Source: Facebook

NATURAL LAW UNDER UNIVERSAL STANDING CONSTITUTES A COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT – WITHOUT THE NEED FOR POLYLOGISM

(reposted from elsewhere for archival purposes)

As far as I know, natural law, like physical law is a monopoly – in other words, there is only one ‘true’ law that we must discover.

So I would prefer rule of law, just as I prefer scientists to not create pseudoscience (pseudo physical law), i prefer judges not to create pseudo moral science ( pseudo-natural-law.)

With an independent judiciary, universal standing (everyone has the right to sue in matters of commons), and rule of law (every individual is subject to the same natural law without exception), I do not see how that is not competition. Competition in the market for truth.

Conversely, a polylegal / polylogical system is undecidable, and if not identical, then at least one of the options consists of pseudo-science, if not error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit.

Furthermore, the more competition under the single law the ‘harder’ it becomes (more empirically falsified).

I would prefer a market for the production of commons, consisting of different houses representing different interests, consisting of members chosen by lot, deciding on the preferability of submitted proposals. And that any contract acceptable, strictly constructed, that survives legal scrutiny (criticism) is possible. (ie: dissent rather than assent). The question is only how budget is allocated between the houses. The choices are rather obvious. Precisely because the lower classes have behavior to trade and the upper classes money. (which is the whole issue here).

Under this structure one can be barred from using a commons he does not wish to pay for.

There are a host of reasons behind this construction but I’m not going to list all of them right now.

And the subject is very deep. And I don’t have time to get into it right now (My product is taking all my time.)