Law versus Equity

The longer an engaged, disciplined student compares the absolute and the relative distinctions of the Anglican-Judaean law against the Germanic Gesetz, the sooner that student discovers a deeply worrisome incompatibility. Whereas every Germanic person comprehends even colloquially what are the Gesetz [statute], the Recht [right], the Jura [law], and the Justiz [justice], so every Anglican counterpart misunderstands the first three, conflates the fourth for its evil inverse, and conscripts themself unwittingly to perpetuate the illogical, irrational, impracticable ideology of some long-dead idiot. That word is not random. Idiot has meant once those peoples who had lived outside the monarch’s concerns so voluntarily, that after enough time their place in human civilization had shifted out of the societal alignment. The idiots’ church had stood now despite their intentions against the state; and, in lieu of reciprocal remediation, both sides have chosen repeatedly meanwhile to set that wound upon so much salt—still unhealed, festering, gruesome. However, the false ideology was the falser magic to convince too many generations that the idiots would be ever the poor peoples outside the walls [Mauern]. They are really always the aristocrats who have trapped themselves inside the walls.

In one part: The German-speakers know these concepts so well, because in such language every word cannot be understood except through an implied opposite [Gegensatz] at a certain perspective [Stelle; Sichtweise]. Germanic semantics is simply more engaged, more disciplined than do the monolingual, colonial, or aristocratic equivalents know usually in the Anglican-Judaean world (1567–2025). The former intuits the immediate distinction of Anruf and Beruf, for example, but the latter has accustomed itself so greatly to the theatrical, royal wordplay that a single word takes on often multitudinous significances. English is here similar with Spanish, French, other Latin-biased languages, insofar as their speakers enjoy to idolize a dictionary, in order to abuse a literal definition for their future puns, riddles, secrets, etc. Anruf and Beruf have no good translations out of the Germanic world. Calling is sufficient, but on the other hand, the speaker/writer must take care to contain them inside the correct contexts. Anruf is a calling-to-action, like Don Quijote de la Mancha or la Pucelle d’Orléans. Beruf is a calling-to-intention, like der Metzgermeister or the Dawn’s Early Light. So much semantics gets packed indeed tightly into the Germanic an- and be- prefixes, whereas in English, Spanish, and French the speaker/writer must unpack them again into larger, more burdensome sentences. Anecdotally, such profundity is today something worse than invisible, for few persons have crossed the Rubicon in order to know why (a) the one human world mistakes intentions and actions, but why (b) the other human world takes them wholly for granted.

In another part: The other speakers are unwittingly, unwillingly brainwashed of the cruelly self-interested ideologies of idiotic kings, their royal entourages, and their bureaucratic sycophants, who have died more than seven generations ago. In Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and other Germanic nations does an ancient tradition survive in practiced action, namely, that the burly tribes whom Rome could not conquer have remained unconquered. That is so, largely because they are truly democratic. The 2025 Germania has cultivated what the Roman Pope covets but disavows, i.e., an autonomous and happy people who are economically sufficient and spiritually passionate in equal measures. What have the seeds of Constantine’s Judea wrought in the contraposition [im Gegensatz], after all? The scope-and-scale here is universal, sits beyond the time-and-place of the Anglican, Iberian, Roman biases. In historical fact have the English law, the Spanish ley, the French loi, etc., inherited themselves from the same ideological position against the person, against her individual place in time, against a common societal velocity during the flows of human history. Their deep and fundamental presupposition hides under so many hermeneutical layers the common heritage of such words, namely, that their ‘law’ belongs always to the pope and the king, thus, never to the craftspeople, the mayors, the many persons yearning for an education. In their world is it [sic] very unclear that law, statute, right, and justice mean distinct values; that law is worth much more than some central edict; and that ‘god’ and ‘king’ were always the same, never a different society. Consequently, the Anglican-Judaean idiots are writing the laws, enforcing them, adjudicating them, but have held themselves ever outside the burdens of the society’s walls. The idiots do not enjoy the laws, nor suffer them, but are making them nonetheless for the civilization’s remainders. They have convinced their peoples falsely that loi were Jura; or ley, Justiz; or law, Recht; and so forth. Ironically the Germanics confuse Gesetz for all those, too, insofar as their presupposition itself values (a) writing and progress more greatly than (b) speaking and tradition. [Die Deutschsprachigen setzen als selbstverständlich voraus, wie viel die Stimme des gleichgestellten Menschen wert ist.]

Certain kings have enjoyed to hear the echoes of their dynasties, but other princes have learned their lessons sooner and promoted instead the liberalizations of human wisdom. The British, Spanish, French Crowns could not be democratic, had to infiltrate their languages and smuggle poisonful ideologies, because by no other ways could they fulfill their self-appointed prophecies. They borrowed a future price to protect their positions at that time-and-place, but now in the future their children must pay up the sociolinguistic, socioeconomic debt. The Swiss, Austrian, German Kurfürsten have rendered elsewise a vastly diverse economy, ecology, environment. They did not trap themselves in their castles, but abstractly and metaphorically, they have made their lands their castles, have promoted their peoples, and have shared their wealths happily. This is not a normative-moral judgement, but is strictly a positive-affirmative observation. From Argentina to Canada the word law does not mean Gesetz, because if it did, the ideological conspiracy would become too obvious. The so-called “right to vote” depicts itself for some unstoppable force in spite of the plain irony thus erected through amendments XV, XIX, XXIV of the U.S. Constitution. If such right were unstoppable, why would those amendments be necessary? Where does the right exist actually in the Constitution? When they convince the political public falsely that the “rights” would equal somehow the “laws,” thus the aristocrats of central covetous courts conspire concurrently to carve cruel concessions from crueler cabals. Their atrocious instincts reveal themselves, whenever the plebian, the plaintiff, the prosecutor, the people, the politician behold in their eyesights the material-historical game of kingmaking.

The European world has had once in Rome the common heritage of an equitable legal maxim: «ubi jus ibi remedium», or roughly: wherever there is a law [Jura], there must be a just remedy [Justiz; Rechtsbehelf]. It is important to recognize there the Latin jus for the Germanic Jura, and to take it for semantically incompatible with the others’ justice [justicia]. Finally here becomes the conspiracy unveiled. That earlier Anglican-Judaean presupposition obfuscates so the Germanic distinction of statutes and rights [Gesetz und Recht], thereby, the truer and more material significance of Justice [Recht] as a force, fabric, fascia of essential civilization. The Law [Jura] cannot comprehend itself except through the contraposition, against which Equity [Justiz] reflects the former’s shadow. As much as the Germanic world does not have an equivalent for Equity and Law in this context, the practitioners there are only more ignorant than the Anglican-Judaean ones, that the latter’s own legal culture has eradicated the importance of Equity, in order to abuse Law meanwhile for the ironic, sinful exploitation of the ignorant-at-large. The keyword is Policy [Gesetz; Richtlinie]. In brief, Justice is truly the (3) synthesis of (2) Law and (1) Equity, as far as a reasonable person experiences it in the common Policy of her tangible everyday network.

The history of all words is always materially important, and the negligent cannot hide their education anymore behind false ideological facsimiles. The word legislature has become before 2025 some imposter-ghost of its original Roman context. The epistemic light must shine henceforth on such ghost, so that the correct shadow, Equity, should enact the real differences of law, policy, right, justice…and the correct light, Law, should outshine the other imposters. The sooner that should become so, the faster the idiotic voices shall drown under the burden of actually free speech [Meinungsfreiheit].

Legislature versus Press

A peculiar rhyme repeats itself over recorded history. The thesis (1) starts this song: a captain-general exploits charisma, violence, jealousy in order that an army conquer another ‘land.’ The antithesis (2) confronts the song: the new ‘land’ does not respect its statal or ecclesiastical tithings unless a martial proportion stay behind, enforce the new order, and weaken future conquests implicitly. The synthesis (3) alleviates the tension, transforms the song into a historical fact: the captain-general rewrites the whole history, thereby, rewrites the inherited hermeneutics of entire cultures, their associated technologies, and the subsequent knowledge-and-belief of their languages, in order to quell all future frustrations and to offset the conquest-losses. Therefore, cultural genocides are not recent or new phenomena. The ability to notice them is so, however, owing itself really to the exponentially growing counterbalance of a Free Press. As soon as a group could publish, copy, distribute its ideas without the prior authorizations of the popes or kings, who have preferred ever to rewrite their victims’ words, so civil enlightenment could germinate, become an era, become its own monster, eradicate then with the 1800s ‘Westernization’ almost the samely human histories of the East, etc., etc. The word press includes more than the journalists, the newspaper-people, the magazine-solicitors, or the television-anchors. At the same time it means the tangible freedom to express any human ideas equally, thus, without the prior authorization of anyone—neither the White House, the Maoists, Stalinists, nor the Fascists. Defamation-related lawsuits cannot happen ante factum, never before the defamation may take place, but this frustrates the aristocrats because a Free Press spells the words of their ideological extinctions.

Although it is does not constitute common knowledge anymore, the question on free speech exists since the Roman Empire, even longer, as far as the question has sought an answer while a monarch has served a people. On one side, the topic of some speech deserves due human dignity; all things must speak for themselves. On the other side, the speaker/writer deserves the right-of-decision [Recht per Gesetz] to enjoy their voice [vox; Stimme] liberally, authentically, ante factum. Wherever in the world a government has centralized itself, has isolated its bureaucrats from the statal wills and the ecclesiastical acts, the legal system there puts such greater weight on dignity, that liberty must disprove its self-negation during a defamation-suit—which is ultimately a logical fallacy, by the way. Wherever in the world a government has undertaken the opposite – and, in written history, these nations exist between Chile, Chiapas, and Quebec – the legal system puts freedom over secrets. The Constitution of New Jersey codifies this latter preference in article I, section 6; and that of Iowa has set it instead in article I, section 7. It appears conversely never in the legal practices around Westminster, Edinburgh or Dublin, because in those places by a time-ancient tradition do the aristocrats bury their unequitable sins into ideological facsimiles. When the Yankees have declared their Anruf (1775), that no taxes should accrue but through duly legislative representations, their primary grievance has comprised indeed greatly the moral-legal rejection against such British love for oppressive secrets. In historical fact have the U.S. Founding Fathers intended clearly, distinctly that the truth shall deserve in every case to be known before the presupposition of a liar’s, hypocrite’s, sycophant’s several smokescreens.

Does the U.S. Senate investigate legal wrongdoings really effectively, if the culprits in the end know no justice? Do incentives exist, if nobody enforces their reciprocal punishments? What are merits without opportunities?	Does a legislature have the necessary quorum for its business, whenever a dictator’s consulary veto is preemptory and permanent?

The so-called “lawmaking” of a Western legislature is as false as the other façade about a “right to vote.” It originates in the British compromise (circa 1689), when the Crown has surrendered a few powers in order to ‘respect’ “parliamentary sovereignty.” So many quotation-marks are sincerely necessary, insofar as a good student beholds the idiotic irony, that the perpetual aristocratic gossiping, the political hobbyhorsing, the heretical idolatry were always more important for the rule-, regulation-, resource-, lawmaking than could the ideals of British, Fench, American civil wars have presupposed at once for their future children. Everyone except the aristocrats has underestimated the obsessive-compulsive lust that becomes an idiot’s ethos, after a meritless officer does not pay one time the right costs of a single wrong opportunity. There is today no sovereignty, no parliament, no respect, no power or duty, but for those which the aristocrats let be printed, in order to protect their economic sinecures, cultural luddites, and societal roads-to-Jericho. Their oppression of essential human freedom will continue forever, unless the people, their state, their church, their Constitution could speak, write, and publish equally their free sentiments upon all topics (1567/1968). More or less, nobody of significant societal power wants to suffer the burdens of Law willingly, so everybody must enjoy the most powerful duty to see the truth, to hear the words, and to know therefore Equity.

In summary: whereas human civilization comprises the societal alignments per unique person of individual wills and acts (and vice versa), so every law in every context comprises an ongoing dialectical evolution along the interweaved paths of progressive writing and traditional speech. Some laws are fixed, some are dynamic, but all are material and historical. Private newspapers must exist in order to counterbalance the public newspaper, i.e., the Roman-esque legislature; but the latter must exist at all, so that the government should know always the nation’s fluid intuition [Zeitgeist; Ausruf; 1918, 1989]. After linguistic, cultural, economic, other biases remove themselves through careful legal analysis, it becomes self-evident that the laws are merely a part of human civilization. To wit, that fluid intuition validates:

i. Equity [Justiz] is substantive, spoken, sovereign; and consists qua the Constellan.

ii. Law [Jura] is procedural, written, sovereign; and consists qua the Grand Forum.

iii. Policy [Gesetz] is substantive, written, administrative; and consists qua the Cabinet.

iv. Justice [Recht] is procedural, spoken, administrative; and consists qua the Judiciary.

Grand Forum

Ob Salutem Rei Publicæ | For the Good of the Republic

In the Republic of Silofais the legislators compose altogether the Aquarian-Aeon upgrade, so that the Roman Senate of Pontius P. (before 603) should meet factually the French Senate of C. de Gaulle (after 1958). Each legislator is thus a speaker-writer, who reports the news, publishes the journals, and earns a proportional political prerogative to write the Law [Jura]. The offices, the bureaus, the libraries, the committees, etc., which belong collectively to these Silofaisan legislators, shall be respectively a Free Press to enact a certain and local Be-, An-, Aus-, Ruf for willful public action. Each ought to synthesize the individual church, the popular state, and the societal constitution.

Such agents shall not make any laws whatsoever, for none are lawmakers per se. Rather they shall give the laws, because they are ever lawgivers [Gesetzgeber]. As the Law is the sovereign and procedural, but importantly written record of the perspective that a history takes around its progressive opposites, so every law is a fixed tradition for some political behavior and must attest itself for the national history. The legislature cannot be, must not be supreme over the other branches of any government, especially its own. The other branches make laws, too, according to the manners which the human civilization has permitted them since the lawgivers could give the laws their essential constitution at all. A statute is commensurate with an edict, a regulation, an opinion, other instruments of a government. The historical value of a statute decays over time, instead of growing, because every society changes. No parliament is perfect; no statute deserves a life longer than its material relevance to the societal status-quo. Although other nations may cling so to lawmaking, nevertheless Silofais upholds lawgiving for the phenomenal and Promethean sovereignty, in order to dispel secrets, traverse facts, synthesize ideas, and revolve Law for the wisdoms of Equity, Policy, and Justice.

A Magister and a Delegate do not pronounce any law, but enact Silofaisan Law together as the consequences of public investigations at home, of public reports to the House…of their itinerant travels among both times, both places, etc. Truly free speech [Meinungsfreiheit] comprises surely any equal, ante-factum debates on the dignity-liberty dialectic; but that depends always across every legislator upon their duty to practice free speech, to protect it, and to defend it actively. When they concern themselves in secrets, riddles or puns, they speak falsely and make falser, more idiotic theaterplay. When they report the news, and when they align the popular voice with the official vote, by contrast, they make themselves thus duly fit, correctly legislative servant-leaders. Their offices will be ever only so valid, so valuable as the quality of their historical Journals.

Public fora had constituted once good discussion-politics in the times of Roman laws. They have survived in the interim across several continents, and shall become again around Silofais the duly appointed paths for legal remediations [versus judicial]. In the Republic of Silofais the national legislature does not sunder itself for the aristocrats or the plebians [vis-à-vis the Connecticut Compromise], which could contort otherwise wrongly the appearances of Law and Equity. The Grand Forum is more suitably the intuitive, spiritual fascia of the national public freedom, so that every individual Voice should align correctly to a societal Vote [Stimme und Votum] amid the Constitution’s absolutes and relatives [Wesen und Verhältnis]. The more voices stay heard, the sooner a consensus regulates itself, the greater the Flames of Liberation shall reveal a rightful path (or more).

Law’s light does not burn brighter for quieter concentrations of power, but burns more loudly every time with the fuel of the truth’s shadows…with the wisdom of Equity. May the words be heard and the truth be seen. May total tranquility meet there fiduciary freedom, so much in rational theory as also in material history.

Hall of Magisters

Legis Providæ | Of Sober Legislation

Because an individual Voice cannot harmonize itself [stimmen] without the requisitely righteous person, who has earned and thereby bears the duty of a societal Vote, the Grand Forum must counterbalance its intrinsic centralization. That the public-political press [the legislature] sits itself in a singular location, it requires further that the legislators’ labor must be dynamically frustrated [vereitelt] in order that the aforesaid false theaterplay should thwart itself preemptively.

In 2025 the world knows an ‘upper house’ and a ‘lower house;’ but this scheme overlooks or obfuscates two problems. First, the houses of a legislature ought not to be appointed through the same blocs at home. Besides that it were redundant, it would cancel a necessary procedural tension between the houses that helps instill the members’ humility and grace. The Senators and Representatives of the U.S. Congress attest their Votes now on behalf of the same Voices, so their legislation has become very petty, hyperpartisan, narrowminded after amendment XVII has castrated amendments X, XI—or sooner, when amendment XIII could not ratify itself, but by the bad-faith politicking of a White Majority. The U.S. experiment has proven beyond a doubt that, when the lawgivers cannot agree, the political solution does not consist in some popular subjugation over the legislature, but consists totally of an implicit social diversity within the legislators’ opinions and perspectives. Legislative processes ought to encourage legal innovations (rather than perpetual classism). Second, then, no true republic contains such an aristocracy that its higher-class members could deserve a greater franchise in one house (the upper) than the other (the lower). If the people are equal and their government is free, the legislative houses ought to be so, factually and practicably. The smaller-number house does not convey a greater prestige, only the greater burdens to manage more problems, etc. The larger-number house is not overpassionate, only far busier in the investigative work, the committee-jobs, etc. Therefore, the Grand Forum shall enjoy two different societal-legislative functions, which become appointed regularly at the same elections, but with distinct and incompatible methods; and such functions shall construct, maintain the informational channels through the paradox of local traditions and national progress. The roads and the newspapers of Silofais – and of other nations – must be equally material and abstract.

In order to constrain the Grand Forum unto itself, inter alia, Silofais divides its government into three subbodies. The thesis (1) is the national echelon, which evidences itself in the Constellan, the Grand Forum, etc. The antithesis (2) comprises the local boroughs [Burg, Gemeinde; municipio, concejo; arrondissement; iwi, hapū]. Together they are a general class for municipal administration, and respectively they are the bases for the appointments – indeed, the elections – of those who should earn a Vote on behalf of others’ Voices. Here the national and the local have in common a firm, inalienable boundary, such that they operate never concurrently, but always in parallel. What happens in the boroughs’ domains does not necessarily happen in, nor affect, nor change the broader national domain, and vice versa. Their synthesis (3) realizes itself in the official per-borough cooperation of the singular Magister and the several concurrent Delegates. (Also it includes the other municipal classes, instigates further Policy and Justice.) As the public newspaper-professionals, and more, in their official capacities to write the Law, these legislators construct the network-nodes in the informational channels, and they maintain the local-national balance in harmony. That is a very large reason, wherefor Silofaisan Magisters and Delegates are relieved of the more conventional job to ‘lobby, fundraise, caucus,’ etc. Although they enact statutes, resolutions, other typical instruments, in Silofais the public appreciates that the Grand Forum describes general acts, bespeaks inspirational wills, instead of busying its members about vexatiously overtechnical documents. It will be better in every case to publish a great-quality Journal on regular intervals for good costs, than to hold up Law for some false brink between Equity and Justice. The legislators want to write what their Votes are really worth, so that other Voices choose voluntarily to listen. While that be their goal, they accomplish the Free Press of People’s Law merely incidentally—a triple-valued social profit for the borough, the nation, and the Constitution.

The ‘upper’ face is thus the Hall of Magisters. Each borough elects a Magister at large, who represents the local people in the national Hall and serves ex officio as the chairperson of the borough’s council, which is itself a smaller-scale legislature. The Magister is not an equal member of that council, cannot vote there outright [uneingeschränkt], but is the presiding parliamentarian, so may speak and decide its intra-bureau administration [dürfen; poder]. The Magister has to reconcile that municipal duty against the other, which demands speedy in-person Votes on national questions in the Hall. First, the office must cooperate now with the Delegates of the same borough, probably in spite of ideological differences. The latter have no such double-burden, so have more time to spend outside home, and are more publicly, politically available for their mutual blocs. Second, the office enjoys for the Hall only enough time to engage itself for traditional speech, even though progressive writing remains involved. That becomes an intrinsic limit – among others, among extrinsics – so that the national legislation should stay fittingly brief, nontechnical, appreciable by the common people. If the Magisters could not publish their Journal well, because the Delegates were behaving unwell and writing onerous instruments, then the former would punish such game-defection with their respective, unique pulpits at home.

More or less, each Magister has earned in every election the prerogative to attest the whole borough’s Vote across several echelons. As the office costs much, so it deserves proportional merits. The job ought to have a commensurate room [Raum] for such Voices. The Magisters’ sober labor, experiential wisdom, harmony of the municipal concerns – most importantly, their slower tempo and the general constraint of oral reading – compose the left hand to see the truth.

College of Delegates

Regnat Populus | The People Rule

Constitutionally, hermeneutically, the boroughs are the subdivisions of a unitary Silofaisan government; but from another perspective, of course, they are also the mini-sovereign peoples who choose voluntarily in the everyday to cooperate themselves—to enjoy, if not each other personally, then at least the social benefits from economically, culturally unified neighborhoods [Gemeinschaften]. The Hall of Magisters must exist in the foregoing described form, because without an intra-governmental synthesis of those two competing perspectives, and without a living balance of the municipal and the auditory, any legislature would be born cursed to fail. London, Paris, and D.C. have centralized over the preceding centuries the strategic scopes and scales of their peoples; in the meantime Berlin, Canberra, and Wellington have alchemized bubbling popular opinions into effective constitutional reforms. When the legislators are not lawgivers, but are instead falsely opinionated idiots, the historical effect appears like the hyperpolarization, the delocalization, the incredible informational echo-chambers which are defining the inchoate 21st century. The local ought to be simultaneously the popular, the statal, the ecclesiastical, the administrative…and vice versa, or else a nation begets only self-shame, -loathing, -violence. What the aristocratic British know for one name, the U.S. Americans know for “popular sovereignty.” Whether popular means parliamentary depends on the given perspective, but in Silofais these words are surely necessarily identical. As soon as the distasteful or unsavory instincts of the human species have legal places in the times of human civilization – when the black markets become white markets – they stop enacting wars and grudges, and rather they start alchemizing happy participation, economic self-actualization, cultural advancement, etc., etc. That is really true across all recorded history, until some ignorant idiot confuses chainful duties for heretical idols; reverts personal jealousy into petty violence [rückgängig machen]; and abuses regressive writing for uglier, more terrible ‘charisma.’

Therefore, the boroughs delimit themselves on the borders, not of arms or princes or geography, but more importantly, of the nation’s cultural or economic significances. Boroughs are not always geographically contiguous, do not always have equal demographic magnitudes, and will forever sunder themselves more deeply into other subcultures, subeconomies, competing local ideologies. Each nation identifies itself by the loyalty to a monarch, and in Silofais each borough identifies itself by that to a certain Magister. Where some land does not belong to a borough, it may belong still to Silofais; there will be other classes of municipal administration, e.g, managing local riverways outside a city’s walls, or maintaining the railways through mountains, seas, and deserts. How far any borough’s borders extend beyond its walls, this depends on the popular intentions and the legislative actions, which help delimit and keep evolutionary the disparate, several borders of the many Silofaisan boroughs. It is a legal decision [versus political], which a Magister and the concurrent Delegates conjure in conjunction with the Grand Forum at large. The example depicts another face of the Silofaisan dual-constraint, albeit here threefold: the nation and the boroughs constrain themselves; also, the Magisters and the Delegates; also, the councils and the parties.

In the Republic of Silofais the political parties – if and where they exist – are always private organizations. None are some quasi-political organ that would owe its rules to the state, the church, or the constitution. That would cancel the necessary room, wherefor disparate Voices could find their harmony whatsoever with broader social Votes. Distasteful elements of the human species shall have their social outlets, because they must, provided that they learn at least to write progressively—whether leftly or rightly, wrongly or correctly, no less than simply humanly…merely in serendipitous self-actualization. In exchange for the participation in the primary elections of legislative campaigns, inter alia, every political party promises to affirm, not to negate; to propose, not to criticize; to counterplay and compete, never complain or capitulate. Their publicly printed policy-platforms in Silofais are actually binding contracts [promises], not so far as the party-members should render a platform’s goals totally, but so that they become accountable legally to the moral pursuit thereof. Political failures ought to be tolerable, whereas ethical failures ought to be speedily punished. The boroughs in a large scale must compete for their Magisters’ times, while the neighborhoods thereof must compete for their Delegates and, afterwards, play themselves on the discomforting nexus at the borough, the Cabinet, and the Judiciary. Because public local legislators work in parallel with private national speaker-writers, so the Delegates and their College shall publish progressive writing in order to translate the else-passionate interests of all the people, not only those of higher ranks/classes/merits.

The ‘lower’ face is thus the College of Delegates. On a regular interval the Grand Forum apportions a national statutory number of Delegates among the boroughs according to the absolute populations of their denizens at each time. This includes all citizens, lawful residents, prisoners, slaves, and tax-paying participants regardless of nationality, language, etc. It still excludes all tourists, trespassers, and traitors. The smallest possible number is three, and the largest is eight. When a borough’s population becomes so much smaller or larger, as to earn two or fewer Delegates, or nine or more Delegates in the national apportionment, it does not simply cease to exist. Instead, both Houses shall redesign and enact a compact, contiguous, consentful compromise, at which the borough becomes more plainly subdivided, or in the alternative, becomes sublated carefully (perhaps partially) into a preexisting adjacent borough [aufgehoben]. Because the borders are not strictly geographic or political-partisan, no neighborhoods have to endure many material-historical changes; their voters may appoint now simply different legislative candidates in new campaigns. That makes more common sense than the 2025 status-quo, it abrogates usual gerrymandering, and it encourages ethical behavior. Further, between three Delegates and eight in the end, such range of statistical domain-proportions constrains else-enormous campaigns inside the abstract walls of human cognizance. The common people would not have to be ‘witty’ or ‘intelligent,’ but could be really authentic whenever they voice their opinions on any politician’s votes [bestimmen] [e.g., attesting a ballot].

The Magisters succeed when they earn the popular concurrence that equals an absolute majority. In Silofais that is never some magnitude greater than a simple majority. Succinctly, roughly, a Silofaisan majority is everywhere a quotient which denominator is the voter-eligibility at the time-and-place of an appointment/election, and which numerator yields thus never less than fifty-six percent (56%). The Constellan-elect endures a harsh competition to earn 56% of Silofaisan confidence, the more so while many candidates register themselves for the first ballot. The Magisters-elect endure thereby a similar phenomenon, only in a smaller, more instantaneous scale; few boroughs reward anyone in the first round with 56% approval. However, the Delegates-elect prepare themselves for an unusual campaign, in which each successor must win not an absolute majority, but a relative proportion of the overall borough at the same time-and-place as the others. Any Delegate represents only an eighth (12.5%), up to a third (33.3%) of a borough, which composes a smaller Vote, a less costful Voice, a less fungible merit through several echelons than a Magister. Moreover, the Magisters and the Delegates are elected at the same elections, but on different intervals in separate classes. Because almost yearly some elective officer becomes newly appointed: (a) Silofais restricts all electioneering to short periods, in lieu of increasingly longer campaign-cycles or -seasons; (b) the government outlaws all private funding of nonprimary elections whatsoever; and, adjacently, (c) the legislators do not really have the time to waste on idiotic infighting, partisan squabbling, or ideological peacocking, inasmuch that those activities would distract everyone from progressive writing.

The job is the name. The College of Delegates is the primary (but not sole) national playground for party-wise candidates, campaigns, electioneering, etc., in order to counterbalance the Magisters’ traditional Law against the People’s natural Equity. The legislators do not campaign for the promises of a policy per se, but at least for the voters’ personal choices that they trust a candidate’s Voice, thereby, the moral character of that person. The campaigns are materially ephemeral, and are rationally constrained by the fact of public taxes. The candidates debate themselves in scheduled, committed, intensive, active, open, professional sessions. The Magisters’ debates are grander, more general; they pertain to a broad majority of an arbitrarily defined borough, plus the nation as a whole. The Delegates’ debates are essentially more congenial, collegiate and compassionate, because few Voices want actually to vote terribly, sinfully, etc.—in spite of the false, pervasive, aforesaid presupposition in the 2025 Anglican-Judaean world. Proportional campaigns induce compromises, instead of cannibalism. The Magisters-elect bespeak strategic visions, while the Delegates-elect bespeak tactical means to accomplish them, i.e., the material local personalities of any abstract national policies.

Because they win on the merits, the legislators-elect will not have competed quite against each other, but rather, will have fulfilled the contemporary dignity-liberty dialectics affirmatively, positively, truly charismatically. Those, whose Voices convey the most representative character for the neighborhood or the borough – not necessarily whose ideas or values be identical of any voter-bloc – ought to become elected after the public sessions of debate-sittings. All of this alters a fundamental presupposition of 21st-century electioneering, so that the voters-at-large should stop finding themselves entitled to backhanded legislative promises, and should start educating themselves and their politicians on the ways to improve real problems. As natural life is dialectically dharmic, so Silofaisan electoral processes reward the Votes whose Voices deserve a temporal place in material history, while punishing those who misunderstand trust for treason. (This references 2001, 2021, and 2025.)

That the Delegates bespeak, describe, account their offices on the topics of neighborhoods, thus, on the people’s immediate concerns in the domains of Policy and Justice, it causes (a) that in the Grand Forum they become special generalists; (b) that the Magisters are conversely general specialists for the boroughs’ concerns around Equity and Policy; and (c) that the incessant tension between nation, municipality, and ideology shall resolve itself the best, whenever the Voices and the Votes know the wisdom of those differences. The Magisters are the left-hand eye, whereas the Delegates shall be the right hand to hear the words of the Promethean truth.

May Equity materialize Law; Law account Policy; Policy appoint Justice; Justice advise Equity; and may all nations, all peoples, all constitutions learn at least to love the Free Press of the People’s Journal.