Form: Question

(important) (core)

—“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty

GREAT QUESTION Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law. First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts. Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must. P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above. Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another. Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability. There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does. As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country). So quite the opposite. The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers. I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me. And that is all that is required.