The Cardinal Postulate: Definition, Analysis & Logical Consequences

[Tod]

No, no, no...what you are describing, in your second section is not government. Government is not people voluntarily coming together. Government, in your scenario, is a group first robbing others to obtain the means of seeking retribution for the death of the cow. The robbing first is the part without, I maintain, authority. Further, government maintains a monopoly on the claim to the right to rob.

As for the example of "self-defense" in the case of death, that is pretty close to arguing over whether zero is a positive or a negative number. Most everyone has an estate, so the defense could be said to be of the estate.

[Bryan]

Anyone other than an anarchist; an individual who believes that a state is necessary and that power wielded by the state must be greater than the power of the individual. This would include people who believe in a constitutional representative republic, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, etc. A ruling class.

BTW, the notion that a government's legitimate function is to "protect the rights of the individual" is an oxymoron. Government first violates the rights of individuals before it does anything else, or it is impotent. Our own constitution outlines how the federal government should do it, and is a glaring violation of the ideas laid out in this thread.

Thank you.

Consider a situation where a group of individuals have voluntarily self-organized within a defined and fully owned geographical space and voluntarily agree to:

• Create a system of law and order within their defined and fully owned geographical space.
• Define their system of law and order as a government.
• Define its governing bodies to wield power over the individual within their defined and fully owned geographical space.
• Declare their defined and fully owned geographical space to be a “state”.
• Make zero attempts to do anything outside of their defined and fully owned geographical space.

Some questions:
* Is this a state?
* Do you see any problems with what they are doing?

[Bryan]

What was the original thread? I'm lost without the context.

You're really not missing much context...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...sion-Statement

Is that a take off of the DOI claim that "We hod these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?"

Good point, I would say in a regard they are one in the same.

[Mr Tansill]

The meaning of the Cardinal Postulate should be clear at this point. The CP says that as matters of the innate fabric of their living human existences, each man's right to live (his claim to his own life) is equal to that of every others; no more and no less.

Therefrom does the question of acceptance arise, and this is the central point of saliency. Do you accept the equality of claims, or do you reject it?

Once again, I do not accept the equality of those claims in all cases. There exists groups of people who do have less right to life than others. The CP is close to what could be accepted absolutely, but falls slightly short.

If you accept the CP as true, there is no further issue insofar as the Postulate itself is concerned. The matter is settled, closed, decided.

If, on the other hand, you reject it, not only does this beg justification, it also raises the question of what, then, is its truthful alternative?

I will provide it here with an existence proof.

Let us proceed with the case for rejection. If we reject it, there are but three possible outcomes. Either we encounter a contradiction, where the case for rejection is disproved; we establish an indisputable pattern of reason that demonstrates that rejection cannot be supported as a well reasoned position, or we discover an alternative basis of our fundamental system of beliefs regarding the nature of proper human relations. I will note here that the first two possibilities are but twists on the broader category of "establishing as false" the rejection of the CP. I make the distinction, however, because I feel it is important to do so, which I hope shall become clear later on.

Now, if we reject the Cardinal Postulate, we must then determine what such a rejection actually means.

It means there are certain groups of people who have 'sacrificed' a certain amount of their "right" to live; this is done by taking certain actions, which I will get to presently:

Your CP states that "All men hold equal claims to life." A simple translation into a sentential function will allow the introduction of certain classes of people that will immediately result in contradictions within the system generated by your CP. In sentential function form, your CP would look like this:

CP(A,B): "A has the same claim to life as B."

Next, it's important to work with the 'set' of all people that could be chosen as variables in the above sentence.

The set of all people 'P' = {teachers, firemen, policemen, you, me, criminals, robbers, murderers, rapists, children, farmers, ...}

Now, it's a very simple act to select elements from P, and substitute them into your CP(A,B). A few examples are below:

CP(teacher, farmer): A teacher has the same claim to life as a farmer.
CP(fireman, policeman): A fireman has the same claim to life as a policeman.
CP(you, me): You have the same claim to life as me.
...
...
...
and so on, and no contradictions are admitted - at least one would be very hard pressed to argue that a fireman has a greater claim/right to live than a policeman, etc, etc...this is what your argument says and is agreeable in all these cases. Though, other alternative substitutions are admissible, and result in immediate contradictions:

CP(teacher, rapist): A teacher has the same claim to life as a rapist.
CP(murderer, child): A murderer has the same claim to life as a child.

It is these cases that your system admits which I find do not square with traditional morality, and thus illuminates the flaw with your version of the CP (i.e., I would state that a teacher's claim to life is > a rapist's; a child's claim to life is > a murderer's).

An modification of the CP is in order...MCP(A,B): "A and B are born with the same claim to life."

Now, with the MCP, you can make any of the above substitutions, and eliminate all contradiction:

MCP(teacher, farmer): A teacher was born with the same claim to life as a farmer.
MCP(fireman, policeman): A fireman was born with the same claim to life as a policeman.
MCP(you, me): You were born with the same claim to life as me.

The MCP allows all of the allowable substitutions that the CP does, but it also eliminates the contradictory statements that are allowed under the system generated by the CP:

MCP(teacher, rapist): A teacher was born with the same claim to life as a rapist.
MCP(murderer, child): A murderer was born with the same claim to life as a child.

If the claims to life between individuals is not equal, it can mean but three possible things:

1. Claims differ in quantity
2. Claims differ in quality (character)
3. Claims differ in both quantity and quality

#1. Correct.

Having eliminated two of the three options, there remains but one reasonable possibility to describe the differences in claims to life: quantity. What, then, would a difference in the quantities of various claims to life actually mean? Let us first begin in the middle, so to speak, with the notion that if we grant that such claims indeed differ in quantity, then it is implied that some hold "more" claim to life than do others. That is, we might analogously say that some men hold claims to life that are superior to those of others. Hold on to this thought as I rewind to the beginning for a moment that I may expose what I believe to be an absurdity in the very premise of differing quantities of claims to life.

What it means is very simple: That people are capable of taking actions throughout the course of their lives that may reduce or sacrifice their right to live - such as murdering another person.

If we grant that claims to life may differ in quantity, which is to say that one man holds a numerically superior claim to life than do others, this immediately leads to the question of units and measurement. How is a claim to life itself measured? What are the units? How do we observe them? With what instruments are those claims metered? Cast about as I have to discover the answers to these three simple questions, I have been unable to arrive at anything even remotely resembling an answer. In fact, my strong intuition here is that the notion is in itself yet another absurdity, but I have not really proven this to myself and therefore remain, however thinly, skeptical on the matter. Once again, if anyone has any clever or otherwise interesting notions about answers to these questions, please speak up.

Who the hell knows? And who says that you have to have some sort of numerical quantification for something like this? Saying that "an innocent person's right to life is > than a murderer's" is clear enough, and accomplishes everything that is necessary for arriving at a valid conclusion. You don't need some type of 3.22342 > 1.2212765 in order to justify the "right to live."

I do strongly suspect that the notion of numerically different claims to life is in its very fabric, ridiculous. But for the sake of completeness in terms of nailing shut the lid on the coffin on the argument in favor of rejecting the CP, let us return to the presumption that such numerical differences are at least possible. There remains, even in the face of this questionable assumption, further questions to which rejection of the CP leads. To reject the CP is to accept, at the very minimum, that there are superior and inferior claims to life extant between individuals. If Janey's claim to life is superior to Johnny, how is it so?:

And there are. See the above examples.

We have, by this admittedly and somewhat formally loose means demonstrated that rejection of the CP is invalid and untruthful. But does that imply acceptance, OTOH, is perforce valid and truthful? At this moment I am not 100% certain. The only alternate position of which I can immediately conceive is one of the noncommittal skeptic, which while technically valid, brings us nowhere in practical terms. The eternal skeptic waits, well... into eternity for something that may not exist. One can readily see where that will take us.

It's just incomplete.

Therefore, it appears with good confidence that acceptance of the CP is both logically valid and in keeping with what we may call "truth".

From this point it is then possible to begin the derivations of the various primary principles of proper human relations, and from there those of a secondary nature. Prior to proceeding there, however, I would like to hear what you all have to say about the issue addressed here.

So, the MCP is a starting place for developing a morality, but even it is not complete. Any axiomatic system is going to require more than one postulate, as well as a variety of 'operations' that will enable new "truths" to be discovered. A system with only one axiom can produce nothing but tautologies. What are the other postulates? I'm not sure right off the top of my head, but I'm sure it'd be an interesting discussion.

[Cabal]

Thank you.

Consider a situation where a group of individuals have voluntarily self-organized within a defined and fully owned geographical space and voluntarily agree to:

• Create a system of law and order within their defined and fully owned geographical space.
• Define their system of law and order as a government.
• Define its governing bodies to wield power over the individual within their defined and fully owned geographical space.
• Declare their defined and fully owned geographical space to be a “state”.
• Make zero attempts to do anything outside of their defined and fully owned geographical space.

Some questions:
* Is this a state?
* Do you see any problems with what they are doing?[/B]

In such a situation, it would seem this organization could only rent property to others, if they intend on remaining the authority over that property. As soon as they sell or exchange their rights to any property to others, they lose authority over that property. Is this what you're suggesting? That no property is ever exchanged, but only rented out under strict conditions of compliance to outsiders who desire to own property within these geographical boundaries?

[Tod]

Thank you.

Consider a situation where a group of individuals have voluntarily self-organized within a defined and fully owned geographical space and voluntarily agree to:

• Create a system of law and order within their defined and fully owned geographical space.
• Define their system of law and order as a government.
• Define its governing bodies to wield power over the individual within their defined and fully owned geographical space.
• Declare their defined and fully owned geographical space to be a “state”.
• Make zero attempts to do anything outside of their defined and fully owned geographical space.

Some questions:
* Is this a state?
* Do you see any problems with what they are doing?

I guess I would have to conclude that yes, it probably is a state and yes, I see lots of potential problems with such an arrangement.

[osan]

Based on it being a Cardinal Postulate.

That was perfectly astute. A postulate is assumed true, usually because it is self-evidently so.

[Sola_Fide]

That was perfectly astute. A postulate is assumed true, usually because it is self-evidently so.

It's not "evidently true" to 99% of the world.

[osan]

Is that a take off of the DOI claim that "We hod these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal?"

Not a "take off", but rather a refinement in the precision of expression for the sake of clarity. To say "all men are created equal" is grammatically lousy and, consequently of low semantic value. It is basically a hogwash statement that seems to say something when in fact it says almost nothing at all. To the uncritical and overly presumptuous eye, the statement is the model of truthful propriety. But when placed under the withering light of a strongly executed semantic analysis, one can be left with only questions.

But to say "all men hold equal claims to life" is very much a positive statement, v. normative that speaks not of things unprovable, but rather something that may be observed empirically and first-hand by anyone.

[Bryan]

In such a situation, it would seem this organization could only rent property to others, if they intend on remaining the authority over that property. As soon as they sell or exchange their rights to any property to others, they lose authority over that property. Is this what you're suggesting? That no property is ever exchanged, but only rented out under strict conditions of compliance to outsiders who desire to own property within these geographical boundaries?

That would depend if they wanted their "state" to exist past their lifetime and they wanted the exact geographical boundaries to remain unchanged. None of this is a requirement for the criteria I listed however.

Still, there are a handful of constructs that could be possible for one person to move out and another to move in and not have the terms change. Certainly there would not be a passing of allodial title (free of any external contracts) if the exact geographical boundaries were never to change.

Perhaps we need to define our terms and agree on what are valid possibilities regarding the ownership / residency of a piece of land.

[Bryan]

I guess I would have to conclude that yes, it probably is a state and yes, I see lots of potential problems with such an arrangement.

Could you explain the problems? Whose problems would it be? I don't see how there can be problems with any of the group of individuals since they have voluntarily agreed to all terms.


Back to your first post, when you say "any sort of coercive interaction between people is illegitimate" - would it still be considered "coercive interaction" if people previously agreed that the interaction could be a consequence to some action by them?


Part of my point in this is that people "believe" that they have a right to self-organize and live in a society that adheres to their worldviews. Some people want to live in a state/community that is free of drugs, prostitution and all of the other "terrible" victimless-crimes. Is that wrong? I say it's not, they certainly should be allowed, just like liberty people who want to self-organize to a free state. One size does not fit all.

Of course problems start to arise when people want to impose their anti-liberty coercive acts on others like we have now, but what's really the root problem? I say the root problem isn't that there is a coercive state, it's that all arable land on the planet has a coercive state (more or less)- there is no place that a liberty lover can "just leave" to. It's all locked up.

I submit that there is an often unseen yet critical principle of liberty in this, that could be derived from the CP, which goes something like this:

An individual has a right to not be forced by others into a series of options which would guarantee the lose of life, liberty or property.
(Got that osan? Do you agree? Can you phrase this better?)


That's exactly what we face today, and IMO, it is a better talking point than arguing against statism. In other words, we should be arguing against the lack of options to statism, we need to be teaching people that it's wrong to force people into lose-lose situations like they are doing.

[osan]

...I do not accept the equality of those claims [to life] in all cases. There exists groups of people who do have less right to life than others. The CP is close to what could be accepted absolutely, but falls slightly short.

...

It means there are certain groups of people who have 'sacrificed' a certain amount of their "right" to live; this is done by taking certain actions, which I will get to presently:

Your CP states that "All men hold equal claims to life." A simple translation into a sentential function will allow the introduction of certain classes of people that will immediately result in contradictions within the system generated by your CP. In sentential function form, your CP would look like this:

CP(A,B): "A has the same claim to life as B."

...

CP(teacher, farmer): A teacher has the same claim to life as a farmer.
CP(fireman, policeman): A fireman has the same claim to life as a policeman.
CP(you, me): You have the same claim to life as me.
...
...
...
and so on, and no contradictions are admitted - at least one would be very hard pressed to argue that a fireman has a greater claim/right to live than a policeman, etc, etc...this is what your argument says and is agreeable in all these cases. Though, other alternative substitutions are admissible, and result in immediate contradictions:

CP(teacher, rapist): A teacher has the same claim to life as a rapist.
CP(murderer, child): A murderer has the same claim to life as a child.

...

An modification of the CP is in order...MCP(A,B): "A and B are born with the same claim to life."

OK, I see now what you were trying to express in another thread on this matter. Before, your method failed terribly. Here, you make yourself clear.

My response is this: you have jumped the gun. Yes, you could modify the CP as you suggest, but it is unnecessary because the "born with" is implied in the sense of the assumption of "all else equal". I wrote it as I did precisely to keep it as simple and "clean" as possible. In subsequent posts, we have addressed the notion of crimes and have explicitly stated that the commissions of such acts may result in forfeiture of one's claims. That takes neat care of the murderer, rapist, etc., though I would even then warn not to become too haughty in the presumption of diminishment of claim. The special case of crime may diminish claim, but in what ways and to what degree has yet to be worked out. I add that the ways in which such diminishment is worked out must perforce be provably non-arbitrary against the standard of the CP itself. Otherwise, any principle or rule of diminishment leaves the door open to "interpretation" in the same ways that our legislative and judicial establishments currently run wildly amok, redefining "crime" willy-nilly as their caprice and whim may direct at a given moment.

To reiterate: you are moving along too quickly. This is a process of progressively building upon whatever foundations have been laid down. I crafted the CP to be as simple and direct as possible and with as few qualifiers as possible for a very sound reason. The notion of diminishing the rights and that which they sustain is the first real semantic nexus whereupon ignorant, ambitious, or malevolent men may attempt to subvert the order that such sound principles establish by declaring nonsense as truth. Therefore, the CP speaks with broad force against such subversion by being as plain and free of qualifiers as possible.

You appear also to be forgetting what is to me a very important idea where the notions of criminality are concerned: better to let every criminal go free than to unjustly hold a single innocent man to account for a crime.

Finally, I would also submit that your modification is actually semantically flawed. If I murder someone, it is doubtful that my claim to life will diminish from my standpoint. It may diminish from yours. Whose authority is superior in this case of conflicting opinion? I am sure we will arrive at satisfactory answers in time, perhaps even in this thread, but we may not be quite there, yet. That is why I caution for patience just a wee bit. This is important stuff WRT how people behavior among and toward each other and as we "progress" both technologically and in terms of the planetary packing density of humanity, it becomes ever more important that our fundamental understanding of proper human relations becomes more explicit, detailed, and probably correct to a standard. This is especially true in light of the observable fact that the vast majority of human political-philosophical thinking has actually REGRESSED in staggering fashion over the past century. The most basic senses of human rights, liberties, dignities, and so forth that were being cultivated in America for humanity's posterity have been clipped to the crowns (dirt-level in non-farmer speak ) in favor of the most mind-numbing raft of barking, howling insanity imaginable, thanks for that going to the "progressive" mindset.

We have here an opportunity to expand human understanding that is very fundamental. I would like to do it correctly.

[Cabal]

That would depend if they wanted their "state" to exist past their lifetime and they wanted the exact geographical boundaries to remain unchanged. None of this is a requirement for the criteria I listed however.

Still, there are a handful of constructs that could be possible for one person to move out and another to move in and not have the terms change. Certainly there would not be a passing of allodial title (free of any external contracts) if the exact geographical boundaries were never to change.

Perhaps we need to define our terms and agree on what are valid possibilities regarding the ownership / residency of a piece of land.

I don't think it's a matter of how long they want their 'state' to exist, it's just the reality. They can't sell any land within their boundaries to anyone unless they're also willing to shrink the size of the geographical region of their 'state'. All they can do is rent out land to those who are willing to be renters that will comply to their rules. So, practicality issues begin to emerge here, if their goal is to rule over people, or do much with all that land they evidently have. I find that most people tend to want to own their homes, rather than be renters, and I can't imagine that would change much. This is not to say that there would not be renters, of course.

If we're to abide by property rights theory in the libertarian tradition for this scenario, property rights emerge from self-ownership, thus only individual humans have property rights. Non-human entities do not. A group of individuals can come together and reach an agreement of some kind about the collective use of their property--like maybe they all agree that they don't want any buildings to be constructed that are greater than 3 stories, for instance--but the group doesn't become the owner of that property, it still belongs to the individuals. If one individual decides to build a 4-story structure on their property one day, that's within their property rights to do so.

I'm not sure I'd really describe this as a State, personally, not until a monopoly is necessarily established, at least, and not so long as rights are exclusive to individuals.

[osan]

Back to your first post, when you say "any sort of coercive interaction between people is illegitimate" - would it still be considered "coercive interaction" if people previously agreed that the interaction could be a consequence to some action by them?

Here we are speaking of contractual agreements. Contracts, while binding of one person to another through the force of law, are rarely if ever absolute in terms of the power of law to bind.

Recall there are six elements to contracts. When all six conditions are satisfied, a contract exists between the parties thereto. What it means is that the parties to the contract are bound by force of law, which ultimately reduces to the point of the sword, to abide by the various stipulations of the agreement.

But what happens when a party is unwilling to remain bound? How far can the "law" hold a party to said contract responsible for making good on his promises? More significantly, what happens when, through no fault of his own, a party to a contract is unable to fulfill his obligations?

We have in hand entire bodies of contract law that answer these questions, but are these properly reasoned normative dictates? Or are they perhaps prescriptive mandates with no explicit connection to fundamental principles? I do not know the answer to those questions.

Part of my point in this is that people "believe" that they have a right to self-organize and live in a society that adheres to their worldviews.

People also used to believe the world was flat and that it was a really good idea to burn people at the stake who were accused of witchcraft. Belief does not of necessity make right.

Some people want to live in a state/community that is free of drugs, prostitution and all of the other "terrible" victimless-crimes. Is that wrong? I say it's not, they certainly should be allowed, just like liberty people who want to self-organize to a free state.

While I would agree with you that there is nothing wrong with the desire, such wishes function smoothly only in vacuo. The moment you attempt to put it into practice, everything turns rapidly to crap, especially in this time of perpetual data storming where isolation of any community becomes a virtual impossibility. Add to that the fact that human beings are not fungible units in any way, and the high improbability of such communities continuing beyond a few mere decades at best, becomes apparent.

For example: let us say a group of perfectly like-minded people decided to purchase 1 million acres of ground and establish a community. Their desires are precisely as you state - no prostitution, drugs, homosexuality, and so on down some list. I would at first point out that the longer that list becomes, the more difficult it will be to find people to go in on the adventure. Likewise, the more fundamental the required element, e.g., no *****ness, the more difficult. Forget the fact that people are wont in the heat of excitement to deem themselves more flexible on certain points than they prove in practice. But for this example, they are PERFECTLY like-minded.

Fine. Utopiaville is established and the people there are perfectly happy. No ho' on the corner, no ***** to poison the minds and tempt the flesh. No drugs, violence, smelly nasty black people... you get the picture. Just a perfect place with perfect people. But then something happens: John and Jane Meaner discover that pregnancy has happened. In time, more and more couples manage to breed and in ten years a new generation begins arising and those children, God bless them, are all turning out as perfect copies of their parents. But then one day, about 14 years in, one of the offspring decides that maybe he'd like to try a joint. Or maybe in his travels, he spied a sweet, jiggly, provocative, swivelly ho' on a corner, one tit out advertising her trade and he say to himself, "AAAAAAWWWWOOOOOOOOOO.... me's gwyine git me some'O'dat.... mmmm mmmm MMMMMMm..." Little Fauntleroy discovers the joys of committment-free screwing and he will NOT be persuaded otherwise.

Is his "community" (WTF does it even mean, "[my|your|his|our|their] community"???) within their rights to force him to abstain from dipping his wick at the town bordello? Are they within their rights to force him out?

No matter how perfectly homogeneous a population may be today, tomorrow it WILL be different. What do the people of Utopiaville do when one of their children grows into the most flaming, screaming queen on the planet, his feet never coming within 12" of the ground? Have they the right to boot him or force him not to be *****? Can they force him to "pray away the gay"?

These brands of community arrangements fail, and do so precisely because there is no guarantee that subsequent generational additions to the community will be either willing or even able to comply with "community" standards.

Imagine another couple - white as lillies - produce a very black-looking child. The community says "no icky black people allowed". Mom and dad get DNA tests and it turns out that not only is the child theirs, but a freakish combinatorial outcome made dominant the recessive "black" genes one of the parents carried from generations past when some great-great-great-great-great-great-great grand mammy got her genes into the mix by some naughtiness with a white boy. The genes are all there, only hidden... until now.

What can the community then do? Force them out? Kill them? Shun?

These are but a mere taste of the brands of troubles that arise when overly restrictive and intolerant communities arise. Force becomes their nature in time precisely because it is the only way to make people act as if they were something they are not. Little Rayon is gay as the flowers of the field and everyone knows it; yet, they are willing to turn a blind eye as they lie to themselves that it is not so, as long as little Rayon doesn't act *****.

The depths and breadth and height of human stupidity is simply staggering.

One size does not fit all.

Title of a book I'm writing. Therefore, brilliant.

Of course problems start to arise when people want to impose their anti-liberty coercive acts on others like we have now, but what's really the root problem? I say the root problem isn't that there is a coercive state, it's that all arable land on the planet has a coercive state (more or less)- there is no place that a liberty lover can "just leave" to. It's all locked up.

I submit that there is an often unseen yet critical principle of liberty in this, that could be derived from the CP, which goes something like this:

An individual has a right to not be forced by others into a series of options which would guarantee the lose of life, liberty or property.
(Got that osan? Do you agree? Can you phrase this better?)

Sure I agree. We see this brand of evil depicted in film all the time when the bad guy offers options that screw the victim no matter how they choose. To your point, there really is no place a man may even squat now. It's all owned, if by nobody else, then by the "state".

IMO, this speaks to the truth of the notion of over-population. Some ninny here, years ago, stated that the planet not only could support 100 billion people, but had to add that he could not wait for it to be the case. That opinion required a very special brand of willful ignorance for which I am not confident there could be a cure. We can barely sustain the current 7+ billions, and those only with the aid of massive use of synthetic fertilizers and GMOs. Wait until the day comes those are no longer available. BILLIONS will die within 1 year because between the sheer numbers of bodies to fill with food and the widespread destruction of topsoil worldwide, there is no possible way we could maintain the current levels of agribusiness output. Europe and the USA would be hosed in grand fashion - more so than much of the rest of the world because we depend upon petroleum artifice to produce our edible vegetation. Remember the dustbowl? Why, in the intervening years, have we been able to recover? Did the soils miraculously recover from one season to the next? No. The rule of thumb for the establishment of topsoil is, minimally, 100 years per inch of depth. The 6-12 feet of topsoil lost in America alone would take well over ten thousand years to replenish. We flushed it all into the sea in under 100 years. Good going.

Remove our food producing inventions and the population would fall by 90% in a year, no questions. Between starvation and being shot or clubbed to death by others attempting to avoid same, life here would be a bleak, brutish, and short affair for the vast majority of people who know nothing of what it means to go truly and terrifyingly hungry.

That's exactly what we face today, and IMO, it is a better talking point than arguing against statism. In other words, we should be arguing against the lack of options to statism, we need to be teaching people that it's wrong to force people into lose-lose situations like they are doing.

Agreed. As the old Wendy's ads used to quip: "one choice is no choice".

[osan]

Question: given what we have thus far, where to next?

[otherone]

Question: given what we have thus far, where to next?

The Bastille!

[Bryan]

So, the MCP is a starting place for developing a morality, but even it is not complete. Any axiomatic system is going to require more than one postulate, as well as a variety of 'operations' that will enable new "truths" to be discovered. A system with only one axiom can produce nothing but tautologies. What are the other postulates? I'm not sure right off the top of my head, but I'm sure it'd be an interesting discussion.

Excellent analysis, as with osan, it is agreed that the matter of crimes has to be managed. I am arguing that this management is not something that can be explicitly defined by the CP however since it requires systems that will be imperfect. I am saying that we have a second axiom of “justice”, which I define as:

Justice: People should be held accountable for crimes they commit.

This is symbiotic to the CP insomuch that justice serves the needs of the CP and that the CP could not sustain with justice. I cover this and the isseue of crimes in some detail in this post here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5826926

[Bryan]

Question: given what we have thus far, where to next?

Looking for some response to this post here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5826926

Specifically on issues of...

• Is justice a separate pillar from the CP?
• Are "honest markets" a separate pillar from the CP?
• Are there any other possible separate pillars?

Beyond that, the to-do list includes:
* A next logical step in the area of justice would be to identify principles that will minimize the imperfect nature of the system.

[Bryan]

I don't think it's a matter of how long they want their 'state' to exist, it's just the reality. They can't sell any land within their boundaries to anyone unless they're also willing to shrink the size of the geographical region of their 'state'. All they can do is rent out land to those who are willing to be renters that will comply to their rules.

I’m basically agree with you, but I think we should be clear on our terms. These will play in well in the development of our PRH discussion so I see them worth pursuing.

Here is what I’m starting off with, based on common law, in the beginning there is just:
Uninhabited land – land that has no owner

Through a process of “right of first ownership” (a major topic on its own) one can claim ownership of land. With this ownership we can define:
Allodial land ownership –ownership of real property to the highest order by an individual not subject to any authority.

A person that owns Allodial land can do one of the following:
Abandon – return the land to “uninhabited” by leaving the land without sale. Die without an established heir.
Sell / transfer the Allodial land - this could be done by a direct sale or by contract such as a will with the establishment of an heir.
Sell “fee simple / real estate ownership” rights – allows for a time unlimited usage of a real property subject to terms established by the Allodial land owner.
Lease / rent – allows for a time limited usage based on the terms of a lease agreement. Allow for guaranteed right based on the terms of the lease provided the terms of the lease are maintained in good standing.
Grant “shared ownership” – an agreement could be made to have two or more equal owners of the land.
Sell off the Allodial land rights but retain other usage rights
Place a lien on the land – an agreement could be made such that the Allodial land owner agrees to back their part of the agreement with their land ownership.

Note 1: this list can use some work.
Note 2- these transactions could all be done in parts or whole, so a part of land can be sold or leased, etc. As well, the owner could grant shared ownership by merging their land into a larger parcel.


So with this we have the following types of land:

• Uninhabited land
• Allodial land
• Real estate
• Leased land
• land that has a lien

From here I see some very key questions that need answering, including:
* Does one have the right to Allodial land ownership within the scope of proper human relations (PHR)?
* What are the terms of “right of first ownership” that are acceptable to claim Allodial land ownership within the scope of PHR?
* How does one prove Allodial land ownership within the scope of PHR?
* What constitutes abandonment within the scope of PHR?
* What become of land / improvements for land that is abandon within the scope of PHR? (Example, your neighbor dies with no heirs – is it first-come first-served to their belongings?)

Obviously some of these points are very well established within a state but…

I am interested in the anti-statists view too. What say you?

I think the first question can easily be seen as “yes” by deriving it from the CP. All other points however seem subjective in their nature and possibly require the definition of a new axiom.

So, practicality issues begin to emerge here, if their goal is to rule over people, or do much with all that land they evidently have. I find that most people tend to want to own their homes, rather than be renters, and I can't imagine that would change much. This is not to say that there would not be renters, of course.

Agreed.

If we're to abide by property rights theory in the libertarian tradition for this scenario, property rights emerge from self-ownership, thus only individual humans have property rights. Non-human entities do not. A group of individuals can come together and reach an agreement of some kind about the collective use of their property--like maybe they all agree that they don't want any buildings to be constructed that are greater than 3 stories, for instance--but the group doesn't become the owner of that property, it still belongs to the individuals. If one individual decides to build a 4-story structure on their property one day, that's within their property rights to do so.

Even if the individual signed a contract / agreement not to?

I'm not sure I'd really describe this as a State, personally, not until a monopoly is necessarily established, at least, and not so long as rights are exclusive to individuals.

A key point however, is that other people consider it a state, because, well, they want to. Does this matter? I say yes - and that if you want to deliver a political message to them (don't force your rules on me) it's not very fruitful to tell them they are wrong in what they consider a state. Regardless of the criteria for what a state is, people can want to live in a state, regardless of how bad the parameters are, and that is their choice.

[nayjevin]

Justice:

• “To sustain liberty (and the CP), individuals that commit crimes need to be brought to justice (regardless if they like it or not).”

Justice is not a place to take criminals, it's a condition of satisfied restitution.

[nayjevin]

Could you explain the problems? Whose problems would it be? I don't see how there can be problems with any of the group of individuals since they have voluntarily agreed to all terms.

The crux IMO is whether individuals bound to the contract have agreed to be bound by it - IOW is the contract valid? If so, it's not a state for most useful linguistic purposes. If within that contract are the rules for when and who will presume liberty to coerce, then that coercion is valid. I contract that I must do the dishes or face the lynch mob, then the lynch mob is legally justified later this afternoon.

[Cabal]

From here I see some very key questions that need answering, including:
* Does one have the right to Allodial land ownership within the scope of proper human relations (PHR)?
* What are the terms of “right of first ownership” that are acceptable to claim Allodial land ownership within the scope of PHR?
* How does one prove Allodial land ownership within the scope of PHR?
* What constitutes abandonment within the scope of PHR?
* What become of land / improvements for land that is abandon within the scope of PHR? (Example, your neighbor dies with no heirs – is it first-come first-served to their belongings?)

Obviously some of these points are very well established within a state but…

I am interested in the anti-statists view too. What say you?

I'm still mulling over osan's OP regarding CP and PHR. From what I gather though it's not too far removed from what I generally operate from: self-ownership -> property rights -> NAP (for the sake of brevity). So, I'd defer to osan if these questions are specifically for the PHR that he has been discussing.

Even if the individual signed a contract / agreement not to?

In such a scenario, I imagine there'd be some kind of contract that they all voluntarily agreed to, verbal, formal/documented, or otherwise. The issue with contracts/agreements is consent is independent of time. One can consent to some agreement, and change their mind down the road, and wish to withdraw that consent to exit the agreement. Obviously this could create problems if an exit strategy is not stipulated within a contract/agreement. So, all contracts need to provide a way to withdraw consent, or exit the agreement that satisfies all parties--that all parties agree with when they agree to the contract.

So, sure, it would be very likely that this group agreed to a contract (e.g. we won't build structures over 3 stories high on our land), but if one of them decides he wants a structure 4 stories high, particularly if he values a 4-story structure on his land more than he values what he may lose by exiting the contract, he should be able to exit that contract in the manner agreed upon. The only way he'd lose his right to do this is if he forfeited or bestowed his property rights to that land to someone else.

A key point however, is that other people consider it a state, because, well, they want to. Does this matter? I say yes - and that if you want to deliver a political message to them (don't force your rules on me) it's not very fruitful to tell them they are wrong in what they consider a state. Regardless of the criteria for what a state is, people can want to live in a state, regardless of how bad the parameters are, and that is their choice.

Of course. Some people may very well choose to live in what some may regard to be a State. I imagine that many people may have many different preferences about what kind of community or society they'd like to live in, were it up to them. I don't presume to know what's best for them or anyone but myself. And that's ultimately the point, and what is being expected in return. In a sense, that's kind of the root of libertarianism, too--we all have subjective valuations and preferences and who is anyone to force their preferences and valuations upon someone else? Anti-statism as a political ideology, if you want to call it that, from the context of my perspective is just a conclusion that's extrapolated from this fundamental basis of consent and voluntar(y)ism, given how States are characterized by how involuntary they tend to be.

So sure, if people desire to live in what some may regard as a "State," that's their choice. It's only when that choice is forced onto anyone else that doesn't share their preference for that "State" that it becomes a problem. Where there is consent there is no issue.

[Mr Tansill]

Excellent analysis, as with osan, it is agreed that the matter of crimes has to be managed. I am arguing that this management is not something that can be explicitly defined by the CP however since it requires systems that will be imperfect. I am saying that we have a second axiom of “justice”, which I define as:

Justice: People should be held accountable for crimes they commit.

This is symbiotic to the CP insomuch that justice serves the needs of the CP and that the CP could not sustain with justice. I cover this and the isseue of crimes in some detail in this post here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5826926

Thanks Bryan.

My interest is to codify a moral system in simple predicate logic. From something like this, one could write a program which would then be able to "derive" laws and regulations (or morals) which were consistent with first principles. As a corollary, it would then allow laws which have been written in a society to, in turn, be compared against any "set" of moral axioms in order to determine if they were "just" (i.e. consistent with the most basic moral framework of that society).

My hypothesis is that there are many laws that are built into our system now which are inconsistent with the principles we hold dear, but it is difficult to argue or advocate for (or against) certain points of view because of the manner and methods many people use to argue (i.e. abuse logic/use logical fallacies). Having codified laws (or requiring laws to be codified) in formal logic would prevent this type of reasoning from being persuasive, and would provide us the "authority" to which we appeal when asking questions whose answers we disagree on. In the system I talk about, any disagreement would be immediately reduced to a disagreement about a first principle: an axiom - which would then highlight the absurdity of certain viewpoints (i.e. "all people are not born equal").

I like Osan's general vector, but in the system I envision, the CP would not serve the purpose I desire; it goes too far too quickly, and isn't simple enough.

[osan]

Note 1: this list can use some work.
Note 2- these transactions could all be done in parts or whole, so a part of land can be sold or leased, etc. As well, the owner could grant shared ownership by merging their land into a larger parcel.

Not in the spirit to address this, though at first blush the list looks pretty good.

From here I see some very key questions that need answering, including:
* Does one have the right to Allodial land ownership within the scope of proper human relations (PHR)?

IMO, if an action constitutes no crime, you hold the right to it. If holding allodial title can be demonstrated as criminal, then you have no right to such title. I see no possible way such ownership could be criminal, therefore yes, you hold all right to obtain, keep, and dispose of land that is titled allodially.

* What are the terms of “right of first ownership” that are acceptable to claim Allodial land ownership within the scope of PHR?

I'm here first. This $#@! is mine, bitches.

* How does one prove Allodial land ownership within the scope of PHR?

Now THAT is a really good question; one that could prove tricky in real practice, under certain circumstances. I would think that "normally" speaking, it would not be a very difficult thing. But there could be those niche-situations where conflicts arise. The most obvious would be if, during the earliest days of life in the New World, I were to claim the area that is now Pennsylvania as mine. By the precepts of PHR, I would be within my rights, assuming no Indians and so forth. But the practical truth of it is that were I to make so large a claim, I would hve to be prepared to defend it from all comers with willingness and ability to kill each and every one. Forty acres and a mule are a lot less resource intensive in those terms than, say, all of New England.

And what about when you claim land that is inhabited in part by people with no concept of land ownership? Now things get messy... usually stained red all over, unfortunately.

* What constitutes abandonment within the scope of PHR?

I would call this possibly an issue of tertiary derivation. It is more along the lines of a guideline for practice. I wonder whether a one-size-fits-all principle intended to be all things to all situations can actually be contrived to address these sorts of issues. You should put this one on the TBD list because I think it is important.

* What become of land / improvements for land that is abandon within the scope of PHR? (Example, your neighbor dies with no heirs – is it first-come first-served to their belongings?)

I would say, "yes". If we have an objective means of establishing a state of abandonment for property - ANY property - then it is a catch as catch can sort of practical situation. The fact that "the state" now gets to keep it all cannot be supported in valid logic.

Obviously some of these points are very well established within a state but…

I am interested in the anti-statists view too. What say you?

I think there are times when conflicts may have to be settled with violence. I know that this will not be a popular answer, but I submit that justice is not perfect. Therefore, expecting it to be is futility itself. Example: two men lay claim to the same land. Who shall get it? Imagine each is hell-bent on having it and neither can concretely establish having been there first. So far as anyone can tell, the arrived at opposite ends of the same valley at exactly the same moment.

They could reach some agreement, the most likely outcome. They could agree to binding third-party arbitration. But what if they do not? What if each lays claim to the entire tract and will not budge an inch? To further exacerbate the situation, each is claiming the exact same building site for their houses.

Are they within their rights to fight each other for the land? I say that they most definitely are, so long as the fighting is consensual, even if death of one or both is the result. Again, many will chafe at this, deeming it impossibly brutal and uncivil. Right on both counts, actually; that is the part of proper freedom that people do not want, which is why they opt for pretty slavery.

What if one wishes to fight but the other refuses? Clearly the fighter cannot unilaterally attack the non-fighter since he has no real basis... or does he? His claim to property is being threatened by another. If he really believes the property is his, does he not have a right to defend that claim? There's a sticky wicket for your mental mastication.

Now, consider another situation where I have a house on the site in question and the other guy decides he's going to have it. In defense of my established right, I shoot out his ghost and that is the end of it. I have acted correctly within my just right to defense of self and other property.

If, OTOH, the other guy kills me or simply drives me off the land, what then? I'd say a posse is formed and the man is apprehended to stand trial for murder or, at the very least battery and theft.

This raises the question of when, if ever, are third-parties morally authorized to interfere if neither party to a conflict beckons help? I do not have a definite answer to this, as yet, but I suspect the answer may be "never". OTOH, if I as a third party witness to the attack of one man upon another for the property in question, I am by principle well within my right to come to the aid of the man being beaten, certainly if he asks it and even if he does not - he may be incapable of asking, perhaps because he is too badly pummeled or too frightened. But if I offer to step in and he says "no!", I believe I am morally obligated to step off no matter what the outcome.

[Bryan]

Here we are speaking of contractual agreements. Contracts, while binding of one person to another through the force of law, are rarely if ever absolute in terms of the power of law to bind.

Do you say this this is true in terms of our systems today or for what is PHRs? What is the theoretical support that is that they should not be bound to law? We also need to establish what “law” is within this framework.

Recall there are six elements to contracts. When all six conditions are satisfied, a contract exists between the parties thereto. What it means is that the parties to the contract are bound by force of law, which ultimately reduces to the point of the sword, to abide by the various stipulations of the agreement.

For completeness, could you please list out the six elements. Can we agree to derive contracts and their support under the “honest markets” axiom?

But what happens when a party is unwilling to remain bound? How far can the "law" hold a party to said contract responsible for making good on his promises? More significantly, what happens when, through no fault of his own, a party to a contract is unable to fulfill his obligations?

We have in hand entire bodies of contract law that answer these questions, but are these properly reasoned normative dictates? Or are they perhaps prescriptive mandates with no explicit connection to fundamental principles? I do not know the answer to those questions.

These are all excellent open-ended questions that IMO, have no perfect solution. We earlier established the need to criminal justice, can we agree this establishes the need for contract management protocols (ie: Contract Law) and “contract justice”, if you will. Thus we have a new front where we can work to define potential principles of what makes up good contract law / justice vs. not. Obviously systems for this are already in place which serve a good baseline so questions could be asked: What is good about them? What is flawed and should be changed?

People also used to believe the world was flat and that it was a really good idea to burn people at the stake who were accused of witchcraft. Belief does not of necessity make right.

There was a reason I put “believe” in quotes, I carried that from Tod’s post, I completely agree however, belief is not needed here.

While I would agree with you that there is nothing wrong with the desire, such wishes function smoothly only in vacuo.

The first key principles we can established here then is that:

Individual have the right to self-organize and impose rules upon themselves.

This is easily derived from the CP, it really doesn’t matter how functional such organizations are.

The moment you attempt to put it into practice, everything turns rapidly to crap, especially in this time of perpetual data storming where isolation of any community becomes a virtual impossibility. Add to that the fact that human beings are not fungible units in any way, and the high improbability of such communities continuing beyond a few mere decades at best, becomes apparent.

For example: let us say a group of perfectly like-minded people decided to purchase 1 million acres of ground and establish a community. Their desires are precisely as you state - no prostitution, drugs, homosexuality, and so on down some list. I would at first point out that the longer that list becomes, the more difficult it will be to find people to go in on the adventure. Likewise, the more fundamental the required element, e.g., no *****ness, the more difficult. Forget the fact that people are wont in the heat of excitement to deem themselves more flexible on certain points than they prove in practice. But for this example, they are PERFECTLY like-minded.

Fine. Utopiaville is established and the people there are perfectly happy. No ho' on the corner, no ***** to poison the minds and tempt the flesh. No drugs, violence, ... you get the picture. Just a perfect place with perfect people. But then something happens: John and Jane Meaner discover that pregnancy has happened. In time, more and more couples manage to breed and in ten years a new generation begins arising and those children, God bless them, are all turning out as perfect copies of their parents. But then one day, about 14 years in, one of the offspring decides that maybe he'd like to try a joint. Or maybe in his travels, he spied a sweet, jiggly, provocative, swivelly ho' on a corner, one tit out advertising her trade and he say to himself, "AAAAAAWWWWOOOOOOOOOO.... me's gwyine git me some'O'dat.... mmmm mmmm MMMMMMm..." Little Fauntleroy discovers the joys of committment-free screwing and he will NOT be persuaded otherwise.

Is his "community" (WTF does it even mean, "[my|your|his|our|their] community"???) within their rights to force him to abstain from dipping his wick at the town bordello? Are they within their rights to force him out?

No matter how perfectly homogeneous a population may be today, tomorrow it WILL be different. What do the people of Utopiaville do when one of their children grows into the most flaming, screaming queen on the planet, his feet never coming within 12" of the ground? Have they the right to boot him or force him not to be *****? Can they force him to "pray away the gay"?

You bring up some great point that need addressing. First however, this decay can happen in a pro-liberty community as well, new off spring can decide they don’t want some of the elements so this doesn’t just apply to “Utopiaville”. This brings up an entire different front of issues: children.

We could start off with does the CP and all of its derived principles apply to children? Does a newborn have “liberty” such that no one should violate it by forcing it to eat? Obviously some of this is very simple but lines can start to get blurred too as in your example.

Question: Can “youth” issues be eliminated based on the construct of society? It seems self-evident to be impossible which necessitates an entire group of principles to deal with, principles that will be imperfect in their nature and implementation. Again, while they are imperfect they are logically necessary in the definition of PHR.

Perhaps we can agree on two simple ‘states’ of being for a person:
- They are a youth and are under the care and direction of a parent or guardian. The parent / guardian has a degree of responsibility for the youth.
- They are an adult and self-responsible.

So when does one transition from youth to adult? That is a different issue for later.

In the case of what do to with the rebellions youth in “Utopiaville” or any similar construct, the answers however can be quite simple- it depends what the contract agreement says. Possibly, so long as they are a youth their parents are responsible for them to adhere to the constructs of the Utopiaville. As the youth assume self-responsibility they have one of two choices:
• Continue residing in Utopiaville and follow the established “rules”.
• Move out of Utopiaville.

Here is where there can be a problem however, the residence of Utopiaville need to make sure that they do not violate the principles of forcing someone into a situation that guarantees the loss of life, liberty or property.

It could be debatable that within the course of PHR does Utopiaville have the right to maintain its constructs from generation to generation so long as it maintains their own self-defined constructs? I would argue it does.

These brands of community arrangements fail, and do so precisely because there is no guarantee that subsequent generational additions to the community will be either willing or even able to comply with "community" standards.

...

These are but a mere taste of the brands of troubles that arise when overly restrictive and intolerant communities arise. Force becomes their nature in time precisely because it is the only way to make people act as if they were something they are not. Little Rayon is gay as the flowers of the field and everyone knows it; yet, they are willing to turn a blind eye as they lie to themselves that it is not so, as long as little Rayon doesn't act *****.

The depths and breadth and height of human stupidity is simply staggering.


Sure I agree. We see this brand of evil depicted in film all the time when the bad guy offers options that screw the victim no matter how they choose. To your point, there really is no place a man may even squat now. It's all owned, if by nobody else, then by the "state".

IMO, this speaks to the truth of the notion of over-population. Some ninny here, years ago, stated that the planet not only could support 100 billion people, but had to add that he could not wait for it to be the case. That opinion required a very special brand of willful ignorance for which I am not confident there could be a cure. We can barely sustain the current 7+ billions, and those only with the aid of massive use of synthetic fertilizers and GMOs. Wait until the day comes those are no longer available. BILLIONS will die within 1 year because between the sheer numbers of bodies to fill with food and the widespread destruction of topsoil worldwide, there is no possible way we could maintain the current levels of agribusiness output. Europe and the USA would be hosed in grand fashion - more so than much of the rest of the world because we depend upon petroleum artifice to produce our edible vegetation. Remember the dustbowl? Why, in the intervening years, have we been able to recover? Did the soils miraculously recover from one season to the next? No. The rule of thumb for the establishment of topsoil is, minimally, 100 years per inch of depth. The 6-12 feet of topsoil lost in America alone would take well over ten thousand years to replenish. We flushed it all into the sea in under 100 years. Good going.

Issues of overpopulation are another class all together. The first issue is, what really is over population? How can you really quantify it? People per acre? People vs. food supply on the market? All of this is extremely subjective, consider that some could argue that anything more than 10 people per square mile is over-populated since it restricts roaming in open plains.

Beyond that, if one concludes we are over populated, what are the possible solutions to over population and do they violate the CP?
- Kill people – a clear violation of the CP.
- Limit people’s ability to have children – another violation of the CP and what China is doing.
- Kill yourself – OK, but there aren’t many takers here…
- Limit your own children – no issues here…
- Educate others on the issues of over population – again no issues, but that doesn’t guarantee anything.

[Bryan]

Justice is not a place to take criminals, it's a condition of satisfied restitution.

Can you explain in more detail, please?

[nayjevin]

In the case of what do to with the rebellions youth in “Utopiaville” or any similar construct, the answers however can be quite simple- it depends what the contract agreement says. Possibly, so long as they are a youth their parents are responsible for them to adhere to the constructs of the Utopiaville. As the youth assume self-responsibility they have one of two choices:
• Continue residing in Utopiaville and follow the established “rules”.
• Move out of Utopiaville.

Different contract classes for minors. Rights and responsibilities rest on the child or the guardian, depending on the contract.

I think it's a mistake to envision a homogenous attempt and how it will inevitably fail. Sustainability is adaptability, in that a society needs variety and innovation, particularly in contracts. So not a homeowner's association one-size-fits-all join or don't contract, but a reasonable degree of individualization.

[nayjevin]

Can you explain in more detail, please?

It was the phrase 'bring to justice.' The justice system is too focused on punishment. I can imagine that a victim's family might seek punishment of the offender as an end in itself for serious crimes, but for so many crimes, like theft, punishment is used while the fact that it's a property rights violation gets forgotten. The victim of theft just needs his sandwich back, and something for the trouble. Out of control justice system tends to criminalize and punish sandwich thiefs rather than mediate and oversee collection of debt. All the while politicians will be bragging that they will bring undesirables to justice.

[otherone]

It was the phrase 'bring to justice.' The justice system is too focused on punishment. I can imagine that a victim's family might seek punishment of the offender as an end in itself for serious crimes, but for so many crimes, like theft, punishment is used while the fact that it's a property rights violation gets forgotten. The victim of theft just needs his sandwich back, and something for the trouble. Out of control justice system tends to criminalize and punish sandwich thiefs rather than mediate and oversee collection of debt. All the while politicians will be bragging that they will bring undesirables to justice.

Weregild...the Norse had it right.

[osan]

Do you say this this is true in terms of our systems today or for what is PHRs?

It is current legal reality in America. Contracts can be broken, but usually at some cost to those who breach. There are also other factors in play. For example, if you decide the tell the cable company to take a hike after, say, 2 months of a 12 month contract, is it really worth the thousands of dollars to drag you into court for a $700 promise to pay? From the pure numbers standpoint, no. But from the standpoint of what the rest of the world sees, it might be.

What is the theoretical support that is that they should not be bound to law?

Under ordinary circumstances, I am not sure there is any. But there are the cases of inability. If I die, end up in a wheelchair taking meals from straws, go bankrupt, and so on, what shall the other parties do, foreclose on my wife's underwear?

The other side of the question is this: should parties be able to make a contract become a prison to other parties? I guess the real issue to which all this boils down is what is the purpose of a contract - what utility does it serve? From there, perhaps answers begin to arise. Notwithstanding, it seems clear that the larger the stakes, the more tightly bound the parties may become.

We also need to establish what “law” is within this framework.

This is right thinking.

For completeness, could you please list out the six elements. Can we agree to derive contracts and their support under the “honest markets” axiom?

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Capacity
4. Consideration
5. Intent to enter into legal relations
6. Lawfulness

Someone must be making an offer. The offer must be accepted. There must exist the capacity to enter into a contract, e.g., mental competency. If I gain acceptance from drooling grandma to sign over her billions to me, chances are pretty good that a legal challenge will strike down my perfidy.

Consideration means that contracts cannot by definition be one-sided. All parties to a contract must receive something of equal value or else there is no exchange and thereby no contract.

There must be an explicit intent to be bound to the other parties by legality. This way, coercion proven renders a "contract" null and void.

A contract cannot exist where criminality is involved in the stipulations thereto. Therefore, "contract killing" is an oxymoron.

These are all excellent open-ended questions that IMO, have no perfect solution.

And that is one of the most important realizations. We in America have lost our way in the blind belief that justice can be perfect. This is at least part of the reason why the body of our statutory law is so morbidly bloated. In seeking perfect answers to all issues, we legislate and then legislate more. When there is no further room for legislation, we keep cranking out the sausages. This is a symptom of profound perceptual disease.

We earlier established the need to criminal justice,

Yet we have not rigorously defined what the term actually means. Without definition, we cannot continue on to defining the metes, bounds, and nature of criminal justice. Who dispenses it? By what authority? I assert that the vast majority of criminal justice is the bailiwick of the common man. If another man violates me or mine, I stand centrally within my right to dispense just treatment. Some disagree, asking "who are YOU to judge?" Who in hell is a robed judge to judge? I firmly believe that leaving most of this up to us is the only right way to go. To that, others will wring their hands saying, "if we allowed that, people would be killing each other left and right for no good reasons... " and so forth like nervous nellies. I say that this worry is a non-issue.

Firstly, by and large people are not murderous lunatics. Were that the case, nary a man would be standing in the USA, given our firm endowment of firearms. Yes, you would have the occasional man killing someone who took a stick of gum without permission, but such cases I contend would be passing rare. Why? Mainly because people are not like that. Also, taking action against another man is always risk-laden. To begin with, he may fight back and win, in which case your life may be forfeit. How many people out there do we believe will risk violent death for a stick of Wrigley's Spearmint? Next, even if I kill that nasty little pud who took my gum, I suspect his family and friends are going to be über-pissed because I killed their kin over stupid gum. Those are three strong reasons why people will not run wildly amok as some predict. We could go on.

can we agree this establishes the need for contract management protocols (ie: Contract Law) and “contract justice”, if you will.

In vaguely stated principle, yes. Once again, the definitions are needed and then it must be VERY carefully contrived in terms of what, by whom, and by what authority. Once again I must defer to the individual as the ultimate authority. If two men contract with each other and the one reneges, his reputation may suffer - so there is one risk he bears for breach. Granted, this is a risk only in a culture where reputation matters, which is mainly not the case in 21st century America. OTOH, such persons would not count for much in a free land and would likely die by their own devices, in time.

This is the beauty of true freedom: not everyone makes it, most often due to the poor choices they make. And so it should be, IMO. This is actually a good thing that men of low character die by their own design. No, it is not pretty, I admit, but it is still the right way. We as men have the capacity for choice, right or wrong. When we choose well, we profit in our lives. When poorly done, our choices lead to degradation, disparagement, and at times death. But part of the beauty of freedom is its broad forgiveness in most cases of error. Those who choose poorly at point A most often have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and do better at point B. Some will not make it past A but those are the rarest cases. How many stupid teenage pranks end up in death? Nearly none, proportionally speaking. The world forgives much, so far as I can see.

One thing I promise to all men of this world is that true and proper human freedom would establish a new inter-human equilibrium. People, on the whole, would actually be smarter than they are now, and in ways that actually count for something. People would learn the true meaning of respect for his fellows, for one thing, and that would drive much of his decision-making process. This can only be a good thing as it empowers and further frees one to do as he pleases. Enlightened self-interest will lead the common man to the virtues of personal restraint, decent behavior, and fully aware respect for his fellows. Of this I am absolutely certain. Consider some of the reasons why: we live in a time of plenty where disease is not the issue it once was, nor hunger and so forth. Life is good and beautiful. Why would I jeopardize this by mistreating my neighbor? What's the motivation? There really is none. As for mentally deranged people - we have those now and they kill or maim or rob or rape all the same, despite laws to the contrary. But in the free world of men, such individuals would likely meet with sad ends and that, while after a fashion regrettable, is on the balance a cause for joy because goodness once again trumps evil.

All of the fears so many people hold with regard to real freedom, "chaos" being at the forefront, are based on assumptions that are readily destroyed in argumentation as I have so superficially demonstrated here.

Therefore, I say to your FEAR NOT. Do not recede into grasping instruments of control in order to allay the fears that nobody has ever established as representatives of positive reality. The moment your thoughts wander into "but we must have..." mode, put on the brakes and assume that you are wrong. Discover the underlying assumptions of that which drives your opinion and challenge them to proof. When you ask the right questions in the correct ways, most often such assumptions fall to the wayside as vapors and phantoms of nothing at all that has ever been real in any meaningful way. Clarity is the reward and clarity is pleasurable.

Many will still chafe and rebel at these notions. Why? Because they are morbidly afeared. But of what? Of their inability to trust that, under the right circumstances men will improve their behaviors and their ways of thinking. They don't even trust themselves. Such people may be lost causes, but so be it. Let them be consumed if that be their choice. I care not, for they are big girls and boys and are free to make such decisions for themselves. What they are not free to do is make them for me.

The transition to proper freedom would see horrors. Lots of them for a while. But that, too, is OK. Nothing comes without cost, nor instantly. Time, and terror for some, will be the price we pay for our fall into disgrace before God in terms of what we have allowed ourselves to become. This $#@! ain't getting fixed overnight. But I submit that it would not be much more than a year to two years before the adjustment was complete. Everything would change. The survival instinct would take over in most and life would go on, better than it had been before.

Thus we have a new front where we can work to define potential principles of what makes up good contract law / justice vs. not. Obviously systems for this are already in place which serve a good baseline so questions could be asked: What is good about them? What is flawed and should be changed?

Agreed. And as always, KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

What we have here is a golden opportunity to cull from the population of ideas those examples that are morbid and deleterious to the human spirit that yearns to be free. This could be a revolutionary thing we do here. But we must be of a stout constitution and intestinal fortitude because much of what I see involves the acceptance of truths that vat swaths of humanity reject out of hand. If we are true to reason and accept that to which it leads, we can be assured that whatever it is that may be born of this discussion, it will be correct, complete, and clear.

There was a reason I put “believe” in quotes, I carried that from Tod’s post, I completely agree however, belief is not needed here.

And in some respects it is not even valid. "I believe you need to be burned at the stake because you are a witch." Well good for you, $#@!. Come and try.

The first key principles we can established here then is that:

Individual have the right to self-organize and impose rules upon themselves.

This is easily derived from the CP, it really doesn’t matter how functional such organizations are.

I am thinking this is actually extraneous and possibly even harmful. This is expressed as a positive right. Would it not be more effective to maintain a voice of negative rights as far as possible? In this case it would be stated that "nobody holds the authority to prevent groups of individuals from organizing and imposing upon themselves rules as they may agree upon." I may be picking style-nits here... not sure, but something is buzzing in the back of my head saying "be careful here".

You bring up some great point that need addressing. First however, this decay can happen in a pro-liberty community as well, new off spring can decide they don’t want some of the elements so this doesn’t just apply to “Utopiaville”. This brings up an entire different front of issues: children.

Naturally, which is one reason the inculcation of the principles of PHR are so important. I do firmly believe that if you get them young, their senses of enlightened self-interest will keep them in the game of freedom. Johnny may be a lazy little **** with no innate interest in freedom in the broader sense. But he wants to be able to continue to butt-screw and not have to work, if he can avoid it. Therefore, it becomes his interest to make sure he remains free to make those choices. Janey, being an industrious Christian woman, is similarly interested in maintaining her freedom to keep the fruits of her industry and to be able to go to church on Sunday's without interference.

The notion of enlightened self-interest is yet another that should be taught the wee ones from their first steps, IMO. Attitude is 90% of everything in this world. Establish the right attitude early on and you best guarantee the lives of our posterity.

We could start off with does the CP and all of its derived principles apply to children?

This is one of the key questions that has buggered the discussion of rights and freedoms. And yet, I do not see it as a difficult issue, in principle.

Capacity is the predicator of the question. Does a given individual possess at a given time the capacity to do X? If yes, they are within their rights to exercise. If not, they remain outside of their majority. If a ten year old girl can safely operate her father's truck, I see no reason she should not enjoy the freedom to drive it on the roads. If Johnny is proven capable of responsibly carrying a gun on his hip for all morally right purposes, I see no reason to prevent him from doing so on the understanding that if he misuses his right, he suffers the full consequences.

Does a newborn have “liberty” such that no one should violate it by forcing it to eat?

Once again, think "capacity". Does a 3-day old infant possess the capacity to make such decisions for itself? Almost certainly not. Therefore, we as their stewards must interfere until such time as they attain their majority for such decisions.

Question: Can “youth” issues be eliminated based on the construct of society? It seems self-evident to be impossible which necessitates an entire group of principles to deal with, principles that will be imperfect in their nature and implementation. Again, while they are imperfect they are logically necessary in the definition of PHR.

I think we can have perfect principles that cannot yield consistently perfect results. The youth issues boil down to one thing: capacity. As the judging capacity... that is the parents' role and responsibility. I do not for one moment accept the notion of a one-size-fits-all (OSFA) rule for when a young person may or may not do X. Some kids are immature idiots well into adulthood. Others are of an adult demeanor at 4 years of age. Beyond the more fundamental notions, OSFA is a VERY bad idea.

I would also point out that that which applies to this question of youth's rights is NOT a fundamental principle, but rather speaks to rules for determining how a fundamental principle applies to a give individual. Methinks this is a centrally crucial point that should remain center-stage of one's thoughts at all times. Learn how to distinguish a principle from a rule of application. The former should be immutable, whereas the latter may be admissible of being in some error, though of course it be our goal to be as correct as possible.

Perhaps we can agree on two simple ‘states’ of being for a person:
- They are a youth and are under the care and direction of a parent or guardian. The parent / guardian has a degree of responsibility for the youth.
- They are an adult and self-responsible.

Perhaps. How about this:

A child holds no general majority until age <??? pick an age ???>. However, majorities (capacities) for specific issues of consideration may be acknowledged by parents. If a child is deemed of majority on issue X, he is held to full responsibility for his actions on that issue and those directly relevant. If a parent deems the child in his capacity to do X, he is obliged to make the child aware that said child will then carry the full adult responsibility of his new prerogative.

Beyond age <??? pick an age ???>, you have attained your general majority and are free as an adult to pursue that which you choose. Similarly, you shall be liable for the consequences of your actions.

In the case of what do to with the rebellions youth in “Utopiaville” or any similar construct, the answers however can be quite simple- it depends what the contract agreement says. Possibly, so long as they are a youth their parents are responsible for them to adhere to the constructs of the Utopiaville. As the youth assume self-responsibility they have one of two choices:
• Continue residing in Utopiaville and follow the established “rules”.
• Move out of Utopiaville.

This seems reasonable on a practical level, but is it really? I think this deserves more attention.

Here is where there can be a problem however, the residence of Utopiaville need to make sure that they do not violate the principles of forcing someone into a situation that guarantees the loss of life, liberty or property.

And how can they avoid that when they say "no *****" and little Janey is über-ultra-gaylesbodyke? One CANNOT be born into a contract.

It could be debatable that within the course of PHR does Utopiaville have the right to maintain its constructs from generation to generation so long as it maintains their own self-defined constructs? I would argue it does.

Perhaps, but it is not at all clear to me.

Issues of overpopulation are another class all together. The first issue is, what really is over population? How can you really quantify it? People per acre? People vs. food supply on the market? All of this is extremely subjective, consider that some could argue that anything more than 10 people per square mile is over-populated since it restricts roaming in open plains.

I believe there are ways to quantify and characterize it. Just one simple example: the moment the demand for food rises to the point where synthetic fertilizers must be employed in order to satisfy, I would say you are flirting with "over-population". But I agree that the term is very loaded and that great care must be taken in its use. Perhaps I shall refrain from it for the remainder of this discussion.

Beyond that, if one concludes we are over populated, what are the possible solutions to over population and do they violate the CP?
- Kill people – a clear violation of the CP.
- Limit people’s ability to have children – another violation of the CP and what China is doing.
- Kill yourself – OK, but there aren’t many takers here…
- Limit your own children – no issues here…
- Educate others on the issues of over population – again no issues, but that doesn’t guarantee anything.

Good list. At some point, however, when population crush becomes such that people cannot stand it, have they the right to initiate violence in order to retrieve what is for them an acceptable circumstance? I say yet. But the rest also hold the equal right to fight them.

I would say that self-governance along the lines of proper human relations takes care of this question, though not prettily in cases such as this.

At some point, humans dispense with principle and act in accord with mid-brain drives. This fact must be accepted or we end up in the same place we now find ourselves: deep in the kimchee.

I will reiterate unto thine violent nausea: proper freedom does not have all happy-endings. Ugliness and tragedy are part and parcel of freedom. If this is not accepted, not met with "but what about...", then the race of men is truly lost and we may as well stop right now, crack a beer, and get ourselves nice and laid because there is really nothing else left.