Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • NATURALISM AND MARGINAL INDIFFERENCE AS PROPERTARIAN MORALITY In the discipline

    NATURALISM AND MARGINAL INDIFFERENCE AS PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    In the discipline of law, the jury determines guilt or innocence. This is irrespective of your guilt or innocence. We can deduce your guilt or

    innocence. We can justify your guilt or innocence. But without OBSERVABLE DEMONSTRATION we cannot DEMONSTRATE your guilt or innocence. It is just true in the ABSENCE of observable demonstration because we say so – because we agree.

    In the discipline of math, the accepted practice, is that .999… = 1. This is irrespective of the fact that it is impossible to construct 1 from .9999999… There is no numeric operation that we can perform to do so. We can only DEDUCE it, or claim it.

    We can create arguments. We can create deductions. But we cannot operationally create the number 1 from .999… by the process of addition or subtraction: which is in fact, the basis of all mathematics.

    So if I can get a bunch of people to agree that all people named ‘Brian’, are hosts of demons and should be put to death, then I can have all ‘Brian’s’ put to death. Or if I can get a bunch of people to test whether Brian is telling the truth by seeing if he sinks in a lake, then, if he floats (survives) he is lying.

    I think that is Brian’s argument. Which, of course, is exactly what I’ve been saying. Math can do so, because it is irrelevant. Mathematics is marginally indifferent to more important disciplines. The test of true DEDUCTION is marginal indifference to the outcome. The test of truth existence, is OPERATIONAL (causal) CONSTRUCTION.

    Postmodernism is predicated on the very principle that Brian is advocating: that truth is what we agree it is, not what is independently of our agreement. Not what is OPERATIONALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY true, but what is consensually true – by language.

    A theory can NEVER be true. An operation cannot be false. it just IS. Mathematical operations cannot be false. Mathematical theories (deductions) can NEVER be true.

    Mathematics is responsible for the the creation of the worlds most dangerous religion since Zoroaster invented law of the gods. Math has reinvented magic. And Brian is an acolyte of that religion.

    ’tis how it ’tis. ’tis an inescapable box.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-23 21:44:00 UTC

  • Other than translating Emmanuel Todd’s ideas into propertarian language I really

    Other than translating Emmanuel Todd’s ideas into propertarian language I really didn’t have to do much with ideology.

    I guess the only issue, is that propertarianism tells us what institutions we would need for multiple (heterogeneous) family systems. History doesn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-12 10:09:00 UTC

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON TO DESIRE POWER That is, to prevent anyone else from us

    THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON TO DESIRE POWER

    That is, to prevent anyone else from using it. 🙂

    Nuclear Family

    Common Law

    Property Rights

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-12 09:48:00 UTC

  • I think … It might be illogical to say we ‘have’ property rights. Or that we g

    I think … It might be illogical to say we ‘have’ property rights. Or that we give people property rights. I think the only logical, and ethical statement is, that you can earn them by exchange of them. And if you don’t want to earn them in exchange, then those of us who have earned our property rights by extending property rights to others – well, we are free to use our violence against any and all of those who do not. If you do not exchange property rights, you have no property rights either. and all rights are reducible to property rights. Including the right to life. If you do not respect property rights then we have no moral constraint upon is for your treatment. (??)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 05:02:00 UTC

  • AND PROPERTY ARE SYNONYMS – LOVE IS AN INCENTIVE, NOT A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT –

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7337MARRIAGE AND PROPERTY ARE SYNONYMS – LOVE IS AN INCENTIVE, NOT A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT – ROMANTIC NOTIONS TO THE CONTRARY

    The are only two things that distinguish marriage from any other arbitrary relationship for the purpose of securing affection, sex, companionship, love, care-taking, cost-reduction-of-cohabitatin, and a division of labor in child rearing.

    1) PROPERTY: When you marry, you form a corporation with shared assets, and a two person board of directors, from which the state must divide assets upon the disbanding of the corporation. Prior to the institution of private property, you could just marry and un-marry by saying so in public. In fact, the western Celts practiced serial marriage this way until the 19th century, and the European jews until the middle ages. In most primitives societies, women were literally property, but in Europe the church granted women property rights back in the 1200’s. So the need to resolve property disputes increased as the complexity and amount of property increased, and the productivity of individuals, and therefore their ability to obtain and use property increased.

    2) KINSHIP: We have evolved laws to avoid conflict by stating that the other shareholder has certain powers (of attorney) to act as Voluntary Kin in periods of duress, and it that takes precedence over other involuntary Kinship ties: blood relatives. In this sense when we marry we sell ourselves to the corporation as an asset.

    THE STATE AS MONOPOLY

    The state is the arbiter of property disputes – that’s what a state is: a territorial monopoly on the use of violence; and in particular for the use of violence in the resolution of disputes. The moment that you enter into a marriage that produces common property, you force the state into your marriage because only the state can resolve conflicts over property.

    Anyone can form a corporation. A ship captain, a priest, or certain state officials. The formation’s not a state matter. It’s just an exchange like any other exchange. But the state must break it. And if the state must break it then it must of necessity develop criteria for doing so in order to apply a decision that meets the standard of consistent “law” rather than arbitrary judicial decision.

    However, there is no reason that the state must be the arbiter or such disputes. There is no reason churches cannot perform divorces, in which the assets divisions have the force of law. Unfortunately this wold produce two canons of law, and leave the state responsible for resolving appeals, so it would simply result in the state centralizing decision making power again.

    THE OPTION TO MAINTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY

    However, an easier solution is that if when we marry we do NOT create a corporation and place ourselves and all our assets into it, but instead, maintain each individual’s property separately, and specifically state ownership percentages on anything else that is split now or future, then the only legal issue is the power of attorney to act as one another in financial matters, and to act as primary kin in the event one is incapacitated.

    HISTORY

    The civic and political problem is only that our laws developed as monopolies under control of the state – and even then, largely because the church did not perform divorces and the state wished to intercede in the civil space in order to advance the interests of the feminist political movement on the one hand, and react to the reality that women were becoming active in the work force, earning income, and acquiring real property in sufficient numbers that they required legal peerage to protect them from abuse by rent-seeking males.

    So there is no reason that we must have a monopoly of marriage terms. And there is only one reason that the state should be involved in dissolutions: common property. That is, property of the corporation called the marriage being distributed to various parties in the event of a disbandment of the corporation.

    CRITERIA FOR THREE TYPES OF MARRIAGE

    Further, there is no reason marriages cannot consist of multiple forms, regardless of who makes them.

    1) Corporate Property and Power of Kin

    2) Several property and Power of Kin

    3) Corporate Property without power of kin

    Several Property without power of kin is the normal state of human beings. So that’s the definition of not being married. But one can be in a state of marriage as long as one has either the power of kin (genetic assets) or power of common property (material assets).

    ITS ALL ABOUT PROPERTY

    Love and romance have nothing to do with marriage. You may get married BECAUSE of love and romance and all the other factors. But marriage is a change in control of property – including the self – by authorizing non-kin to act as Kin, and to either pool property or not.

    That it is hard to see the binding power of a marriage having any meaning whatsoever without the pooling of assets is enough of a logical constraint that we can define marriage as a property institution, and nothing more.

    That fact may be painful to admit to ourselves. But marriage is a contract over of property rights, with one of the assets being each other. It is, and always will be. ‘Cause nothing else makes much sense. ‘Cause nothing else enforces fidelity like the loss property.

    Humbling. I know.

    ->Comment in response to this post at Talking Philosophy:

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-03 05:07:00 UTC

  • IF PROACTIVE VIOLENCE IS THE SOURCE, CAUSE, AND PERPETUATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

    IF PROACTIVE VIOLENCE IS THE SOURCE, CAUSE, AND PERPETUATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Then what does that say about violence?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 17:22:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN METAPHYSICS (DRAFT / SKETCH: I have to start somewhere) Not “Popper

    PROPERTARIAN METAPHYSICS

    (DRAFT / SKETCH: I have to start somewhere)

    Not “Popperian”. But “Propertarian”. 🙂 I drafted this before writing the reposted-bit that follows. I have to find a way to tie all of this together. So it might take me a few more tries.

    World (1) Monism : That there exists a single objective, physical reality (physicalism). This objective world exists independently of us. Our actions take place in this world. Our process of thinking takes place in this world. However, the experience of thinking does not take place in this world, because experience is our reaction to the changes in state of our perceptions interacting with our memories in real time. The concept of categories and change in state has no meaning without memory to detect that change. The human body exists here. The act of counting and measuring exists here.

    World (2) Cartesian Dualism – Thoughts: The world of our minds that is caused by the change in state of memory by our senses, perceptions, and thoughts. Our minds are fraught with cognitive bias and error, and without testing against the real world (1) the are indistinguishable from dreams. Whatever information exists here exists only as long as the conscious mind of the individual can access and make use of those memories. THE INDIVIDUAL exists here because his memories do. Memories of what PROPERTY an individual OWNS exists here. In fact, we might argue that that is most of what exists here. Our thinking consists of three parts: stimuli whose workings are imperceptible to us, feelings that we react to changes in the state of, or anticipated state of PROPERTY, and the conscious created by changes in he presentation of the world to our senses by a combination of stimuli and memories.

    World (3) Popper’s Third World – External Representation: The world of the conscious construction: artifacts of our minds (formulae, symbols, language, movement of our bodies, writing, formula, arithmetic, mathematics, designs, tools, arts, and complex constructions.) The things that STORE the results of our thoughts. Given the limited ability of our memories to store concrete items, this category of marks, symbols, records, formulae, designs, narratives allows us to remember, compare, calculate, store, retrieve, copy and share ideas with one another. Once information is stored in these symbols, much of it will exist as long as someone exists to make use of it. CONTRACTS exist here.

    World (4) Dastafshan’s Fourth World – Social Consequences: The world of the social construction of reality (unconscious collective concepts, processes and consequences, morals and norms – those things that only exist by social interaction and cooperation – unintended, self-organizing, unconscious rules and ideas that we understand in retrospect but do not intentionally create. ie: ‘gods’ live here. And the principles that determine PROPERTY distributions in any group exist here. 🙂 Without constant use, human action, and interaction between humans, this information will cease to exist.

    Note that Ali Dastafshan’s Fourth World isn’t part of common philosophical discourse. And I am not necessarily framing the fourth world as he would have me do, but perhaps as E.O. Wilson would. But, I think this definition is in terms more likely to be understood by those of us with exposure to analytical philosophy.

    CONTRA METAPHYSICAL LANGUAGE

    Now, how do I convert these categories into operational language?

    Unfortunately, the only efficient way of expressing philosophical ideas as necessities is to structure them as syllogisms as the greeks did, or as riddles – as Lao Tsu was a master of.

    The only way to express scientific statements is through operational language. Because correlation between actions and facts, and therefore between theory and actions that determine facts, is the test of operational language. Without which causal relations are indeterminate.

    The only way to express human actions as necessary is praxeologically. Because the equivalent of logical non contradiction is the test of rational incentives.

    Unfortunately, instead of a necessary test, praxeology was proposed as a system of apodeictic certainty from which deductions could likewise be certain.

    There are two problems with that approach. The fist is the problem that plagues any logical system, which is that such certainty requires completeness. The second is the completeness is impossible. The impossibility of completeness is what causes the apparent paradoxes in mathematics and the first order logic of set theory.

    The problem that causes a separation of mathematics and logic from science in socio-economics occurs largely due to the use of symbolic proxies without accompanying statements that are articulated in praxeological or operational language: there is a very great difference between “given a set … “, and describing how to create a set of anything, including linguistic permutations.

    As for absurdities of logic, assuming a finite universe, or even an actionably finite universe, any category we name thereby defines the remainder. Any set diminishes the remainder. And all contradictions are tautologies.

    For these reasons science has displaced both philosophy and logic. It has not displaced mathematics, because math can be used in the context of natural science and therefore externally constrained by context.

    Likewise the only way to externally bind logic and philosophy to reality is to require use of operational language.

    And the operational language of human action is constructed through praxeological expression. Praxeology exposes all statements to sympathetic testing. Without praxeological expression any statement is platonic: not real.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 07:05:00 UTC

  • Is Socialism The Same As Capitalism?

    THANK YOU FOR ASKING. I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    ( You will, very likely, obtain moralistic, and therefore meaningless answers. I will try to give you the most scientific answer that I can.)

    We have to define some terms here, because your question confuses economic systems (means of allocating control over property) with political systems (means of making decisions).

    1. Socialism: an economic system where the state (a corporation wherein all citizens are equal shareholders) owns all property, means of production, and production is managed by central control.
    2. Social Democracy: a political and economic system that employs representative democracy, but retains limited private use of property, but public claim on the profits of employing that property.
    3. Representative Democracy: a political system where administration is rotated by the election of representatives by one of a various number of allocations of means of determining the winner.
    4. Classical Liberalism : A political and economic system that employs representative democracy, retains private use of property, with limited claims one the profits of employing that property.
    5. Capitalism: an economic system where private property is held entirely by individuals with no corporeal  involuntary claim on the property of the individual or the proceeds from using it.

    THEREFORE
    1. No capitalism and socialism are not the same. They are opposing economic models.
    2. Elected bodies are corruptible under both social democracy and classical liberal democracy, because they are both representative democracies.  And the problem of corruption is a function, not of the economic model, but of the democratic political model used by both systems.
    3. So representative democracy, in the forms of social democracy or classical liberal democracy, and indeed any in form of elected, representative government, will eventually produce similar results. With the only differences determined by (a) how homogenous or heterogeneous the population is, and (b) the structure of the family, from the extended family to the family to the individual.

    MORE DETAILS

    YOUR QUESTION IS ABOUT SOFT CORRUPTION (INFLUENCE)

    The problem with any system of representation is that the incentives of politicians are counter to the voters desires. And our mistake is in creating  institutions that require saints but we people them with ordinary men. THe greeks used lottocracy (random assignment to administrative positions). Others have recommended direct voting for initiatives (like ebay for policy).  Others have recommended economic democracy, where we allocate our tax money ourselves to particular uses. 

    But the more or less redistributive a country is has very little to do with its system of electors. As much as we might wish to think it does.

    PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES IN REDISTRIBUTION

    The practical difference that separates whether these systems of government can be implemented appears to be nothing more than the HOMOGENEITY of the population in terms of kinship, language, and norms. The more homogenous the looser control, the higher the trust and the more redistributive.  The more diverse the more authoritarian, the lower the trust and the less redistributive.

    There are various mathematical estimates of the maximum redistribution possible without the production of negative externalities.  As much as 75%. The willingness to redistribute varies from group to group. in-kin redistribution is quite high. Cross kin redistribution universally meets resistance.

    PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES IN ECONOMICS

    Socialism isn’t possible because (a) economic calculation is impossible, (b) coordination of people without prices is impossible, and (c) incentive to produce is impossible without money and prices. That is why the world has abandoned socialism. It’s an impossible system. It CAN’T work.

    In a division of knowledge and labor capitalism is a logical necessity.  It is impossible to coordinate complex means of production without property, money, prices and incentives. It’s not POSSIBLE. 

    The entire point of capitalism (property rights) is to force voluntary exchange: service of the self thru service of others. “Trade” is voluntary. It is impossible to obtain through trade anything involuntarily, since property and voluntary exchange are dependent terms just as are prices and incentives. It’s a contradiction in terms.

    Complex names like “Catallaxy” have been given to this process of self organization by voluntary exchanges, but self-organizing-systems is the current common terminology.   This is because (see “I Pencil”) the knowledge necessary to coordinate activities, and the incentives necessary to entice people to act in a coordinated fashion, are not possible to organize by other means than self organizing methods, while still adapting to multivariate changes in resources, technologies, demands, and competition.

    There are technical reasons why anarchic capitalism cannot work that are too complex for this context. However, the world has adopted the capitalist economic system almost universally. Except in those countries where oil allows countries to be less a division of labor and more of family feeding from the wealth produced by oil. This combination isn’t possible to change that we know of.

    THE FUTURE
    Capitalism will persist largely because it must.  Redistribution will persist because it must.  And Corporatism with ceremonial rotation of electorate in european countries, and little rotation elsewhere, appears to be the standard of government that the world is settling upon.

    Everything else is just like sports teams – entertainment for the masses and not much else.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-socialism-the-same-as-capitalism

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION (This is an outline of the proper

    PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION

    (This is an outline of the propertarian case against multiculturalism. )

    People are different from livestock, goods, services, technologies and recipes – unless they’re slaves that is. I can keep, slaughter or abandon livestock, choose to consume or ignore goods and services, use or ignore technologies and recipes. And immigrants consume opportunity, commons, norms, traditions and laws by competing with them. any norm that increases high trust is an increase in shareholder assets. Any that doesn’t is a loss of shareholder assets.

    Im a libertarian. But any group with the same family structure, norms, values and myths, indistinguishable from kin is a corporation for the purpose of shared production and reproduction in a race against the red queen: the dark forces of time, ignorance and malthusian limits.

    And the introduction of competitors is just theft of shareholder assets. Any economic benefit produced independent of the impact on high trust norms is noise, not signal, and simply a means of using positivism to obscure theft and involuntary transfer from one group to another against their wishes.

    We compete in the market for goods and services despite in-group (in-kin) competition for resources as universally morally objectionable.

    Immigration without adoption of language, norms, family structure, myths, traditions, values, laws, is not non-neutral. It is a high cost. High trust norms that facilitate risk taking in the production of goods an services are the highest cost infrastructure that any group can possess.

    Immigration without conformity, and voting prior to conformity, is in fact, theft. It is violent conquest by the use of the violence of the state against the shareholders in the corporation of high trust norms.

    This isn’t allegory. This is just logical necessity, supported with difficult to measure but empirically demonstrable fact.

    Immigration into a high trust society without mandatory and managed normative enforcement is simply systemic theft and the destruction of cultural (human) capital. Immigration of people into a high trust society of people who share those values is just an increase in kin, and only a net negative if it affects the wages of existing shareholders.(Citizens).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-27 14:51:00 UTC

  • Notes From Hoppe’s Essay: “What Must Be Done”

    SUMMARY: INCREMENTALLY PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING. [G]reat analysis. Not sure how strong the solution is. (It isn’t strong at all) I don’t like to criticize the master of our movement. He should have had one of us edit it (Roman Saskiw) because there are too many small problems with it. I don’t like mixing analytical rigour and moralistic language. It doesn’t help us. Not when there isn’t any need for it. We can maintain rational rigour in our movement. That aside, I’ll just say that either of my two main solutions is better. My solution is grander. But it’s likely to work. Partly because it’s grander. Because it has worked so many times in history. Because momentum matters. Because the majority adopt the positions of those they trust. I’ve tried to limit the quotes to the necessary argument, and clarify in brackets what required it.

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe. What Must Be Done . Ludwig von Mises Institute. (2013) THE GOAL

    [The] ultimate goal … is the demonopolization of protection and justice. Protection, security, defense, law, order, and arbitration in conflicts can and must be supplied competitively— that is, entry into the field of being a judge must be free. – (Kindle Locations 166-168).

    THE ARGUMENT

    Every monopolist takes advantage of his position. The price of protection will go up, and more importantly, the content of the law, that is the product quality, will be altered to the advantage of the monopolist and at the expense of others. – (Kindle Locations 95-96)

    …once there is no longer free entry into the business of property protection, or any other business for that matter, the price of protection will rise, and the quality of protection will fall. The monopolist will become increasingly less of a protector of our property, and increasingly more a protection racket, or even a systematic exploiter of property owners. He will become an aggressor against and a destroyer of the people and their property that he was initially supposed to protect.” (Kindle Locations 74-77)

    What happens [under democracy, is that] the territorial protection monopoly [is transformed into] public [from] private property. Instead of a prince who regards [the institutions] as his private property, [an elected official, who has the incentives of] a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in charge of the protection racket. The caretaker does not own the protection racket. Instead, he is just allowed to use the current resources for his own advantage. He owns [The right to enjoy the use and advantages of another’s property short of the destruction or waste of its substance,] but he does not own the capital value. This does not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only makes exploitation less rational and less calculating, – (Kindle Locations 122-126).

    …because entry into a democratic government is open— everyone can become president— resistance against State property invasions is reduced. This leads to the same result: increasingly under democratic conditions, the worst will rise to the top of the State in free competition. Competition is not always good. Competition in the field of becoming the shrewdest aggressor against private property is nothing to be greeted. – (Kindle Locations 127-130).

    Under highly centralized democracy, … the security of private property has almost completely disappeared. The price of protection is enormous, and the quality of justice dispensed has gone downhill constantly. It has deteriorated to the point where the idea of immutable laws of justice, of natural law, has almost entirely disappeared from public consciousness. Law is considered nothing but State-made law— positive law. Law and justice is whatever the State says it is. There is still private property in name, but in practice private property owners have been almost completely expropriated. Rather than protecting people from invaders and invasions of person and property, the State has increasingly disarmed its own people, and stripped them of their most elementary right to self-defense. – (Kindle Locations 142-146).

    Instead of protecting us, then, the State has delivered us and our property to the mob and mob instincts. Instead of safeguarding us, it impoverishes us, it destroys our families, local organizations, private foundations, clubs and associations, by drawing all of them increasingly into its own orbit. And as a result of all of this, the State has perverted the public sense of justice and of personal responsibility, and bred and attracted an increasing number of moral and economic monsters and monstrosities. – (Kindle Locations 157-160).

    1) First: that the protection of private property and of law, justice, and law enforcement, is essential to any human society. But there is no reason whatsoever why this task must be taken on by one single agency, by a monopolist. [Instead]… it is precisely the case that as soon as you have a monopolist taking on this task, he will [of] necessity destroy justice and render us defenseless against foreign as well as domestic invaders and aggressors. – (Kindle Locations 162-165). 2) …because a monopoly of protection is [a violation of natural, moral, and economic laws, then], any territorial expansion of such a monopoly is [a violation of natural, moral, and economic laws]. … Every [attempt, or suggestion, to increase] political centralization must be on principle grounds rejected [and fought against.]. In turn, every attempt at political decentralization— segregation, separation, secession and so forth— must be supported. – (Kindle Locations 169-170). 3) … [the] democratic protection monopoly … must be rejected as a [violation of natural,] moral and economic [laws]. Majority rule and private property protection are incompatible. The idea of democracy must be ridiculed [,criticized, attacked, and delegitimized as systemic corruption]: it is nothing else but mob rule [ and organized expropriation, justified by majority rule]. – (Kindle Locations 170-172).

    THE STRATEGY

    1) one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid.- (Kindle Locations 346-348). … all public employees— teachers, judges, policemen— and all welfare recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say whatsoever how high these taxes are. … The locations have to be small enough and have to have a good number of decent people.- (Kindle Locations 349-353). … Consequently, local taxes and rates as well as local tax revenue will inevitably decrease. Property values and most local incomes would increase whereas the number and payment of public employees would fall. – (Kindle Locations 353-354).

    2) In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local government assets must be privatized. An inventory of all public buildings, and on the local level that is not that much— schools, fire, police station, courthouses, roads, and so forth— and then property shares or stock should be distributed to the local private property owners in accordance with the total lifetime amount of taxes— property taxes— that these people have paid. After all, it is theirs, they paid for these things. These shares should be freely tradeable, sold and bought, and with this local government would essentially be abolished. – (Kindle Locations 356-360).

    3) Under the realistic assumption that there continues to be a local demand for education and protection and justice, the schools, police stations, and courthouses will be still used for the very same purposes. And many former teachers, policemen and judges would be rehired or resume their former position on their own account as self-employed individuals, except that they would be operated or employed by local “bigshots” or elites who own these things, all of whom are personally known figures.- (Kindle Locations 366-369). … Accordingly judges must be freely financed, and free entry into judgeship positions must be assured. Judges are not elected by vote, but chosen by the effective demand of justice seekers. – (Kindle Locations 373-374).