Source: Facebook

EVOLUTION STARE DECISIS (PRECEDENT) AND THE COMMON LAW VS STRICT CONSTRUCTION.

(important concept)

The common law (customary law between competing courts) relies upon Precedent rather than strict construction from first principles.

The fact that westerners practiced non-parasitism and the oath, meant that by consequence, the common law evolved to REFLECT empirical and natural law, as much as cause and perpetuate it.

But into the colonial era, then the industrial era, under the strain of complexity and scale,

We start out as hunter-agrarian tribes, where consensus can be formed and headmen decide disputes, to agrarian urbanism under either despotism, or democracy, where majorities decide and judges resolve disputes according to tradition, to industrial division of labor under either bureaucratic despotism, or multi-house democracy creating a market for commons between the classes reliant on assent, and layers of courts that resolve disputes according to legislation, to the present information era, where we will have corporate-state despotism, or multiple houses creating a market for commons limited only by legal dissent, and a market for courts that resolve disputes by appeal to strict construction under natural law.

In other words, ***as we scale in population and productive complexity we increasingly transform from the use of consensus and justification of small groups of common interest, to the use of a market to calculate common interest and criticism between groups.***

We move from majority voluntary assent to minority legal dissent.

We move incrementally from justification to criticism: from democratic proof to natural law falsification.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine