Form: Definition

Q: “CURT: PLEASE DEFINE NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL GOVERNMENT?”
The natural law of coopearation and non-conflict consists of the necessity of self determination by self determined means.
To achieve a condition of natural law, we reciprocally insure one another by word, deed, and force of arms, by the limit on all behavior, to one another’s sovereignty in demostrated interests and reciprocity in display word and deed.
The result is the prohibition on authority, resulting in a) the grant of decidability within the natural law to the jury, by procedures juried by judges, in the market for dispute resolution we call the courts; and b) the jury to of a legislature for the codification of common findings of the court, and jury of the commonality of contracts of the commons we call legislation, and finally c) with the monarchy (or substitute) as the judge and jury of decidabilty of last resort.
So sovereignty in demostrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, commonality in dispute resolution, and concurrency on the choice of preferences is the optimum means by which human beings can organize into polities.
There is no exception. The question is only whether a people are ethically and morally capable of it in the population that wishes to self govern.

There is nothing in that statement that wasn’t known by the founders either implicitly or explicitly. Because it is the science of government. My only … surprise … is that they didn’t explicitly write it down in such analytic prose, and that because of it we’ve experienced more than a century of philosophical (fraud) and pseudoscientific (fraud) of warfare against the science of cooperation that they had captured for us in that most virtuous document created by man.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

Q: “CURT: PLEASE DEFINE NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL GOVERNMENT?”
The natural law of coopearation and non-conflict consists of the necessity of self determination by self determined means.
To achieve a condition of natural law, we reciprocally insure one another by word, deed, and force of arms, by the limit on all behavior, to one another’s sovereignty in demostrated interests and reciprocity in display word and deed.
The result is the prohibition on authority, resulting in a) the grant of decidability within the natural law to the jury, by procedures juried by judges, in the market for dispute resolution we call the courts; and b) the jury to of a legislature for the codification of common findings of the court, and jury of the commonality of contracts of the commons we call legislation, and finally c) with the monarchy (or substitute) as the judge and jury of decidabilty of last resort.
So sovereignty in demostrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, commonality in dispute resolution, and concurrency on the choice of preferences is the optimum means by which human beings can organize into polities.
There is no exception. The question is only whether a people are ethically and morally capable of it in the population that wishes to self govern.

There is nothing in that statement that wasn’t known by the founders either implicitly or explicitly. Because it is the science of government. My only … surprise … is that they didn’t explicitly write it down in such analytic prose, and that because of it we’ve experienced more than a century of philosophical (fraud) and pseudoscientific (fraud) of warfare against the science of cooperation that they had captured for us in that most virtuous document created by man.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute