Form: Sketch

THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

(thinking)

One of the issues I wrestle with is the point of demarcation. It’s clear that:

(a) political speech (in any forum), is different from

(b) commercial public speech (via media), from

(c) public speech (via media), from

(d) interpersonal speech (people you don’t know), from

(e) private speech (people you know), from

(f) home speech (family members), from

(g) mental ‘speech’ (the self).

And it’s clear that human beings need:

(a) to vent frustrations

(b) to test ideas

(c) to seek allies in cooperation.

And it’s clear that there is a difference between the form of communication:

(a) A question: ‘What’s wrong with (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

(b) A criticism: ‘I wish we could (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

(c) An assertion: ‘it’s moral/right/good if we (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

(d) An act of conspiracy: “Who will, or will you (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

(e) An act of treason: “I propose(submit) that we legislate (insert immoral concept here)!” (or confirming it)

But what is the point of demarcation in the audience?

(a) It’s reasonably clear that home and mental speech are not in a commons.

(b) It’s arguable that private speech is not in a commons.

(c) It’s arguable that interpersonal speech is not in a commons.

(d) it’s inarguable that public speech is not in a commons.

And what is the point of demarcation in the form of communication?

(a) It’s reasonably clear that a question and a criticism are not in advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons).

(b) it’s reasonably clear that assertions, conspiracy and treason are in fact advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons)

And it’s also pretty clear when someone is trying to circumvent those two tests of demarcation by “art and artifice”.

It would seem PRUDENT to consider:

(a) use of the government (any use of institutions)

as treason.

(b) use of the media (any form of publication)

(c) commercial use (any form of for profit activity)

as felonies, and

(d) interpersonal human error, passions, etc

as misdemeanors.

We can easily test for due diligence (although this would take me a while)

(a) definitions

(b) whereas (initial state)

(c) positiva (assertion, claim, desire)

(d) negativa (survival from testimonial criticism)

…..categorical

…..logical

…..empirical

…..operational (existential)

…..moral (reciprocal)

…..scope (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

(e) therefore (remedy)

(f) yields (subsequent state) morally.

The practice of law does this already but lacks the One Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) that preserves Sovereignty, that we call Natural Law. And current law fails to require positiva (complete arguments rather than simple prohibitions).

And just as in law and every other discipline, conventions readily develop that we use as shorthand for the longer form.

Very few of us know the law. We know only that we must not impose costs upon others without government (legislative) license to do so. And we have no current means of appeal against legilsative license – although the great lie that the ballot box can alter these conditions persists it’s empirically nonsensical. We vote by sentiment. Representation forces us to.

Natural Law is Simple Law.

So, the more difficult challenge is restructuring government into an insurer of last resort ONLY, eliminating all legislation, and allowing only contracts to be constructed either by direct action or representative assemblies.

So as far as I know this is a sufficient test of the circumstantial limitations on damaging the commons.