulla returned the favor. They and the Republic had become too corrupt for anyone to self-control. So instead of accord they chose slaughter. This is the legalist system in action. People with no morals can’t be controlled, even with draconian laws.

History shows moralist societies evolve into legalist ones, but what causes a moral society to become a legalist one? An erosion of trust. In a moralist society there is trust of people and institutions. Laws are only needed to control outliers who are incapable of self-restraint. In any society, however, there will be a Pareto distribution of those who want power. In a strictly moralist society, however, there is no need of powerful men, so laws must be enacted. Initially, the law only controls the crazies. Slowly, laws replace morals, because a law is objective while morals are subjective. Eventually, the question switches from is this moral, to is this legal? Once that happens the phase has shifted from a moralist society to a legalist one. Law has fully replaced morality in such a system.

Bastiat regarded the system and society in which he lived and described it as the legalization of plunder. He was looking at a legalist system of extraction. In his moral mind taking from one to give to another, while keeping some for the effort, is an immoral act. No matter if an individual did it or a group. What is immoral is immoral to him. What he didn’t understand is that the system had transitioned to a legalist system where morals are replaced by laws. In many times and places atrocities have been legal, but in all times and places, they remain immoral. Many earnestly believe that law can solve our problems. In this they have vaunted company. Robespierre thought he was improving the lot of mankind by his legalism. In his mind he was a hero, because everything he did was legal.

Sincerely,
John Pepin

Posted in Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment