Theme: Science

NOTES: (General Criticisms, not of Prof Toombs, but in general, of the 20th-century social pseudosciences including that of economics and law. The interesting question is why did we begin pseudosciences in parallel with darwin and why did we evolve so many pseudosciences in the postwar period? ) 1. “Correctly Describe How The Engine Works” = Circular Argument(sophistry). “Why do we need an engine at all?” = Science (Decidability). 2. Natural Law = Cooperation = Self Determination, Sovereignty, Reciprocity (Law) – within the limits of Proportionality (Legislation). That’s science. Everything else requires the starting point where were are not sovereign, but some degree of slave or serf. 3. Natural Law = Science = Rule of Law, where each of us is sovereign and where legislation consists in, and is limited to, contracts between sovereigns: where sovereignty are the commons equivalent of private-sector shareholders: investors by demonstrated behavior. 4. Positive Law = Sophistry = Rule by Men, where each of us is serf, and legislation consists of command by others who are sovereign. It’s not complicated. 5. Rule of Law where we are sovereign and have the right to self-determination… if we choose. Otherwise, we must be freemen, serfs, or ‘slaves’. It’s not an opinion. It’s simply a fact. Versus Rule by Man, absence of sovereignty, and reciprocity. 6. The violation of our history of a hierarchy of man, family, serfdom > MANOR LAW. Freeman > Common Law. Sovereign > Court Law. 7. So there exists an enlightenment demand for the security of Manor Law (serfdom) in conflict with the demand for common law (freemen) and court law (citizens). The enlightenment ‘one class of everyone’ is as ridiculous as the Marxist, and libertarian and liberal ‘one class of everyone’. We need three economies, and three sets of laws, in a hierarchy if we are to have a diverse population no longer pacified by centuries of northern European or east Asian Manorialism and Credit Service both of which suppressed the reproduction of those unfit for markets. 8. Failure to understand why the west evolves so much faster than the rest of mankind leads to failure to understand that our law was the cause of that rapid adaptation – because it fosters maximum calculation by trial and error of means of advancement. 9. The western law is the most hyper-adaptive because it has the lowest friction and the least abstraction. 10. FWIW: Raz, Kelsen, Dworkin, and Hart are not culturally European but from a subculture that relies on POSITIVE LAW: Rule by Judges (Kritarchy). Not rule of Law (sovereignty). Smith+Locke > {Blackstone + Jefferson + Adams et al) > (Hayek + Epstein) VERSUS: Hobbes > { Anglo: Austin + Bentham } > { Germans: Schmidt et al } > Jews { Raz, Kelsen, Hartt, Dworkin etc} … maybe the Russians are next in the sequence of continuing the empirical spread of anglo empiricism and the culture-by-culture attempt to justify authority instead … thus repeating with democracy the continuous war against the usurpation of the natural law (traditional, common, germanic) by kings. It’s no different today than in the past.

NOTES: (General Criticisms, not of Prof Toombs, but in general, of the 20th-century social pseudosciences including that of economics and law. The interesting question is why did we begin pseudosciences in parallel with darwin and why did we evolve so many pseudosciences in the postwar period? ) 1. “Correctly Describe How The Engine Works” = Circular Argument(sophistry). “Why do we need an engine at all?” = Science (Decidability). 2. Natural Law = Cooperation = Self Determination, Sovereignty, Reciprocity (Law) – within the limits of Proportionality (Legislation). That’s science. Everything else requires the starting point where were are not sovereign, but some degree of slave or serf. 3. Natural Law = Science = Rule of Law, where each of us is sovereign and where legislation consists in, and is limited to, contracts between sovereigns: where sovereignty are the commons equivalent of private-sector shareholders: investors by demonstrated behavior. 4. Positive Law = Sophistry = Rule by Men, where each of us is serf, and legislation consists of command by others who are sovereign. It’s not complicated. 5. Rule of Law where we are sovereign and have the right to self-determination… if we choose. Otherwise, we must be freemen, serfs, or ‘slaves’. It’s not an opinion. It’s simply a fact. Versus Rule by Man, absence of sovereignty, and reciprocity. 6. The violation of our history of a hierarchy of man, family, serfdom > MANOR LAW. Freeman > Common Law. Sovereign > Court Law. 7. So there exists an enlightenment demand for the security of Manor Law (serfdom) in conflict with the demand for common law (freemen) and court law (citizens). The enlightenment ‘one class of everyone’ is as ridiculous as the Marxist, and libertarian and liberal ‘one class of everyone’. We need three economies, and three sets of laws, in a hierarchy if we are to have a diverse population no longer pacified by centuries of northern European or east Asian Manorialism and Credit Service both of which suppressed the reproduction of those unfit for markets. 8. Failure to understand why the west evolves so much faster than the rest of mankind leads to failure to understand that our law was the cause of that rapid adaptation – because it fosters maximum calculation by trial and error of means of advancement. 9. The western law is the most hyper-adaptive because it has the lowest friction and the least abstraction. 10. FWIW: Raz, Kelsen, Dworkin, and Hart are not culturally European but from a subculture that relies on POSITIVE LAW: Rule by Judges (Kritarchy). Not rule of Law (sovereignty). Smith+Locke > {Blackstone + Jefferson + Adams et al) > (Hayek + Epstein) VERSUS: Hobbes > { Anglo: Austin + Bentham } > { Germans: Schmidt et al } > Jews { Raz, Kelsen, Hartt, Dworkin etc} … maybe the Russians are next in the sequence of continuing the empirical spread of anglo empiricism and the culture-by-culture attempt to justify authority instead … thus repeating with democracy the continuous war against the usurpation of the natural law (traditional, common, germanic) by kings. It’s no different today than in the past.