Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW? –“I don’t think most polycentrists c

Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW?

–“I don’t think most polycentrists claim that polycentric law would be conflicting or arbitrary, not much more than it already is, certainly not to the degree that it would be rendered undecidable.”—

Well, first, just to point out the obvious, then what is the point of it? Emotional satisfaction? The common law is already polycentric. In the sense that it evolves through every single judgement, and can be appealed on the basis of erroneous judicial judgement (not on the facts, but on the application of law).

The question facing libertarians is that polycentrisim is a convenient intellectual distraction from having failed to determine a necessary and sufficient means upon which to construct law.

Now I know enough cosmopolitan philosophy to know that this is the central strategy of cosmopolitan authors and their jewish predecessors: to state a half truth in order to allow subjective judgement to survive.

I have only begun my work on their strategy of deception through suggestion but I see it as not terribly helpful to my cause. So I haven’t taken it far enough.

Operationalism eliminates the tactic so that its no longer possible. I am more interested in the solution (operationalism and testimonialism) than I am in criticizing the group evolutionary strategy of the jewish enlightenment.

Hence why I focus on solutions rather than criticisms.