THE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE HIERARCHY OF LAWS 1) Laws of Nature: Equilibria: The DISCOVERY of which is the subject of physical science. We can know the first causes of the deterministically equilibrial universe – but we cannot sense them without extensive work. 2) Laws of Man: man is an expensive organism fighting the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and must act to acquire, and in acting to acquire, acts rationally (to ensure returns – in the greatest return for the least effort, in the shortest time, with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk); and in acting rationally, must conserve physical, emotional, and mental energy, and expend physical, emotional, and mental effort; and can choose to cooperate with others, prey upon others, or boycott others at all times; and may make use of violence, remuneration, or gossip(lauding/shaming), to do so. 2) Natural Law: Non-Parasitism, leaving Reciprocity as the only possible action, because only by non parasitism do we produce the incentive to cooperate rather than prey upon, retaliate against, or boycott. We can know the first cause of reciprocity through direct observation, and we do know it. We cannot implement reciprocity without extensive work (institutions) which allow us to concentrate our forces. 3) Natural RIghts: The methods of insuring natural law, by an insurer of last resort (militia, military, judiciary, monarchy). We cannot implement those institutions without rules by which institutions may enact processes, independently of subjective opinion. 4) Property in toto: the means of commensurability (measurement) between our actions: changes in state of property in toto exist in reality (laws of nature), limited by the abilities of man’s action (laws of man), violate or do not violate reciprocity (rule of law), and are insured or not insured by institutions (natural rights), and can be measured or not measured by changes in property in toto. FRAMING: Laws of Nature > (limits of, methods of transformation) … Laws of Man > limits of, methods of action) … … Laws of Cooperation > (limits of and methods of cooperation.) … … … Laws of Information > ( limits of and methods true Speech) … … … … Laws of Sentience > (limits and methods of ‘thinking’)
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
Rule of Law = Non-Discretion
Apr 24, 2017 9:50am Rule of Law = Non-Discretion. Discretion != Rule of Law. One cannot have rule of law, and at the same time, command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation, because command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation are discretionary. Nomocracy: Government by Rule of Law. How is a nomocracy possible without command, legislation, regulation and judicial interpretation? Markets in everything: Markets for participation, association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and dispute resolution. But how do we provide decidability in all those markets? Reciprocity. Why? Because reciprocity always provides decidability.
-
Rule of Law = Non-Discretion
Apr 24, 2017 9:50am Rule of Law = Non-Discretion. Discretion != Rule of Law. One cannot have rule of law, and at the same time, command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation, because command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation are discretionary. Nomocracy: Government by Rule of Law. How is a nomocracy possible without command, legislation, regulation and judicial interpretation? Markets in everything: Markets for participation, association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and dispute resolution. But how do we provide decidability in all those markets? Reciprocity. Why? Because reciprocity always provides decidability.
-
Zero Tolerance
ZERO TOLERANCE?—“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded by “Zero Tolerance” All he did was bite his poptart into the shape of a gun… Got suspended…Empirical evidencial judgement is the wind before the chaff.”— Anne Tripp Well the question is, zero tolerance for WHAT? (Same problem as Non Aggression. Non aggression against what?) Did he say or do anything false? (no) Did he try to defraud anyone? (no) Did he impose a cost on others (no) Ergo, no crime. Or as we say ‘no harm no foul’ Conversely, would someone be able to compose such a regulation against a child if we lived under zero tolerance for impositions against natural law? Well, no. See? Natural law solves the problem of decidability. Always and Everywhere. -
Zero Tolerance
ZERO TOLERANCE?—“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded by “Zero Tolerance” All he did was bite his poptart into the shape of a gun… Got suspended…Empirical evidencial judgement is the wind before the chaff.”— Anne Tripp Well the question is, zero tolerance for WHAT? (Same problem as Non Aggression. Non aggression against what?) Did he say or do anything false? (no) Did he try to defraud anyone? (no) Did he impose a cost on others (no) Ergo, no crime. Or as we say ‘no harm no foul’ Conversely, would someone be able to compose such a regulation against a child if we lived under zero tolerance for impositions against natural law? Well, no. See? Natural law solves the problem of decidability. Always and Everywhere. -
Let Me Help You: Religions vs Laws
Let me help you. Religions provide wisdom, and governments provide laws. If your religion conflates wisdom with law it is not a religion but a form of government masquerading as a cult. Ergo, if your religion contains laws it is a competitor to, not a compliment to, a government. As such it can be regulated, prohibited, and warred against if necessary. I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And that the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophhical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic binding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Aquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form?
-
Let Me Help You: Religions vs Laws
Let me help you. Religions provide wisdom, and governments provide laws. If your religion conflates wisdom with law it is not a religion but a form of government masquerading as a cult. Ergo, if your religion contains laws it is a competitor to, not a compliment to, a government. As such it can be regulated, prohibited, and warred against if necessary. I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And that the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophhical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic binding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Aquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form?
-
Correcting the Term “Government”
Rule and Government are two different things. Nomocracy = Rule of Law (by Judges). Therefore under nomocracy (judge rule), ‘government’ provides laws. What we call ‘government’ more correctly provides a method for the construction of commons. We have conflated the functions of government and commons production, whenever the functions of judicial and commons production are combined into a monopoly. (a crime against reciprocity – most often because of technological and cultural incompetence at identifying reciprocity, or the intentional violation of reciprocity for the purpose of predation).
We can construct commons the individual authority, oligarchical choice, representative choice, or market choice. (And, yes, I know, I am ‘correcting’ a lot of past colloquial language and that this is hard to learn.) -
Nomocracy = Rule of Law (by Judges). Therefore under nomocracy (judge rule), ‘go
Nomocracy = Rule of Law (by Judges). Therefore under nomocracy (judge rule), ‘government’ provides laws.
What we call ‘government’ more correctly provides a method for the construction of commons.
We have conflated the functions of government and commons production, whenever the functions of judicial and commons production are combined into a monopoly. (a crime against reciprocity – most often because of technological and cultural incompetence at identifying reciprocity, or the intentional violation of reciprocity for the purpose of predation).
We can construct commons the individual authority, oligarchical choice, representative choice, or market choice.
(And, yes, I know, I am ‘correcting’ a lot of past colloquial language and that this is hard to learn.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-29 09:33:00 UTC
-
ZERO TOLERANCE? —“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded
ZERO TOLERANCE?
—“I can’t help but think of the little boy who was rail roaded by “Zero Tolerance” All he did was bite his poptart into the shape of a gun… Got suspended…Empirical evidencial judgement is the wind before the chaff.”— Anne Tripp
Well the question is, zero tolerance for WHAT?
(Same problem as Non Aggression. Non aggression against what?)
Did he say or do anything false? (no)
Did he try to defraud anyone? (no)
Did he impose a cost on others (no)
Ergo, no crime. Or as we say ‘no harm no foul’
Conversely, would someone be able to compose such a regulation against a child if we lived under zero tolerance for impositions against natural law? Well, no.
See?
Natural law solves the problem of decidability. Always and Everywhere.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 14:07:00 UTC