I am off in territory again where no one is following me, and I’m not doing a ve

I am off in territory again where no one is following me, and I’m not doing a very good job of helping them either.

I realize that part of my technique is not to put out the central theory, but just its components. And the reason is so that I can explore the components, rather than try to defend the central theory as if I’m selling a new kind of automobile.

But I think I am at the point where without that central theory or suite of theories, that nothing makes any sense to anybody.

I am after all, talking about property and law, and the various means of free riding / imposing costs. And using work from the philosophy of science to do it.

And while under the physical sciences we do not yet know any first principle,and therefore no truth tests are possible, in law we do know the first principle, and that is the imposition of costs on others: the violation of property.

So while in science the unknowns are at least theoretically permanent, in law they are not.

Which is why we have a different problem to deal with.