—“You speak from time to time of hanging malcontents, and bigamy in England was originally a capital crime. Could I be hung for bigamy?”— I would love to say yes just for fun. But bigamy is not a violation of natural law, but of public contract for the production of a commons. —“But if consenting adults agree to a different contract?”— If consenting adults agree to a conspiracy you mean? They simply both violate the terms of the (explicit) public contract. By explicit, I mean written in strictly constructed natural law. (Propertarianism) —“Bottom line, though, is no violation of natural law, no hanging, right?”— Right. They can kick you outta Dodge. And they might hang you for not leaving Dodge. But in general, a contract violation is a matter of restitution. Since departure is sufficient restitution – that’s pretty much all that matters. People can make normative public contracts all they want that limit consumption. They just cannot make normative or public contracts that engage in parasitism. Limiting consumption is the purpose of commons – including the commons of property rights. (which may not be obvious).
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
Is Bigamy A ‘Hangable Offense’?
—“You speak from time to time of hanging malcontents, and bigamy in England was originally a capital crime. Could I be hung for bigamy?”— I would love to say yes just for fun. But bigamy is not a violation of natural law, but of public contract for the production of a commons. —“But if consenting adults agree to a different contract?”— If consenting adults agree to a conspiracy you mean? They simply both violate the terms of the (explicit) public contract. By explicit, I mean written in strictly constructed natural law. (Propertarianism) —“Bottom line, though, is no violation of natural law, no hanging, right?”— Right. They can kick you outta Dodge. And they might hang you for not leaving Dodge. But in general, a contract violation is a matter of restitution. Since departure is sufficient restitution – that’s pretty much all that matters. People can make normative public contracts all they want that limit consumption. They just cannot make normative or public contracts that engage in parasitism. Limiting consumption is the purpose of commons – including the commons of property rights. (which may not be obvious).
-
to circumvent a public normative contract is not a hangable offense, but it is c
https://propertarianism.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/is-bigamy-a-hangable-offense/Conspiracy to circumvent a public normative contract is not a hangable offense, but it is certainly cause to invoke voluntary disassociation and your removal from the polity.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 02:04:00 UTC
-
Poetry and Rhyme As Institutions of Normative Law
Aug 24, 2016 11:41am(interesting idea) There is a reason why we want to restore BOTH truthfulness AND Poetry with Rhyme: Just as our ancient ancestors chose our intellectual (druidic / historian) leadership by their abilities to remember, our more recent intellectual leadership was sorted out by their use of poetry and meter. So if we speak testimonially, in rhyme and meter, we will ‘sort’ by speech as did our historical and prehistorical ancestors. And like our ancestors these words, in rhyme and verse, truth to the core, will work their way into the commons vernacular as normative law. ( I will work more on this but I seem to have solved the problem of both truthful speech, and art, poetry, and literature that troubled me so seriously in the early days.)
-
Poetry and Rhyme As Institutions of Normative Law
Aug 24, 2016 11:41am(interesting idea) There is a reason why we want to restore BOTH truthfulness AND Poetry with Rhyme: Just as our ancient ancestors chose our intellectual (druidic / historian) leadership by their abilities to remember, our more recent intellectual leadership was sorted out by their use of poetry and meter. So if we speak testimonially, in rhyme and meter, we will ‘sort’ by speech as did our historical and prehistorical ancestors. And like our ancestors these words, in rhyme and verse, truth to the core, will work their way into the commons vernacular as normative law. ( I will work more on this but I seem to have solved the problem of both truthful speech, and art, poetry, and literature that troubled me so seriously in the early days.)
-
Absent Juridical Defense, We Must Return To Violence.
As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs. But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us. As far as I know we can kill Soros.
-
Absent Juridical Defense, We Must Return To Violence.
As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs. But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us. As far as I know we can kill Soros.
-
Clarification of Property, Possession, Rights
HOMESTEADING(CREATION) -> POSSESSION(DEFENSE) -> PROPERTY(NORM) -> PROPERTY RIGHTS(LAW) It’s probably clearer to label possession as my opinion and property as insured by third parties. I can possess material things, but I can have an interest in far more things. I’m going to try to correct this in my own usage.
I may hold possessions, but property is a normative construction, and property rights are a legal construction. And I think that is pretty much what the common law says.
-
Clarification of Property, Possession, Rights
HOMESTEADING(CREATION) -> POSSESSION(DEFENSE) -> PROPERTY(NORM) -> PROPERTY RIGHTS(LAW) It’s probably clearer to label possession as my opinion and property as insured by third parties. I can possess material things, but I can have an interest in far more things. I’m going to try to correct this in my own usage.
I may hold possessions, but property is a normative construction, and property rights are a legal construction. And I think that is pretty much what the common law says.
-
( edited by William L. Benge ) THE NEXT GREAT LEAP 🙂 “The next great leap in hu
( edited by William L. Benge )
THE NEXT GREAT LEAP 🙂
“The next great leap in human civilization is not technology. it’s morality and law: truth telling. It will be as great a leap as science has been.”
THE BAD AND THE UGLY — BUT NOT THE GOOD
“And likewise I am quite certain that just as the mystics fought reason tooth and nail, and just as the religious and theological fought empiricism tooth and nail, and just as the spiritual fought darwin tooth and nail, and those who practice theology, rationalism, and pseudoscience, and justificationary deception will fight tooth and nail.”
WHY?
“Because, each of these groups profits from their lies.”
THERE’$ LITERALLY NO EXCU$E FOR ALL THE GREAT LIE$ THEY CONTINUE TELLING TO MI$LEAD AND BILK MANKIND
“But how many fundamental truths are there? (we have estimates in the range of a few hundred to less than two thousand). Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully?
Why do we have any more right to pollute the informational commons than we do the other commons of air, water, and land? Why can we cause informational harm out of ignorance, yet we are prohibited from economic and criminal harm out of ignorance or not?
What was the cost of literacy? What was the cost of creating rule of law? What was the cost of western high trust?”
TOLERANCE FOR LIES IS COMPLICITY, FRAUD
“Tolerance is an excuse to conflate convenience (cost) with conviction, in exhcange for false status signals, fraudueltly obtained, by the pretense of charity versus the evasion of the tax necessary for the preservation of a high-trust society and its benefits.
The tolerant so to speak are just engaged in fraud and nothing more.”
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-17 10:54:00 UTC