Jan 27, 2020, 11:14 AM (hard questions) (judgemet of the natural law)
—“Serious question, is it ever justifiable to hit a woman if she grsm’s you too much? What is the recommended amount of force under P?”—Jack Hwite
This is a great example of how sovereignty has been used throughout our history. And why this question has such a long history in our law: because it’s a common problem. Justifiable isn’t a meaningful term. Instead, under natural law, and under traditional european law, you can challenge anyone male of female to a duel, demand apology, demand satisfaction, and if refused exercise sovereignty in self defense. Or put differently, in natural law, each of us is sovereign, whether male or female. But the sexes differ in our exercise of force. “A male physical super-predator exchanges the forgoing of his violence with women so long as women social super-predators exchange forgoing their their undermining (GSRRM) in return. If this contract is broken then physical violence and undermining are both licensed.” Or the individuals may choose to forgo the duel and simply have at each other in words and hands. A judicially sanctioned duel before peers is preferred, since differences in ability can be minimized by traditional pit and bag or other means. A conflict can be brought before the court instead and settled there. Because “Scolding” is just as much a violation of sovereignty and the peach as is physical violence. However, this is limited to discipline for insult, and when the other party lies down and submits the conflict must stop – otherwise the parties extend beyond the judicial duel into attempted murder. This competition is the only way to prevent male and female warfare by their individual means. We have constrained men’s violence but let loose women’s violence – and we are paying the price of undermining our civilization as a consequence.
