Mixed Law

i.e. resolving Conflicts by permitting aggression in arbitrary situations
General types:

1. consequentialism/utilitarianism - he whose victory would yield the best outcome is he who should win the conflict at hand (classed-based)
2. racism - he who is fighting for the interests of the preferred race is he who should win the conflict at hand (classed-based)
3. Marxism - he who is fighting for the interests of the proletariat is he who should win the conflict at hand (classed-based)
4. monarchism - he who is deemed to be the proper victor by the monarch is he who should win the conflict at hand (classed-based)
5. democratism - he who is deemed to be the proper victor by majority opinion is he who should win the conflict at hand (classed-based)
6. primitivism - he who is fighting for apocalypse - the break-down in the capital structure, is he who should win the conflict at hand (whim-based)
7. Rawlsianism - he who is deemed to be the proper victor by a party situated behind a veil of ignorance is he who should win the conflict at hand (whim-based)
8. imperialism - he who is deemed to be an ally by the military leadership of the preferred country is he who should win the conflict at hand (whim-based)

We see there are 2 categories that mixed-law ideologies fall under

• Class-based - he who is part of the preferred class X wins the conflict
• Whim-based - he who is deemed victorious by X wins the conflict

Whim-based laws falls under the same reasoning as Jungle Law so it automatically fails.

Class-based laws in any form is the ethic that posits one rule for class A and another for A^c
If one agrees to the metaphysical equality of man, i.e. all men are equal in value, then such an ethic cannot be derived from the nature of man.
If it were so, it would be a universal principle and not exclude a single subset of humanity.
Therefore, this ethic must rely on arbitrary distinctions that form a class of humans and sub-humans based (whims), which means it falls back into the Primacy of Consciousness and thus fails.

If one disagrees to the metaphysical equality of man, i.e. all men are not equal and they do not possess a certain ethic(s), then this would imply there are different logics that apply to different groups.

eg. 
	Racism  : pro-green logic vs anti-green logic
	Marxism : proletariat logic vs bourgeosie logic
	Monarchy: royalty logic vs peasant logic

This is polylogism, which requires different groups to have different logic systems.
However, this rests upon the assumption that the laws of logic are subjective, rather than objective. That rather logic is not imposed on man first before he can validate his beliefs, but that man himself projects out these rules onto the universe.
Here again is the fallacy of the Primacy of Consciousness, where the polylogist does not observe reality and make derivations therefrom, but rather retreat into their own mind.