Form: Question

WOMEN’S VOTE VS NATURAL LAW?
Q: CURT: –“… does this imply that the pressure which (disastrously) gave women the right to vote was a legitimate pressure to advance cooperation rather than a degrading entropic effect over time? Does Natural Law demand that eventually one or the other must be provided to women, either the general vote or a house of their own?”– @WalterIII

No.
TLDR; The right of juridical defense must be equal for all regardless of merit, but the privilege of legislative offense must be unequal as is demonstrated responsibility for private and common at scale.

Setting aside that it’s not at all clear that voting for or against anything other than the monarchy and cabinet’s raising of funds has any value at all, and instead may in fact be foolish vs the use of courts that limit activism and demands to the adversarial competition in court bound by truth, evidence, and liability for both. At present it certainly appears that universal democracy is, as ancients warned us, no matter how much catharsis we feel from our vote, a race to the bottom. This is not to say that a subset of the population with demonstrated competency, responsibility, and loyalty should not vote – if for no other reason than to prevent violent conflict when the monarchy and cabinet and bureaucracy have betrayed the interests of the responsible and the people by proxy. There is only one scientific means of testing for responsibility and competency and that’s trough demonstration of it at scale.

That said, let’s answer the question:

1) We must all insure one another’s via-negativa defense in court under the common natural law. In other words meritocracy is irrelevant in there resolution of disputes over demonstrated interests. Conversely, the via positiva production of commons under that common natural law is dependent upon demonstrated capacity for responsibility not only of the self, and family, but economy and polity – as such depends upon meritocracy. A meritocracy that has largely been removed from all our branches of government other than perhaps the presidency and what conservatism remains in the supreme court.

2) However, have we done our due diligence in training women in education and expanding our laws against feminine intuition to mother – meaning encourage irresponsibility and independence and variation instead of discouraging them and facilitating the extension of childhood, immaturity, and irresponsibility, and the parasitism upon men that has resulted? No we have not.

3) The conservative approach to problems is to solve them quickly, decisively, and if necessary, harshly, in order to prevent the harms that arise from human behavior’s tendency to the short term parasitic whenever possible. However, the aristocratic and the most evolutionary approach, is to use the power of the manor, education (church), the government, monarchy if you’re lucky enough to have one, and if necessary the military and militia, to impose training (education), regulation (law), and and discipline (courts) to eradicate a behavior that even if it ‘feels’ just and right to the individual, is in fact, a violation of the natural law.

4) Why? Because it is the natural law alone, and our responsibilities under it, that ameliorate the majority of our differences, by demanding we all carry those responsibilities, regardless of our preferences, such that we produce sovereignty for one another – and that is the only equality that is possible whatsoever: the sovereignty, liberty, and freedom to self determination by self determined means, free of imposition of costs on the same, by the freedom of imposition of costs on one another’s demonstrated interests.

There is more political science and philosophy in these four points than you will find in many combined works. Because it really is just that simple. 😉

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

Reply addressees: @WalterIII