We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation.
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
Knowing What You’re Talking About.
We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it) The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations. Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals. While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law. Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place. WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy. Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony). From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined. But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit. The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’ So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it. It’s not complicated.
-
Knowing What You’re Talking About.
We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it) The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations. Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals. While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law. Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place. WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy. Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony). From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined. But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit. The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’ So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it. It’s not complicated.
-
Q&A “What Happens in a Sovereign Society if I Get People Together to Come Take Your Things?”
Under:
- a judge of last resort (hereditary monarch);
- an independent judiciary with rule of law, natural law, and universal standing;
- a market for the production of commons consisting of houses for each of the classes and genders,
- an insurer of last resort (treasury);
- every-enfranchised-man-a-sheriff;
- and every enfranchised man a member of the militia;
I would merely ask either the sheriff, or the court, to demand restitution and prevent further incursion. And that the sheriff would gather other enfranchised men and members of the militia if necessary, to achieve that goal – including me. ( I realize it is very hard to abandon god; very hard to abandon religion; and it is very hard to abandon platonism (fantasy ‘rights’). And actually reduce ‘magical-stuff-happens-here’ to ‘this sequence of events would occur’. But we all must grow up some day. Or at least enough of us must. 😉 )
-
Q&A “What Happens in a Sovereign Society if I Get People Together to Come Take Your Things?”
Under:
- a judge of last resort (hereditary monarch);
- an independent judiciary with rule of law, natural law, and universal standing;
- a market for the production of commons consisting of houses for each of the classes and genders,
- an insurer of last resort (treasury);
- every-enfranchised-man-a-sheriff;
- and every enfranchised man a member of the militia;
I would merely ask either the sheriff, or the court, to demand restitution and prevent further incursion. And that the sheriff would gather other enfranchised men and members of the militia if necessary, to achieve that goal – including me. ( I realize it is very hard to abandon god; very hard to abandon religion; and it is very hard to abandon platonism (fantasy ‘rights’). And actually reduce ‘magical-stuff-happens-here’ to ‘this sequence of events would occur’. But we all must grow up some day. Or at least enough of us must. 😉 )
-
The New Law
THE NEW LAW? You may not demonstrate by gathering, association, ritual observance, physical gesture or movement, cognitive dependence, linguistic use, dress, or grooming, any membership, tradition, religion, pseudoscience, philosophy, law, norm, method of narration, explanation, argument, method of decidability, description, definition, or reference, that is incompatible with Natural Law of Perfect Reciprocity and Perfect Testimony, and yet physically remain, physically enter, speak into, publish into, that civilization we call European on the continents of Europe, America, And Australia, without exception, under immediate penalty of voluntary departure, forcible eviction and deportation, enslavement, imprisonment, or death. (say it like judge dredd) (scary enough?)
-
The New Law
THE NEW LAW? You may not demonstrate by gathering, association, ritual observance, physical gesture or movement, cognitive dependence, linguistic use, dress, or grooming, any membership, tradition, religion, pseudoscience, philosophy, law, norm, method of narration, explanation, argument, method of decidability, description, definition, or reference, that is incompatible with Natural Law of Perfect Reciprocity and Perfect Testimony, and yet physically remain, physically enter, speak into, publish into, that civilization we call European on the continents of Europe, America, And Australia, without exception, under immediate penalty of voluntary departure, forcible eviction and deportation, enslavement, imprisonment, or death. (say it like judge dredd) (scary enough?)
-
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.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-23 13:38:00 UTC
-
THE NEW LAW? You may not demonstrate by gathering, association, ritual observanc
THE NEW LAW?
You may not demonstrate by gathering, association, ritual observance, physical gesture or movement, cognitive dependence, linguistic use, dress, or grooming, any membership, tradition, religion, pseudoscience, philosophy, law, norm, method of narration, explanation, argument, method of decidability, description, definition, or reference, that is incompatible with Natural Law of Perfect Reciprocity and Perfect Testimony, and yet physically remain, physically enter, speak into, publish into, that civilization we call European on the continents of Europe, America, And Australia, without exception, under immediate penalty of voluntary departure, forcible eviction and deportation, enslavement, imprisonment, or death.
(say it like judge dredd)
(scary enough?)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-22 15:11:00 UTC
-
Q&A WHAT HAPPENS IN A SOVEREIGN SOCIETY IF I GET PEOPLE TOGETHER TO COME TAKE YO
Q&A WHAT HAPPENS IN A SOVEREIGN SOCIETY IF I GET PEOPLE TOGETHER TO COME TAKE YOUR THINGS?
Under a judge of last resort (hereditary monarch); an independent judiciary with rule of law, natural law, and universal standing; a market for the production of commons consisting of houses for each of the classes and genders, a insurer of last resort (treasury); every-enfranchised-man-a-sheriff; and every enfranchised man a member of the militia; that I would merely ask either the sheriff, or the court, to demand restitution and prevent further incursion. And that the sheriff would gather other enfranchised men and members of the militia if necessary, to achieve that goal – including me.
( I realize it is very hard to abandon god; very hard to abandon religion; and it is very hard to abandon platonism (fantasy ‘rights’). And actually reduce ‘magical-stuff-happens-here’ to ‘this sequence of events would occur’. But we all must grow up some day. Or at least enough of us must. 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 21:03:00 UTC