Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

EXAMPLE OF HOW LEGAL EDUCATION FAILS

—“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption”

If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—

Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.

—“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool

—“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—

That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort.

The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.

—-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—

1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that.

2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract.

3) Contract requires consent. What can consent?

4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive

—“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—

Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all.

We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )

—“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-

So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules.

Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act.

Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people.

Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations.

I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend.

I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths.

There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.”

I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity.

Law is science not custom.

Custom is falsified by the science.