Some notes on law.
One cannot enact a policy (obtain a current gain or defer a current cost) that future generations will pay for.
On cannot enact a policy that one cannot reverse.
One cannot enact a policy that one cannot pay restitution for.
One cannot enact a policy that is retroactive.
(we cannot interfere with planning, we can only insure against shocks)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 12:28:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-18 08:50:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Why-shall-we-ignore-any-human-law-state-king-president-judge-or-lawgiver/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=37a5b2caLaws cannot be given, they can only be discovered.
Lawgiving is logically impossible. One can issue commands. One can negotiate contractual provisions on your behalf. But one cannot create law, only command, legislation, regulation, and contractual provision.
There is one natural law, that can be stated in the positive or negative, but must be stated as both positive and negative. (I’ve written too much on this today and don’t want to repeat myself, so I’m not going into detail.)
Obverse: – The silver rule (Natural Law – the negative ) do not do unto others… etc.
Reverse: – The golden rule (Natural Rights – the positive ) do unto others only what …. etc.
There is only on moral law that these two rules are derived from:
Obverse: – negative: impose no unwanted costs upon that which others have acted to create, obtain, and inventory, whether life, kin, mate, relation, property, norm, or institution.
Reverse: – positive: limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same criteria.
In other words: “do no harm” is the one law of human cooperation. Because harm is what causes retaliation, breaks the peace, reduces trust, increases transaction and opportunity costs, and reduces the quality of life for everyone in the vicinity as a consequence.
These laws are geographically, demographically, culturally, normatively, institutionally, traditionally, independent, and provide universal decidability in all matters of conflict, whether participants like it or not.
What differs is the only the in-group contracts in the forms of property, laws, norms, traditions, institutions, territory and monuments. But within group this rule still applies.
Ergo, you only listen to a command when its either in going to benefit you, or when ignoring or contradicting it will lead to your harm or punishment.
Otherwise, there is no connection between commands and the only necessary laws: objective morality, natural law, and natural rights. Do no harm, seek no involuntary gain.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 15:36:00 UTC
(with updates by Doolittle) [N]atural Law – What is Law? Natural Law Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics. Natural Law – The History The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American. The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- Natural Law – The Conclusion In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.
(with updates by Doolittle) [N]atural Law – What is Law? Natural Law Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics. Natural Law – The History The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American. The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. — ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—- Natural Law – The Conclusion In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.
[S]ome conflicts are objectively immoral because they generate retaliation
Some conflicts are conditionally immoral because they violate normative contracts consisting in the product (result) of a set of exchanges rather than single actions.
Some conflicts are moral such as the competition for opportunities produced by the market.
Some conflicts are uncertain since they constitute a process of discovery.
[S]ome conflicts are objectively immoral because they generate retaliation
Some conflicts are conditionally immoral because they violate normative contracts consisting in the product (result) of a set of exchanges rather than single actions.
Some conflicts are moral such as the competition for opportunities produced by the market.
Some conflicts are uncertain since they constitute a process of discovery.
Some conflicts are objectively immoral because they generate retaliation
Some conflicts are conditionally immoral because they violate normative contracts consisting in the product ( result) of a set of exchanges rather than single actions.
Some conflicts are moral such as the competition for opportunities produced by the market.
Some conflicts are uncertain since they constitute a process of discovery.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 09:41:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-the-right-to-have-rights/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=3142e026We SEEK rights. Rights can only exist if insured by an insurer.
So we don’t CAN’T have the right to have them.
We can on the other hand desire them.
We pretty much need them.
And we can work to obtain them.
Although if you look at the present era, we’re lucky if we get negative rights and we will never get positive rights. It’s suicidal. Look at europe.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 16:20:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/How-can-human-rights-be-taken-away/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=d9933c3bRather foolish question.
The question is how do we create them in the first place.
Human rights consist in a list of things we seek to create.
We are not all that good at creating them.
And I think the question is still open whether we should create them, or whether people should earn them by their thoughts, words, and deeds.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 16:18:00 UTC