Form: Argument

(FB 1542636993 Timestamp) Hmmm….. Let’s Go Through This Question WHEREAS The necessity of Reciprocity exists – because it creates and preserves the incentive to cooperate, and by cooperating produce a division of knowledge and labor, and the disproportionate returns from it. Demand for reciprocity exists in competition with demand for preservation of parasitism and predation. By the use of organized violence to produce traditions, norms, and laws we incrementally suppress parasitism and predation, increasing demand for reciprocity, and therefore the markets, and the returns on cooperation. These traditions, norms, and laws consists of demands (duties) to both personally avoid parasitism and predation and personally police parasitism and predation. The origin of laws is the prevention of retaliation cycles (feuds), and standardization of restitution and punishments, between men who policed their kin, and instead form a corporation that polices all, including retaliation cycles, thereby preventing degradation of the returns on cooperation through degradation of cooperation, through degradation of trust, because of increase in risk. ERGO: 0) We always have the choice of predation, parasitism, cooperation, non-cooperation, and boycott. ie: Man is amoral choosing immoral (predation, parasitism), amoral (irrelevant), and moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality) as is in his interests. 1) Predation is optimum in the short term, parasitism in the medium term, and cooperation in the long term, but all tend toward equilibration as we run out of opportunities for predation, parasitism, and cooperation, and seek alternative means of survival, subsistence, prosperity. 2) Cooperation produces outsized returns as long as it is not offset by parasitism and predation. 3) Reciprocity preserves the incentive to cooperate and as a consequence, the returns of cooperation. 4) We organize the suppression of parasitism and predation (and in some cases even boycott) by the concentration of violence to do so. 5) We finance this suppression by suppression of local ‘rents’ and increasing centralization of rents. Thus giving rise to the military police and judiciary. 6) To decrease risk, transaction costs, and increase the velocity of cooperation and the returns from it, we further suppress by prior restraint, creating the insurer of last resort,: from the demand for weights and measures, and the production and defense of commons we form governments from headmen, chieftains, kings (martial class), oligarchies (middle class), and democracies (underclass), as well as churches (education) to train people into doing so. 7) But without the courts to function as a market for reciprocity with which to defend us from those within the insurer of last resort, these centralizations create a monopoly and therefore maximize the extraction of rents and maximize the defensibility of the sustainability of those rents, and do so by searching for ‘customers’ that facilitate the extraction of rents. 8) Meaning that the only solutions are restoration of markets inside that monopoly we call the insurer of last resort. As such while startup costs are often best paid by the insurer of last resort, once survivable such must be privatized, OR subject to juridical competition under universal standing. 9) The remaining question being the decision on the production of commons: which appears, aesthetically to be optimally served by the a monarchy; commercially by an oligarchy, familially by democracy, and as an insurer of last resort, a church (the outliers). As such the principle difference is organizing these markets and allocating returns on cooperation (those commissions on cooperation we call taxes) to the hierarchy so that each class may engage in trade with others for the production of desirable commons. AS SUCH 1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest. 2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty). 3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity. 4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer). 5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.