AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS. The reason that Americans can

AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS.

The reason that Americans can trust you by default in business is because our courts will punish the HELL out of you if you act in an untrustworthy fashion. American courts largely function as lie detectors more so than truth detectors.

This is what separates Common law courts from Napoleonic law courts: There is (or should be) no difference between state and civic action; and we punish the hell out of violators, rather than regulate actions.

That this produces superior economic velocity for the middle and upper classes while allowing the lower classes enough rope to constantly hang themselves is not obvious. For this reason – difficulty for the proletarians – I do not see the necessity of a monopoly homogenous set of rules of operation.

If I am willing to operate by aristocratic (outcome based) common law, then I should be able to. If I prefer to have the protection of regulatory law (as instruction and guidance relieving the burden of knowledge) then I should be able to enjoy it.

But despite propter-hoc regulatory law, or post-hoc common law, in neither of these cases are the laws of dispute resolution in matters of property different. What differs is the form of insurance I expect in defense of them.

This differs from polycentric law, in the sense that there is no difference whatsoever in law, only difference in the requirements of the insurer. As such, the governmental ‘houses’ function as insurance agencies – insurers of last resort – rather than polycentric legal houses.

This difference separates Propertarianism from Libertinism (Cosmopolitan libertarianism) permanently. There is but one law of cooperation necessary for the preservation of cooperation as preferable to predation: non-parasitism (non-imposition of costs). There is but one positive expression insuring the victim: property rights to property en-toto. And therefore all conflict is decidable, and all law universal regardless of polity. But the means by which we insure one another, and the contracts we enter into one another, are something quite different. (We merely lie and equate legislation and regulation with law so that the government can claim false legitimacy for its actions. One can violate a political contract, but that is a contract violation not a legal violation. Whether one can issue regulation is not a question as long as it meets testimonial and propertarian criteria, and citizens have universal standing in juridical defense – which they don’t have today.)

The classical liberal model of houses that represent the interests of the classes and force exchanges between the classes was very close. The first mistake was investing power in the parliament rather than in the houses of parliament, and the second mistake was failing to add a house of labor and a house of dependents so that we could conduct trades between the newly enfranchised classes. Just as the British error was its failure to add a house of colonies to the government, rather than equal participation in the parliament.

SIMPLE RULES FOR COMPLEX LAW

There is but one cause of law, that is the facilitation and preservation of the incentive of cooperation and non-retaliation. There are no other causes of law other than the principle of non-parasitism that preserves the incentive of cooperation and non-retalitation.

There is but one law and that is property en toto. There i

All legislation consists of contract. No legislation consist of law.

All legislation must apply universally. All standing must mirror any application.

All legislation may only carry forward. No legislation may be retroactively imposed.

All legislation must consist of voluntary transfers. No legislation may force involuntary transfer.

All regulation is refinement of legislation. No regulation may extend beyond its governing legislation.

All regulation consists of contract modifications. No regulation may violate contract provisions.

All propertarian and testimonial contracts assent. No non-propertarian, non-testimonial contracts may assent.