SCALIA, AND NATURAL LAW (important) ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN SUBJECTIVE

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/3/20/14976926/gorsuch-natural-law-supreme-court-hearingsGORSUCH, SCALIA, AND NATURAL LAW

(important)

ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT.

This is a more than somewhat amateurish analysis of the difference between judging a case by the law without interpretation (addition or subtraction of information) of that law (Scalia – Originalism), and judgement of the law as written as to whether it adheres to natural law (Gorsuch – Natural Law), and suggesting that natural law is intuitive, rather than that subset of the Law of Nature, we call Cooperation, which is axiomatically testable by tests of reciprocity.

Ergo, when Gorsuch suggests that we must apply tests of morality, it is whether the causal density (set of impositions of costs, and provisions of returns) assumed by the law as written are in fact ‘balanced’ – meaning no involuntary costs have been imposed.

It has nothing to do with intuition, so much as subjectively testing the rationality of each of those inputs and outputs as to whether or not they consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of imposition of costs upon others by externality. Jurists, lawyers, and juries use the test of the ‘reasonable man’ to judge the rationality of actions given the incentives – in light of the natural asymmetry of information individuals possess becasue of age, ability, and experience.

The fact that the law uses archaic language of moral philosophy just as mathematicians use the archaic language of mathematical platonism (fictionalism), and that such, analytic statements as I am making to replace those archaic statements with scientific (existential) terminology, is merely one of linguistic habit within the discipline, but not operational application in juridical decision making.

In other words, both Gorsuch and Scalia are stating that they observe the scientific method in their judgement of the law as written by its adherence to perfect reciprocity, the case as argued adheres to the law as written.

And that is precisely what Rule Of Law under Natural Law, and a Constitution of Natural Law demand of judges. Judges merely umpire. If you want new rules, go to the government, make new rules, have them survive a test in the market for approval by the states (houses), and survive tests of natural law by the courts.

Curt Doolittle

The Natural Law

The Propertarian Institute,

Kiev, Ukraine.