Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 83 of 83

Thread: The Cardinal Postulate: Definition, Analysis & Logical Consequences

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    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.
    Well said.

    The only place where absolute OSFA reigns is at the lowest level principles - the CP, the first derivative principles, and perhaps one level more, or two. Beyond that, we are rapidly encroaching upon the territory of individual prerogative.

    Perhaps a rule of contracts is that perpetuities be banned. This would prevent contractual stipulations from devolving upon future generations and would allow for precisely the flexibility to which you refer.

    Very good thinking. Very insightful. Kudos to you.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    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.
    I am so very leery of anything called a "justice system". I believe the individual is the best arbiter of justice where he has been wronged. I MIGHT be amicable to courts, but they would have to be very adroitly defined, designed, and the rules regarding when they come into play very adeptly crafted, and so very narrowly. It is my firm belief that such bodies should be convened only under the most extraordinary of circumstances and never by full-time professional officers, but by basically trained commoners. There should be no such thing possible as a career in justice. That is a broad avenue straight to hell.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  4. #63
    Minor light bulb moment.

    I am now thinking I have the main (if not sole) answer as to the place of a "court" in a free land. A court should be convened when the victim of a murder has no kin to call for justice. Homeless man with no living known family is murdered, perhaps the "community" (I have come to almost hate that word) holds the right to hold the killer accountable.

    In other cases, the family or perhaps even friends of the victim remain to mete justice. The lone man has no such champions and therefore the people around whom he may have lived hold at least the right to act in his name. Not sure of this, just throwing it out for consideration.

    What other circumstances would justify a criminal court role in a given matter?

    What about torts and equity? I see more of a role here than in criminal affairs.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only place where absolute OSFA reigns is at the lowest level principles - the CP, the first derivative principles, and perhaps one level more, or two. Beyond that, we are rapidly encroaching upon the territory of individual prerogative.
    I totally agree and am in fact romantically attracted to the idea of formulating a simple set of universal rules (philosopher's dream). That leads me to question the concept as it bears some of the characteristics of totalitarian central manplanning. So before you all get much further let me challenge the basic assumption:

    Is codifying a basic set of axioms for acceptance by others via organization a superior strategy to persuading individuals around us to self-govern by those same axioms?

    IOW, should we be selling bumper stickers and t-shirts with phrases like 'i own me you own you' instead of starting an organization?
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Minor light bulb moment.

    I am now thinking I have the main (if not sole) answer as to the place of a "court" in a free land. A court should be convened when the victim of a murder has no kin to call for justice. Homeless man with no living known family is murdered, perhaps the "community" (I have come to almost hate that word) holds the right to hold the killer accountable.

    In other cases, the family or perhaps even friends of the victim remain to mete justice. The lone man has no such champions and therefore the people around whom he may have lived hold at least the right to act in his name. Not sure of this, just throwing it out for consideration.

    What other circumstances would justify a criminal court role in a given matter?

    What about torts and equity? I see more of a role here than in criminal affairs.
    When I envision this type of thing I imagine insurance companies taking over the role of kin. The victim is paid restitution by the insurance company, and the offender is pursued for payment.

    A homeless man with no kin, in a voluntarist society, is nevertheless insured (as insurance would be freemarket cheap, and charity bountiiful). If there were a problem of people who can't afford the basic voluntarist insurance, I know at least I would see that as a critically important problem for the future of society, and thus would be a volunteer for that cause. Further, the first time a homeless man with no kin is murdered, a charitable foundation to champion the problem arises.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    I totally agree and am in fact romantically attracted to the idea of formulating a simple set of universal rules (philosopher's dream). That leads me to question the concept as it bears some of the characteristics of totalitarian central manplanning. So before you all get much further let me challenge the basic assumption:

    Is codifying a basic set of axioms for acceptance by others via organization a superior strategy to persuading individuals around us to self-govern by those same axioms?

    IOW, should we be selling bumper stickers and t-shirts with phrases like 'i own me you own you' instead of starting an organization?
    I, for one, am not that keen on the notion of an organization. Such entities have the historically demonstrated bad habit of taking on lives of their own. From there, things almost universally turn to poo. I is not beyond my acceptance to imagine that such a body could be established and kept under control; the question is how likely it is to happen. It only has to go awry once to do endless damage.

    Now, such an organization whose sole and immutable goal is the ID, establishment, and proof of the principles in question, as well as the longer term role of getting out the word... that is a lesser concern.

    ID the principles. Then educate. Show people how and why they are valid, relevant, and indeed important. Have at your disposal the arguments that reveal the lousy presumptions upon which most objections rest, such as the one that says the world will devolve into chaos without a strong central government - a "state". It is a pure nonsense. The better the lives of the people in question, the more inclined they shall be to remain faithful to peace and good manners. War ruins things for everyone, as does rampaging crime. Leave people to make their bones in this world without robbing them and everyone benefits. Because we are human beings, we will always have the outliers who will have no respect for others. A truly free population takes care of those people rapidly and with great efficiency. I do firmly believe that those of us for whom this idea raises fear need to get over their squeamishness. Not everyone is good and not everyone makes good choices; but nobody is obliged to idly suffer the results of the poor decisions of others. If I discover a man about to set my house ablaze, I will take what measure I deem necessary to prevent that from happening, whether it be to shout at him or separating his ghost from his carcass. So it is the right of every man and this is yet another truth that produces the occasional ugly, if otherwise righteous, outcome.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    When I envision this type of thing I imagine insurance companies taking over the role of kin. The victim is paid restitution by the insurance company, and the offender is pursued for payment.

    A homeless man with no kin, in a voluntarist society, is nevertheless insured (as insurance would be freemarket cheap, and charity bountiiful). If there were a problem of people who can't afford the basic voluntarist insurance, I know at least I would see that as a critically important problem for the future of society, and thus would be a volunteer for that cause. Further, the first time a homeless man with no kin is murdered, a charitable foundation to champion the problem arises.
    I don't have a problem with this, so long as insurance companies have no mechanisms by which to exercise against individuals superior force that may be employed righteously or perfidiously. IOW, they would have to be kept on VERY short leashes. Large groups with lots of money and material assets hold too much potential for mischief and must, therefore, have restraints in place of equal proportion to those of individuals.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post

    Originally Posted by Tod
    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?
    The concept of "state" appears by some means to automatically trend toward the clear sense of separateness - "us" and "little people". I have seen no examples of "state" where this has not happened over the entire course of human history, or what little of it with which I am familiar. It seems to be the human habit to indulge in this false schism such that it eventually becomes solid reality in the belief systems of people. So long as you stand above me in authority and have the men and guns to back you, I am pretty well enslaved, regardless of how prettily. I deem that a monstrous problem.

    Whose problems would it be?
    Everybody's because the masters are every bit as enslaved as the peons, the only difference being the decorations that bedeck the respective cages.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  11. #69

    HOLD THE PRESSES

    In other places I had been working on what I called a "Canon of Immutable Law", whose title I changed just five miniutes ago to the "Canon of Proper Human Relations".

    I'd started this work some months ago and it's been sitting. I revisited it just now and rediscovered what I was calling the "Postulate of Immutable Law" which states:


    All men are equally endowed with life.

    It immediately occurred to me that this may be the truer Cardinal Postulate, the current being derivative of this. This, the PIL (for now) is a mere observation of apparent fact. It makes no mention of the hows or whys, but simply of what is. Can this be credibly rejected? I think not, but would like opinions. This goes back to Tansill's criticism, wherein his modification was questionably formulated, but nonetheless valid. To state the PIL is to acknowledge positive reality without going into any speculations. The current CP, then would follow from this very elegantly and obviously. If we are each endowed equally with life, it then very obviously follows that our claims to our own lives are pursuantly equal. The current CP would, then, actually become the First Derivative of First Consequent of the PIL.

    What say ye?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    All men are equally endowed with life.
    What is life? Is a zygote a man? Is a chimp/human hybrid a man? Is a chimp with a human heart transplant a man? If an organism is found to be twice as intelligent, or capable of cooperation, or adept at toolmaking, or whatever, as **** Sapiens, are they men? If an organism is found to be so half as much, what then?
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    What is life? Is a zygote a man? Is a chimp/human hybrid a man? Is a chimp with a human heart transplant a man? If an organism is found to be twice as intelligent, or capable of cooperation, or adept at toolmaking, or whatever, as **** Sapiens, are they men? If an organism is found to be so half as much, what then?
    That's a lot of "what-iffing". While this may be appropriate for discussions of a metaphysical nature, I am not sure it is of much consequence here. What, I then ask, is the practical value in attempting to resolve these questions?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    That's a lot of "what-iffing". While this may be appropriate for discussions of a metaphysical nature, I am not sure it is of much consequence here. What, I then ask, is the practical value in attempting to resolve these questions?
    A foundation of language for use as a logical base would need accurate wording and precise definition. I thought we were on the same page there. I'm just raising questions that do not have clear answers given a lack of precise definition.

    That's the importance of answering the questions 'what is life?' and 'what is man?'. They need to be defined. Best to encapsulate clear definition within the Canon than leave later generations guessing to determine the proper definition - as we do with words in the Constitution.

    As to the other questions, aside from the way they help define 'what is man?', I believe them important/ it has practical value to resolve them too. I think quasi human questions must be considered given the state of genetic technologies. It's a thing best studied before it is a reality rather than as a reaction to it, and in some ways it's a reality already.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    A foundation of language for use as a logical base would need accurate wording and precise definition. I thought we were on the same page there. I'm just raising questions that do not have clear answers given a lack of precise definition.

    That's the importance of answering the questions 'what is life?' and 'what is man?'. They need to be defined. Best to encapsulate clear definition within the Canon than leave later generations guessing to determine the proper definition - as we do with words in the Constitution.

    As to the other questions, aside from the way they help define 'what is man?', I believe them important/ it has practical value to resolve them too. I think quasi human questions must be considered given the state of genetic technologies. It's a thing best studied before it is a reality rather than as a reaction to it, and in some ways it's a reality already.
    OK, I get your point and agree, but methinks these are questions best forked into another thread. This is an entirely different philosophical discussion. I think it may be better, were we to assume there are precise definitions out there, while someone actually goes about the business of creating/identifying them. I am sorely aware of the potential hazard this represents. But if we are diligent and honest, we will not forget that at the end of the day, we must have in hand all the necessary conceptual basis for that which we are here doing.

    Does that make sense?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  17. #74
    ut perhaps I am remiss in not addressing the questions as posed.

    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    What is life?
    Sadly, this is the best I can do at the moment:

    noun,

    1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects anddead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism,reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment throughchanges originating internally.

    2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especiallymetabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

    3.the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual:to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.


    4.a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceivedof as belonging to the soul:eternal life.


    5.the general or universal condition of human existence:Too bad, but life is like that.


    6.any specified period of animate existence:



    Is a zygote a man?
    No, never. A human zygote is, however, human. But it is not yet a human being, as such. When does it become one? That's the $64 question and I, for one, will be unashamedly avoiding any attempt to answer. Unlike many, I know when I am out of my depth.

    Is a chimp/human hybrid a man?
    No. **** Sapiens either has a definition, or it is just another grunting sound, not all that dissimilar to those made by some people during copulation. Once again, seeking absolute flawless perfection may be the enemy of the good.

    Is a chimp with a human heart transplant a man?
    No.

    If an organism is found to be twice as intelligent, or capable of cooperation, or adept at toolmaking, or whatever, as **** Sapiens, are they men?
    No.

    I would add that the key to practical success lies at least in part in the use of the statistical view. We have a six-sigma approach that covers 99.8% of all cases. Goign for 100% will quickly sink you into a quagmire of philosophical bull$#@!. Of this I warn everyone sternly. If you endeavor to make a block of swiss cheese with no holes, you will fail and/or it will bankrupt you.

    This whole general issue requires much engineering, but equal proportions of art, all driven as far as is practicable by reason and logic. We are men and are therefore fallible. We can do only the best that we can in a given moment. If we were to learn that heads of lettuce actually had IQs 100x that of humans, we might then have to reconsider our places in the world. Until such time, however, we still need to live and can do so not by perfect knowledge, but only by the best of which we are currently capable.

    In short: don't go crazy. See the statistical mean in everything. See the six-sigma proportion and deem it good enough unless moret is easily and readily within grasp. In some cases it may be. In others, it will not be. The question then for the latter is: can we answer well enough for now? That is virtually always true and the limitations placed upon our ability to know a given thing must be respected and accepted as long as they stand. Otherwise, we get into endless trouble - kind of like the global warming thing. Nothing definitive is known, yet douches of unusual size demand we change our lives extensively based on... vapors and possible nonsense?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  18. #75
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,669
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    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).
    Thanks, I think that is what some of us are after - I certain am.

    I got crazy busy this week but I am going to be sticking with this thread to continue to flesh this out as I can. It's a long term effort.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    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).
    I spent years writing proofs of mathematical theorems in ITP (Integral Theorem Prover) and AURA (PD version of ITP) at CCNY during my graduate work in computer science. It is one thing to program mathematical proofs, but quite another to so codify and even "prove" human law. Not saying it cannot be done, but that great circumspection would be needed upfront to ensure that one has attained valid generality. The problem lies in the nature of the issue in question. Not even all mathematical problems are amenable to proof. Try proving Fermat's last theorem in ITP. As I recall, the proof by that Japanese fellow was ultimately very large, very convoluted, and very subtle in places, but I'm no expert so I cannot say for certain.

    I also took a class titled "Algebraic Specification of Software". This was a major ball-buster that employed algebras derived from group theory, which itself was no cakewalk for this mediocre intellect. The instructor and indeed the author of the book (a painfully thin volume by Springer-Verlag, well famous for their hideously $$ and impossibly arcane texts in math and computer science) made reference to the use of algebraic specification in the formulation of LAW, the assertion being that the method stood to produce semantically perfect, i.e. non-ambiguous, laws. I have noticed that in the past 25 years there has been no further mention of such application. My point, then, is that either there is no interest in semantically precise and provably complete law, or the application of derived formal algebras in specification of such law may have proven itself impractical to the purpose, or insufficient to it.

    My master's degree was in artificial intelligence and I can tell you without equivocation that codifying human conceptual frames runs the gamut from difficult to, as yet, seemingly impossible. My work in the desert, however, demonstrated to me that incredible things are possible, but they require vast intellectual horsepower as well as that of financial commitment.

    All of this is to say that if you have an idea in mind, more power to you. Just be prepared for things to go asymptotic in terms of complexity.

    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).
    This is demonstrably the case, but bear in mind that it is not all accidental. Here we now speak of the interests of large power structures whose interests, when in conflict with those of "the people" (God how I have come to despise that term), may well seek such inconsistent and contradictory results as this may be seen to play to their advantage.

    Therefore, while it may be laudable to devise such a system for contriving formally consistent, complete, and correct law, bear in mind that you stand to face bitter opposition by those who would as soon see your corpse found bobbing in Lake Geneva than say "good morning" to you. Such a system, unless it could be employed to the advantage of those interests, would likely be ignored as if you had never walked this earth.

    Your work will be cut out for you on several fronts, then. Best luck with it.

    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.
    Formal logic in itself guarantees nothing. I may formally codify a law that is perfectly cogent, yet still strips you of your rights. Add a third problem to your list of those to be faced in this endeavor.

    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").
    AHA! Now you hit on some good meat, which is precisely that for which I have been arguing for years and which is somewhat nut-shelled in this thread. There must be an invariant - the absolute bedrock concept upon which the house is built, which is why I devised the CP, which was reformulated along the general line of your modified CP, only with somewhat more appropriate wording:

    "All men are equally endowed with life"
    From this, the former CP, which I will now call the First Derivative follows:

    All men hold equal claims to life.
    This could be put into a more syllogistic form in order to show the chain of reason:

    "Because all men are equally endowed with life, all men therefore hold equal claims to life"
    I personally see no reason to make that wordy, but some might prefer to see the chain as part of the assertion. I find the other way more elegant. Proof of the derivation is so simple that it should become quickly obvious to a nominal human intelligence. I leave that bit up to each person to choose for himself.

    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.
    Could you provide an analytic basis for your objection? I am curious to see how it is that you find this too complex. I also am not quite sure what you mean when you assert that it goes too quickly. Could be my thinking is lousy on the matter and I am just not seeing greater simplicity.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  20. #77
    As I go, I am rearranging and even renaming a few of the elements in all this. I hope it will not prove confusing.

    This is what we have thus far:

    Cardinal Postulate:

    0 - All men are equally endowed with life.


    Because all men are so endowed, we find the First Corollaries:



    0.1 - All men hold equal claims to life
    0.2 - No man's claim to life is superior or inferior to that of another
    0.3 - A man is born the sole owner of his life


    The equal rights of men imply the Cardinal Principle:

    1 - All men are equal in their authority with respect to one another.

    From this, the Second Corollary:

    1.1 - All men are free with respect to one another

    By virtue of the equal authority that the universally equal claim to life bestows upon and between all men, we now have basis for the Cardinal Proscription:

    -1 - No man may trespass upon or otherwise violate the rightful claims of another.

    From these, the following derive and are sustained:

    Primary Derivatives:

    Absolute Nature Of Human Rights

    2 - The fundamental nature of a Human Right is that of a claim to property.
    2.1 - The Just Rights of men are valid and absolute because there is no extant principle to deny them.
    2.2 - A man's right is just and valid IFF it does not violate the Cardinal Proscription.

    Relative Nature Of Rights Between Men:

    3 - The rights of all men have equal effect as such between them.
    3.1 - Taken in groups, the rightful validity and power of the rights of men do not exceed those of the individual man.
    3.2 - The just and valid will of a single man may countervail that of any number of others, taken individually or as a group.

    Human Rights Are Property Rights

    4 - All men are free to acquire property unto their possession to the degree that rightful acts may provide them.
    4.1 - The rightful acquisition of property establishes a rightful claim, or "right" to that property.
    4.2 - All men are free to keep, use, and dispose of their rightful property as they see fit.
    4.3 - No man may assert or exercise a property right over a Free Man without the other's free and non-coerced consent.
    4.4 - All men hold the absolute right and authority to defend their just and valid claims against violation at the hands of others
    4.5 - No man or group thereof may act against the rightful ac

    The Right to Contracts and Agreements

    6 - All Free Men retain the right to enter into contracts and other agreements with one another, singly and severally.
    7 - Any Man violating the Cardinal Proscription where an articulable and demonstrable loss to another is proven is guilty of having committed a Crime.
    7.1 - Any Man having committed a crime loses his status as a Free Man and assumes that of Criminal until such time as he has made his victim whole.
    7.2 - Criminals may forfeit some or all of their rights.

    Believe it or not, I think that this is the Canon, more or less. I am certain that it will require tuning, but I do believe that what we have here has more or less captured the full essence of what it means to live properly among one's fellows.

    We have described the fundamental nature of men's rights and how they relate one to the other. We have captured the single circumscription that exists to limit men's prerogatives and what it means in the most general terms when they violate those limits.

    The rest, so far as I can tell, are matters of a secondary and perhaps changeable nature, mainly if not entirely addressing the proper formal responses to criminal acts.
    Last edited by osan; 04-15-2015 at 08:12 AM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  21. #78
    Osan, here’s a hypothetical I've seen posed elsewhere: In an ancap territory, what keeps someone from buying a tall building in a city and making it a terrible eye sore?
    Last edited by robert68; 04-19-2015 at 11:37 PM.

  22. #79
    bump
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    Osan, here’s a hypothetical I've seen posed elsewhere: In an ancap territory, what keeps someone from buying a tall building in a city and making it a terrible eye sore?
    That is one of those good questions, the answer to which seems so painfully difficult but is, I believe, in reality very simple. "Eyesore" is in the eye of the beholder. What if I love the Hobbit architectures of Tolkien and you absolutely hate it? Does your offended eye lend you the right to prevent me from building, you having been there first? Does it lend right to force me to demolish in the case I was there prior to your having moved in next door? And what of those living nearby? How far must one live before they no longer hold the right of demand?

    The answer is clear and simple and eminently correct: it is your building and you may make it as you wish. If people disapprove, that is very much too damned bad.

    The moment you allow for the violation of one's rights based upon arbitrary, if emotionally compelling, premises, you have opened the door to disaster. "Eyesore" is eminently arbitrary and irrelevant.

    Freedom offers nothing, save itself and that which it implies. The rest is up to you and circumstance, which is rightfully scary and why the vast and overwhelming majority of people want to have nothing to do with it. They want pretty slavery with "FREEDOM" spray-stenciled across its face. It makes them feel better about their cowardice, avarice, and lassitude; the fact that they demur; they get to make believe it's all something else, something noble, rather than despicable. And so the world turns.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    It is published.

    http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...relations.html

    Please let me know what you think.

    Question: what now? What to do with it, assuming it is worthy of anything at all?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  26. #82
    Bump?

    Anything?

    Nothing?

    Bleep?????
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    As I go, I am rearranging and even renaming a few of the elements in all this. I hope it will not prove confusing.

    This is what we have thus far:

    Cardinal Postulate:
    0 - All men are equally endowed with life.


    Because all men are so endowed, we find the First Corollaries:


    0.1 - All men hold equal claims to life
    0.2 - No man's claim to life is superior or inferior to that of another
    0.3 - A man is born the sole owner of his life


    The equal rights of men imply the Cardinal Principle:
    1 - All men are equal in their authority with respect to one another.

    From this, the Second Corollary:
    1.1 - All men are free with respect to one another

    By virtue of the equal authority that the universally equal claim to life bestows upon and between all men, we now have basis for the Cardinal Proscription:
    -1 - No man may trespass upon or otherwise violate the rightful claims of another.

    From these, the following derive and are sustained:

    Primary Derivatives:
    Absolute Nature Of Human Rights

    2 - The fundamental nature of a Human Right is that of a claim to property.
    2.1 - The Just Rights of men are valid and absolute because there is no extant principle to deny them.
    2.2 - A man's right is just and valid IFF it does not violate the Cardinal Proscription.

    Relative Nature Of Rights Between Men:

    3 - The rights of all men have equal effect as such between them.
    3.1 - Taken in groups, the rightful validity and power of the rights of men do not exceed those of the individual man.
    3.2 - The just and valid will of a single man may countervail that of any number of others, taken individually or as a group.

    Human Rights Are Property Rights

    4 - All men are free to acquire property unto their possession to the degree that rightful acts may provide them.
    4.1 - The rightful acquisition of property establishes a rightful claim, or "right" to that property.
    4.2 - All men are free to keep, use, and dispose of their rightful property as they see fit.
    4.3 - No man may assert or exercise a property right over a Free Man without the other's free and non-coerced consent.
    4.4 - All men hold the absolute right and authority to defend their just and valid claims against violation at the hands of others
    4.5 - No man or group thereof may act against the rightful ac

    The Right to Contracts and Agreements

    6 - All Free Men retain the right to enter into contracts and other agreements with one another, singly and severally.
    7 - Any Man violating the Cardinal Proscription where an articulable and demonstrable loss to another is proven is guilty of having committed a Crime.
    7.1 - Any Man having committed a crime loses his status as a Free Man and assumes that of Criminal until such time as he has made his victim whole.
    7.2 - Criminals may forfeit some or all of their rights.

    Believe it or not, I think that this is the Canon, more or less. I am certain that it will require tuning, but I do believe that what we have here has more or less captured the full essence of what it means to live properly among one's fellows.

    We have described the fundamental nature of men's rights and how they relate one to the other. We have captured the single circumscription that exists to limit men's prerogatives and what it means in the most general terms when they violate those limits.

    The rest, so far as I can tell, are matters of a secondary and perhaps changeable nature, mainly if not entirely addressing the proper formal responses to criminal acts.
    Given that the Canon is more or less established, here is another issue that should be addressed. In my discussions it has been asked whether death is the ultimate penalty for violating the rights of another, regardless of how "trivially". I quote the term because IMO there is no such a thing as a trivial violation of a free man's rights. Therefore, the unqualified answer is clearly "yes".

    This response has raised eyebrows and even appalled a few... until they hear the complete line of reasoning. I state unequivocally that death is the ultimate price one pays for violating the rights of others. However, death is not always and automatically the valid response of first resort. There is an objectively definable process by which one "manages" violations, regardless of the perceived severity. To understand this process, it pays to focus on the two extremes. Let us say on the one hand that a man is attempting to take your life and at the other end of the spectrum someone has taken a stick of gum without permission.

    Let us deal with the "more severe" offense first because it is so simple and obvious. The man who is actively endeavoring to take away your life without just cause may be dispatched with terminal prejudice without any further consideration afforded him. To argue against this is to argue that such a man holds a greater claim to life than do you, thereby and at the very least obliging you to afford him some courtesy that does not involve his immediate removal from the Book of Life by whatever means and advantage that you may possess and deem fitting to the task of preserving yourself from destruction. I do not believe that any such obligation can be demonstrated to exist.

    Now we come to the somewhat more complicated case of someone presuming upon your pack of Wrigley's Spearmint Gum. It seems so trivial a matter, a lousy stick of gum, does it not? The gum may indeed be a trivial matter, but the disrespect and/or disregard represented by the presumption is not. Were it otherwise, the very sticky wicket of where, then, to draw the line between that which is trivial and that which is not raises its ugly head, leading one right into the briar-patch of arbitrary valuations. This arbitrariness has been, and continues to be, the root of endless troubles and should, therefore, be dispatched directly to the incinerator, bypassing the dustbin altogether, that nobody resurrect it once more. In law we see endless examples of how this brand of arbitrary assessment and valuation causes endless trouble and misery for people, and yet the so-called "legal scholars" (what a sad joke) appear to be so sadly welded to their base assumptions that they are constitutionally unable to let go of that which is clearly poisonous to the health, happiness, and prosperity of free people.

    If I claim that a man who takes your gum without asking becomes a candidate for death, how can this be justified? The answer is that it's justified only as a matter of traveling the path of rightful escalation. If you take my gum, I am not justified in drawing my 686 and shooting the ghost from your carcass right away. I am, however, justified in demanding you make me whole. This comes directly from English Common Law. In the case you refuse, I stand within my right to employ force pursuant to my rightful claim. If you resist my efforts, they will ultimately come to physical violence, assuming I steadfastly maintain my claim. In such a case, I become justified in separating the life from your body because you did wrong in violating my property rights and refused to make me whole once more.

    It may seem trivial, a lousy piece of gum, but the underlying truth is anything but. All violations of the rights of others are, in principle, causes for claims to restore the violated party to wholeness, no matter how seemingly insignificant. The intransigent refusal to atone for one's acts of desecration causes an individual by his own choice to demote himself in status from that of a free man to that of a criminal. Pressing the issue to its ultimately "absurd" conclusion stands to result in the inevitable and possibly abrupt arrive of the expiration date of the criminal's life.

    Of course, in typical daily exchanges between people it is not very likely that people would be killing each other over gum any more under such a scheme of moral law than they do under our current system. However, the fact that violations of the material rights of one's fellows carried potentially fatal consequences for those refusing to make good in the aftermath of having violated the rights of a fellow free man, would go a very long way toward recalibrating the average man's point of view and his behavior.

    Now, if we consider this very carefully, we will see that such an arrangement is not really that much different from our current system in the fundamentals. Today, if a violator is found materially liable for the losses incurred by another, the courts may declare the violator so liable. The victim is then often free to employ the services of the local sheriff to enforce the court's findings. If the violator refuses the lawful orders of the court, the sheriff in some cases may be within the rightful powers of his office to apply force. If the violator resists, the sheriff's agents will almost universally escalate. Continued resistance results in continued escalation along some continuum, but ultimately results in violence that can end in fatality, and sometimes in fact does.

    The only difference here lies in the parties executing the ultimate disposition of the issue in question. Why would a sheriff hold greater authority than a free and sovereign man? I see such people as indeed holding significantly lesser authority on such matters, if for no other reason than you cannot compel such an agent to discharge his duty to you. A sheriff may simply look at you as if you were completely stupid and walk away, leaving you holding the bag. Without enforcement backing you, your claims mean nothing.

    I say respect the authority of the individual to take whatever means he deems necessary to see to his rightful interests, with the knowledge that he must traverse a proper path of escalation in the process of pursuit.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. The Consequences of Hubris: The Logical End to the US Empire
    By presence in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-30-2013, 07:13 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •