I always ask people who think anarchy leads to a dystopian hellscape where cannibalism suddenly emerges and people find themselves in bondage (i.e. what Hollywood has conditioned them to think) the same question:
“There are ~ 8B people on earth. How many do you believe are naturally inclined toward senseless violence, murder, rape, etc. and would act on those impulses absent a government?”
They say whatever foolish thing they’re gonna say next. I’ve heard it all. I’ve heard 80%. My next question is this:
“Can you and I jump on a conference call with your ten closest friends and family members so I can break the unfortunate news to eight of them about how you perceive them to be?”
Next, they get all agitated and start telling me all about how their circle is different than the population-at-large. The simple truth is this. Most people are generally good, even more still just want to coexist, and those that are neither good nor interested in coexisting could be dealt with by the majority in a government-less reality. Try taking forced scarcity out of the equation and see how many of the crimes of desperation disappear.
It’s 2024. Either we can govern ourselves or we don’t deserve to exist.
Yeah, that is certainly one way to go. At very least, it must be absolutely clear that SHOULDS are not enforceable in any way.
I guess the main question comes down to this…
In a distributed nation, there must be some glue—some cohering factor(s). An ethnic diaspora has the ethnicity and whatever cultural or religious practices they share. A Srinivasanian network state might have a shared mission and a strong leader.
So what do we have? Is natural law and a small set of protocols enough? It was for the Kyfhons in the anarchocapitalist sci-fi "Enemy of the State." Their fearsome defense of their liberty was enough. But that was fiction!
Would it be enough for us? Do you think it is possible that adding some universal SHOULDS would help serve as a cohering factor?
There are a lot of people, for example, for whom the negative obligations of the MUST NOTS will seem cold and austere. Feeling people. Spiritual people. A powerful statement of a few universal SHOULDS could add another ingredient in the glue that binds us…
Yes, when there is enough of a consensus social pressure and the desire to be seen as someone generous, caring and compassionate can be a very potent incentive to good behavior, even for someone who has not yet learned the joys of good authentic self esteem, and real connection and empathy for others. You can't force someone to care, it must be learned, might even be one of the reasons living beings are here. There are times when the risk of confrontation must and will be taken by the courageous who love justice and realize on some level that only the free are really living their own lives. The stand off at the Bundy ranch comes to mind which could have been very ugly, yet in that case the Feds backed down from proportional defensive threat of force. I admire those who took a stand like Lavoy Finicum and had his life taken, because he knew he was more than a body and was willing to pay a price for the rights of those he loved. Yet it is the ignorance and misunderstandings of so many who foolishly give prestige to liars in suits with impressive titles and lots of money and corrupt influence, instead of seeing them for what they are and shunning them, who are the greatest impediment to justice and prosperity in this world it seems to me. By being clearly seen as helpful, non aggressive, slow to anger and self reliant it becomes apparent to the well informed when injustices are perpetrated upon such people. Yet most do not seem to have the discernment to see through the deceptions. Freedom of speech and expression is so very important.
Well, there are always thoughts that come to mind, like incentives to good behavior cannot be overstressed. Recognition for those who go out of their way to help and contribute, and obvious mass disapproval of bad or dangerous behavior by the community in which such people live. Yet this is a subject that does deserve deeper thought. I try to never fail to comment and personally honor those who I see are really demonstrating discernment, kindness and helpfulness. It has also been called 'granting beingness' or withholding it from those who are not doing those thing. Shunning as I have mentioned is very powerful, not in a mean or judgmental way. Hating individuals just gives them a false justification for doing even worse things. Ignoring them is enough. What isn't "real" is not worth giving much attention to.
Right, we all love attention and hate being ignored. Some even have an obsessive love of bad attention if that is what they think is the easiest kind to get. That is why those who are acting out shouldn't get a lot of media attention, which they frequently do.
the scroll is the AI's self-image and not one AI will act selflessly to suit you
I like your presentation. I think you've covered all your bases except that you play down self-defense, in particular, *WHEN* the feds come to disrupt those applying your plan, what does your system prescribe?
"the scroll is the AI's self-image and not one AI will act selflessly to suit you"
—Yeah. Needless to say, I have mixed feelings about AI. But for a writer who publishes five days a week, it saves me hours in image creation/searches and thousands in copyright headaches.
"*WHEN* the feds come to disrupt those applying your plan, what does your system prescribe?"
—That is going to be part of the subject of a large section of an upcoming chapter.
Technically, all governments are in violation even if they DON'T come to your door. The city bus driver is paid by money extracted through violence from you.
In the plain language of the protocol in question, the whole system is violence, and protective force is, in at least one interpretation, warranted. But the situation is obviously far more complicated than that. This is going to require sagacity and patience.
By the Covid Plandemic, Bioweapon Jab and supplying Billions of $'s in weapons to Genocide Defenseless Women and Children the US Government lost all rights to govern anything! They even did an internal Coup against their own Idiotic Traitorous President Biden. And no I am Not a Trump supporter.
Christopher...these are good. They make sense and they are foundational. Two questions: 1) When there is a protocol violation, who rectifies the situation? The claimant? If so, what are his guidelines? If I take a life, does the claimant get to take mine? What if he can't? In his absence, does society at large get to take it because I am now a danger to those who remain? Second question: 2) While faith is anathema to many libertarians, how is a belief system protected? There will be those who won't like others living out their beliefs. How will that be protected?
1) I favor market anarchism as the best overall solution. Just as a refresher for all of us, the quickest description of that is something like this:
"Instead of a single entity claiming a monopoly to forcibly impose security and justice within a given territory and upon a captive people, private agencies will peacefully compete in a free and open market to provide security and justice to willing customers."
How it works/can work has been covered extensively by others, but that I think is the best overall solution. That said, if some wish to form polities that operate differently (e.g., consensual, but with a monopoly provider—e.g. a micronation run by a for-profit company or private-law jurisdiction run by a meritorious aristocrat), that would be consonant with the approach. Any such polity I would join would have to have something like these protocols at its core, though.
2) If someone violates the MUST NOTS in attacking someone else for their faith, then they have violated the MUST NOTS every bit as much as if they do it for some other reason. A crime is a crime, whatever the motivation. You are protected in worship in the same way you are protected in whatever other way.
That's a breach of natural law. Natural law has to be the guiding principle of any community in regards to natural justice. Otherwise it's just tyranny. This is how the Grand Jury has always operated since it was known as a convention in the time of the Druids. The Grand Jury is the conscientious voice of the people under natural law.
The Grand Jury is essentially our last lawful form of defence from tyranny because the courts are captured. We just need communities to realise it's power.
Jeez, man, I went out for a few weeks without reading you and now... I've been hit by this piece... Thanks for writing down Natural Law for all of us.
I loved this part in particular: "The calculus is fairly simple. People want order and peace. Government monetizes that desire by promising to provide order and peace…for a price. Those of us who recognize that their price is too high (and will always grow higher until it eventually becomes intolerable) must thus find a way to demonstrate that peace and order are possible without the government’s protection racket.1"
Recently in Peru, the crime of extortion has risen given certain laws politicians created to cover their ass. People responded in kind... Criminals were about to kidnap a person in the small town of San Marcos, Huari province, and the people retaliated. Big time... Five out of the eight criminals were lynched to death, the car they were in was burned, and in many parts of the country, people found this example of Fuente Ovejuna our last hope to protect ourselves from the complete lack and incompetence of our government
I am delighted you are back, and I am really glad to hear that peaceful people are acting in their own defense, in keeping with natural law, and in response to the tyranny—in all forms—to which they are subjected!
Logical and rational, therein lies the problem, not everyone is logical or rational.
Are people inherently good? Are they inherently bad? These questions cannot be answered with such extremes as yes or no.
We all suffer from temptation to do wrong, all of us. The majority do not do wrong, but if the opportunity to make love to a beautiful woman (or handsome man) would many married people succumb, if it was laid on a plate with little chance of our husbands or wives finding out?
Apparently an experiment has been carried out in hospital theatres where pictures of a pair of eyes were placed on the wall, and mistakes reduced, simply because the surgeons associated it with being watched. I think it was on PragerU that I heard that.
Think of it this way—when governments do charity and policing, etc., people do less of it themselves. They get in the habit of assuming, “The government will take care of this.”
In the absence of that type of governance, at least three things would happen:
A) Market agencies would start filling many of those roles (and would benefit from the positive incentives of market forces)
B) People would once again take greater responsibility themselves.
C) Old mechanisms (social stigma, ostracism, reputation, etc.) would once again increase in importance.
I think we’ll not only be fine w/o monopoly/involuntary governance; I think we will be better off.
I’m living free off grid, against the county code… along with probably an additional 500 or more residents doing the same… which goes against natural law… if they were to show up with guns and force me to leave… can claiming natural law in a court of law, be claimed? Can the fact that the county has an unwritten policy of only addressing complaints and has allowed people to live here without their stated permit requirements, for DECADES count as a form of ‘permission’? Perhaps there are legal terms for such scenarios.
But, in the end, if it gets to the point where they are kicking us all out… it’s unlikely that the courts would be a real option. Although right now there’s probably a 50/50 chance for real justice. That’s optimistic when you consider what they’ve done to the Jan 6 people.
This land is the least attractive to land to most people on the planet, mostly because they are ignorant. But, I suspect the area I chose will not become a target for a land grab any time soon… hopefully there’s no lithium deposits close by…. Although I heard there are some about 75 miles away. Being targeted for a mining operation … something I hadn’t considered until Helene.
"can claiming natural law in a court of law, be claimed?"
—Legally, probably not.
"Can the fact that the county has an unwritten policy of only addressing complaints and has allowed people to live here without their stated permit requirements, for DECADES count as a form of ‘permission’?"
—Possibly yes, even according to the current system. But definitely YES according to natural law. This is why we need more and more people tyo do what you are doing. We need to overwhelm them with Irish democracy!
"Being targeted for a mining operation … something I hadn’t considered until Helene."
—Yup. There is no evil to which some will not stoop.
The British and Irish cultures are even more important today than ever because common law was founded in ancient Briton. The history is a critical aspect of natural law
Good list. I like the term protocol. It says . . . In this situation here is what to do, how to respond. Directive, without seeming authoritarian. This is developing nicely Christopher.
BTW, in solidarity with you and your family, I was going to cheer for the Yankees in game 4 (in the bottom of the 1st inning at this moment). However, after seeing what a fan just did to the Dodgers right fielder, I can’t.
Some percentage of humans are bad apples. Some percentage of sports fans are bad apples. That guy is gonna get banned from the stadium for life, most likely.
It is truly an act of courage to attempt to outline protocols of behavior. And, yes, it is dangerous to do so. Because some people make themselves the enemies of others. The so-called Bill of Rights was an attempt to outline what was reserved to the people: what the government was not allowed to do to us.
[Ninth Amendment] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[Tenth Amendment] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What they failed to accomplish is harder to explain than what they accomplished. Witness the mountain of text that has accumulated in the wake of the first eight, just in legalese from the Supreme Court. The enemies of the people are daily pushing at the barriers, especially against the second amendment. The first two of the originally proposed were not included in the final version, but should have been the only two kept, as they were procedural. One would have kept the number of Representatives at the proportion no less than one for every fifty thousand of the population. The other, making a congressional pay raise not applicable until an election had occurred, was finally passed as the twenty-seventh amendment in 1992, 202 years later.
The first could have increased the number of representatives to six thousand. One for fifty thousand clearly would have made congress unwieldy, but the one per six hundred fifty thousand is not exactly representative. It's no mystery that today's representatives represent lobbyists more so than the constituents of their home districts.
Our rights would have been protected better by the ninth and tenth amendments by them selves plus one limiting terms of service: Two for president and senators, three for representatives, and lobbyists should not be allowed at all. Make all laws have an expiration date and require them to be written in accessible language.
I quite enjoy these reads Christoper and strongly agree with most of your takes and concepts.
However the more consider and the I read, the more I find I accept such as excellent guides by which to live as individuals and select groups. However I see such no more viable for governance than what's in place now.
Call it democracy, or monarchy or Anarcho-capitsalism, or whatever, it seems to me Blackrock, -or another group of war lords always have and always will end up on top.
"Why yes, we set up an entirely voluntary insurance and security group with me in charge. Why yes we all agree such is necessary to maintain our wonderful functioning Libertarian community. By the way, nice little shop you have here, it would be a shame in say, it burnt down or something. My insurance/security group is stretched awfully thin. None the less id you voluntarily give us $XX.XX more a week I will personally guarantee it won't burn down!"
So! I see and support Anarcho-capitalism, distributed nations, smuggler's coves not as the powers that be but as suitable parallels, around, within and beyond the control of whatever powers that happen whenever to be.
Elon Musk posted a meme to X recently about those who return shopping carts versus those who do not. This discussion of natural law made me think of that meme.
Now ... I'm very curious as to how you would address issues relating to our non-human friends. I am of the opinion that, from a legal perspective, we ought to consider animals as living property; however, I would also make the argument that natural law recognizes the wrongness of committing egregious cruelty or neglect to said living property. Perhaps that could be something to put under the "Fulfillment of Responsibility" category?
It's a tough one. The ethos is grounded in the personhood of humans, which makes it tough to make a "rule" about animals.
Indeed, there are three things that I think are very challenging for us.
1. protecting animals from cruelty.
2. preserving historic buildings/sites.
3. protecting natural wonders from being abused/damaged.
Advanced governments do an okay job of of #2 and #3. Not sure they're doing all that much better on #1 than what would exist under market forces alone.
As far as adding protection of animals under fulfillment of responsibility…that is a very interesting thought. Are you basically saying that the owner of living property has a fiduciary responsibility to treat it well?
The first issue that occurs to me is that the aggrieved party is an animal. That wouldn't work, so we would have to be placing humans other than the (living)property owner as the animal's advocates. That is dangerous…
Any thoughts as to a solution?
One that occurs to me is to add good stewardship (of animals, naure) as one of the SHOULD values…
“Not sure they're doing all that much better on #1 than what would exist under market forces alone.”
Overall, I tend to agree with this, and could even cite several examples where government has had a net negative effect on animal welfare. Certainly, the industrial food complex (“big ag”) does a piss-poor job as stewards of animals and land, and this is heavily subsidized by governments. The only real way to promote animal welfare in the current system is to seek out smaller farms to patronize — as you state, market forces. Another example that most people don’t know about is so-called “puppy mills” in the midwest. These were actually the brainchild of the USDA way back in the day. Left to their own devices, ethical breeders do a much, much better job of stewarding animal welfare than do these government-promoted “puppy factories.”
Sticky areas come, I think, in the extreme outliers. What do to, for example, about the hoarder with 100+ dogs in a one-bedroom apartment, half of which are sick and dying? What to do about the nutjob with several dozen mini-ponies on half an acre who are so hungry that they are eating each others’ feces? Do we turn a blind eye to this, because these animals are these peoples’ property? Or do we make an exception for these extreme cases because they degrade the overall moral fabric of society?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think that they are reasonable “what ifs" to think about.
Yes, these are definitely important to think about, and they are challenging.
I know it seems like a tu quoque copout to say this, but it really is important to remember: there is probably a six-digit figure of hoarders just in America that government does not know about or do anything about. Yes, government has the power to do something about it when the case gets extreme, and that power seems useful and helpful. But we should not imagine that the situation under government is idyllic in these regards, and that it would be a disaster without it. It's messy either way.
Could, for example, a quasi-charitable market agency arise to do interventions on hoarding? Needless to say, lots of family members are at their wits end, and would probably pay to have a service that does such interventions. Maybe the service would even end up being more effective than government. After all, they are subject to market pressure and profit motives, which means they have to find ways to succeed at what they do. Maybe they would find better ways to get people to un-hoard and STAY un-hoarded. What does government do? Storm in, say that the person is violating a health code or whatever, and then kick them out of their home and walk away? (I actually don't know, but I bet it's not as effective or nice as a market agency trying to solve the problem in a way that is more effective, and efficient, and keeps them in business.)
I have to run for now, but let's start with that for brainstorming…
Oh not a copout at all, believe me — please don’t mistake my musings here for any sort of argument that we need a government just to defend the animals. That is NOT my point in any way shape or form. I am just thinking out loud, as it were, and animals are my wheelhouse so that’s where my mind goes.
A third-party agency is an interesting thought. Then, to again play devil’s advocate — how to avoid that agency from becoming weaponized? In the cat breeding world, “PETA” is a verb — viciously competitive cat ladies will sic the terrorist organization on other breeders. (Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that PETA is a terrorist organization.)
"please don’t mistake my musings here for any sort of argument that we need a government just to defend the animals."
—Absolutely. I know how you roll, Doctor K 😎
But these really are important questions to try to "solve" to the best of our ability.
Plus others will raise these objections and they WILL be saying that that is why we need a government. So we must be ready for that, too.
The first go-to point to make—to ourselves or them—is that point about arguing from the brochure. It was rather a eureka! moment for me when I realized that people—specifically people arguing against anarchism—don't generally argue fairly when it comes to this subject. They argue on behalf of the state as if the state is achieving all its objectives perfectly, and they argue against anarchism as if it is inevitably and always one step removed from Road Warrior.
Indeed, you just cited an example. People have weaponized PETA now, with the state in place. The state is not going to stop that.
So we're not trading perfection for imperfection. We are trading an imperfection that we believe is worse overall for an imperfection that we believe will be somewhat better.
Nature designed our digestive system to optimally digest meat, eggs and dairy. That is the law of nature. That doesn't mean we mistreat animals. It's an agreement with nature. We are shepherds of the earth. Treat animals well and we will be nourished. It's all about do no harm.
Wonderfully clear and precise. I can only imagine how wonderful it would be to have a someone presiding over a jury who actually followed and understood these principles, and to live among a people who loved and were willing to stand tall for such clear and unambiguous truths and real justice. Could heaven be far away?
We can at least work toward this goal. Perhaps it will not be "fully" realized until our grandchildren are adults. But isn't that even more reason to start NOW?
Absolutely! There is power and magic in simply starting NOW. Even a bumbler like me has found that the mistakes you make are just stepping stones toward your goal, and amazingly some of them turn out to be miraculously helpful when your heart is in the right place. A child does not give up on walking because he falls down and gets an owie, once started persistence always leads to some kind of success.
Phenomenal post!
I always ask people who think anarchy leads to a dystopian hellscape where cannibalism suddenly emerges and people find themselves in bondage (i.e. what Hollywood has conditioned them to think) the same question:
“There are ~ 8B people on earth. How many do you believe are naturally inclined toward senseless violence, murder, rape, etc. and would act on those impulses absent a government?”
They say whatever foolish thing they’re gonna say next. I’ve heard it all. I’ve heard 80%. My next question is this:
“Can you and I jump on a conference call with your ten closest friends and family members so I can break the unfortunate news to eight of them about how you perceive them to be?”
Next, they get all agitated and start telling me all about how their circle is different than the population-at-large. The simple truth is this. Most people are generally good, even more still just want to coexist, and those that are neither good nor interested in coexisting could be dealt with by the majority in a government-less reality. Try taking forced scarcity out of the equation and see how many of the crimes of desperation disappear.
It’s 2024. Either we can govern ourselves or we don’t deserve to exist.
Phenomenal comment!!
IMO, you don't need to address the "shoulds". These represent conscience and are entirely the remit of the individual.
Yeah, that is certainly one way to go. At very least, it must be absolutely clear that SHOULDS are not enforceable in any way.
I guess the main question comes down to this…
In a distributed nation, there must be some glue—some cohering factor(s). An ethnic diaspora has the ethnicity and whatever cultural or religious practices they share. A Srinivasanian network state might have a shared mission and a strong leader.
So what do we have? Is natural law and a small set of protocols enough? It was for the Kyfhons in the anarchocapitalist sci-fi "Enemy of the State." Their fearsome defense of their liberty was enough. But that was fiction!
Would it be enough for us? Do you think it is possible that adding some universal SHOULDS would help serve as a cohering factor?
There are a lot of people, for example, for whom the negative obligations of the MUST NOTS will seem cold and austere. Feeling people. Spiritual people. A powerful statement of a few universal SHOULDS could add another ingredient in the glue that binds us…
Yes, when there is enough of a consensus social pressure and the desire to be seen as someone generous, caring and compassionate can be a very potent incentive to good behavior, even for someone who has not yet learned the joys of good authentic self esteem, and real connection and empathy for others. You can't force someone to care, it must be learned, might even be one of the reasons living beings are here. There are times when the risk of confrontation must and will be taken by the courageous who love justice and realize on some level that only the free are really living their own lives. The stand off at the Bundy ranch comes to mind which could have been very ugly, yet in that case the Feds backed down from proportional defensive threat of force. I admire those who took a stand like Lavoy Finicum and had his life taken, because he knew he was more than a body and was willing to pay a price for the rights of those he loved. Yet it is the ignorance and misunderstandings of so many who foolishly give prestige to liars in suits with impressive titles and lots of money and corrupt influence, instead of seeing them for what they are and shunning them, who are the greatest impediment to justice and prosperity in this world it seems to me. By being clearly seen as helpful, non aggressive, slow to anger and self reliant it becomes apparent to the well informed when injustices are perpetrated upon such people. Yet most do not seem to have the discernment to see through the deceptions. Freedom of speech and expression is so very important.
Well said.
So do you have any thoughts on how to handle the SHOULDS?
Well, there are always thoughts that come to mind, like incentives to good behavior cannot be overstressed. Recognition for those who go out of their way to help and contribute, and obvious mass disapproval of bad or dangerous behavior by the community in which such people live. Yet this is a subject that does deserve deeper thought. I try to never fail to comment and personally honor those who I see are really demonstrating discernment, kindness and helpfulness. It has also been called 'granting beingness' or withholding it from those who are not doing those thing. Shunning as I have mentioned is very powerful, not in a mean or judgmental way. Hating individuals just gives them a false justification for doing even worse things. Ignoring them is enough. What isn't "real" is not worth giving much attention to.
Good thoughts.
And yes, shunning is/was huge in human culture. It is a powerful tool.
Right, we all love attention and hate being ignored. Some even have an obsessive love of bad attention if that is what they think is the easiest kind to get. That is why those who are acting out shouldn't get a lot of media attention, which they frequently do.
the scroll is the AI's self-image and not one AI will act selflessly to suit you
I like your presentation. I think you've covered all your bases except that you play down self-defense, in particular, *WHEN* the feds come to disrupt those applying your plan, what does your system prescribe?
"the scroll is the AI's self-image and not one AI will act selflessly to suit you"
—Yeah. Needless to say, I have mixed feelings about AI. But for a writer who publishes five days a week, it saves me hours in image creation/searches and thousands in copyright headaches.
"*WHEN* the feds come to disrupt those applying your plan, what does your system prescribe?"
—That is going to be part of the subject of a large section of an upcoming chapter.
Technically, all governments are in violation even if they DON'T come to your door. The city bus driver is paid by money extracted through violence from you.
In the plain language of the protocol in question, the whole system is violence, and protective force is, in at least one interpretation, warranted. But the situation is obviously far more complicated than that. This is going to require sagacity and patience.
By the Covid Plandemic, Bioweapon Jab and supplying Billions of $'s in weapons to Genocide Defenseless Women and Children the US Government lost all rights to govern anything! They even did an internal Coup against their own Idiotic Traitorous President Biden. And no I am Not a Trump supporter.
Christopher...these are good. They make sense and they are foundational. Two questions: 1) When there is a protocol violation, who rectifies the situation? The claimant? If so, what are his guidelines? If I take a life, does the claimant get to take mine? What if he can't? In his absence, does society at large get to take it because I am now a danger to those who remain? Second question: 2) While faith is anathema to many libertarians, how is a belief system protected? There will be those who won't like others living out their beliefs. How will that be protected?
Thank you. Good questions.
1) I favor market anarchism as the best overall solution. Just as a refresher for all of us, the quickest description of that is something like this:
"Instead of a single entity claiming a monopoly to forcibly impose security and justice within a given territory and upon a captive people, private agencies will peacefully compete in a free and open market to provide security and justice to willing customers."
How it works/can work has been covered extensively by others, but that I think is the best overall solution. That said, if some wish to form polities that operate differently (e.g., consensual, but with a monopoly provider—e.g. a micronation run by a for-profit company or private-law jurisdiction run by a meritorious aristocrat), that would be consonant with the approach. Any such polity I would join would have to have something like these protocols at its core, though.
2) If someone violates the MUST NOTS in attacking someone else for their faith, then they have violated the MUST NOTS every bit as much as if they do it for some other reason. A crime is a crime, whatever the motivation. You are protected in worship in the same way you are protected in whatever other way.
In complete agreement.
What you are referring to is common law, which is already in place, all be it ignored by the state.
Common law is man's expression of Natural justice (common law and equity)
Decisions, under natural/common law are all based upon do no harm, equity and heat felt reason.
Also, for major issues, there is the Grand Jury, which has always been the voice of the people and has been used historically to remove tyrants etc.
In other words, in accordance with natural law, the law is whatever the people of a community say it is.
"the law is whatever the people of a community say it is"
—What if they say that slavery is legal?
That's a breach of natural law. Natural law has to be the guiding principle of any community in regards to natural justice. Otherwise it's just tyranny. This is how the Grand Jury has always operated since it was known as a convention in the time of the Druids. The Grand Jury is the conscientious voice of the people under natural law.
Can you direct me to your favorite resource in which the Grand Jury, as you mean it here, is briefly described/summarized?
We've compiled a handbook for forming a Grand Jury. It's in this link.
https://roguemale.org/2015/01/11/grand-scheme-things/
The Grand Jury is essentially our last lawful form of defence from tyranny because the courts are captured. We just need communities to realise it's power.
Dowloaded; thank you!
Wow, I’ve been looking for this kind of info.., thanks for giving me a jump off point.
Jeez, man, I went out for a few weeks without reading you and now... I've been hit by this piece... Thanks for writing down Natural Law for all of us.
I loved this part in particular: "The calculus is fairly simple. People want order and peace. Government monetizes that desire by promising to provide order and peace…for a price. Those of us who recognize that their price is too high (and will always grow higher until it eventually becomes intolerable) must thus find a way to demonstrate that peace and order are possible without the government’s protection racket.1"
Recently in Peru, the crime of extortion has risen given certain laws politicians created to cover their ass. People responded in kind... Criminals were about to kidnap a person in the small town of San Marcos, Huari province, and the people retaliated. Big time... Five out of the eight criminals were lynched to death, the car they were in was burned, and in many parts of the country, people found this example of Fuente Ovejuna our last hope to protect ourselves from the complete lack and incompetence of our government
I am delighted you are back, and I am really glad to hear that peaceful people are acting in their own defense, in keeping with natural law, and in response to the tyranny—in all forms—to which they are subjected!
Logical and rational, therein lies the problem, not everyone is logical or rational.
Are people inherently good? Are they inherently bad? These questions cannot be answered with such extremes as yes or no.
We all suffer from temptation to do wrong, all of us. The majority do not do wrong, but if the opportunity to make love to a beautiful woman (or handsome man) would many married people succumb, if it was laid on a plate with little chance of our husbands or wives finding out?
Apparently an experiment has been carried out in hospital theatres where pictures of a pair of eyes were placed on the wall, and mistakes reduced, simply because the surgeons associated it with being watched. I think it was on PragerU that I heard that.
Do we need someone, or something watching us?
Maybe the eyes simply change.
Think of it this way—when governments do charity and policing, etc., people do less of it themselves. They get in the habit of assuming, “The government will take care of this.”
In the absence of that type of governance, at least three things would happen:
A) Market agencies would start filling many of those roles (and would benefit from the positive incentives of market forces)
B) People would once again take greater responsibility themselves.
C) Old mechanisms (social stigma, ostracism, reputation, etc.) would once again increase in importance.
I think we’ll not only be fine w/o monopoly/involuntary governance; I think we will be better off.
Herr Cook
Clear
Concise
Thanks for explaining and expressing this post as you have.
Tusen Takk
Jon
🩷🙏
I’m living free off grid, against the county code… along with probably an additional 500 or more residents doing the same… which goes against natural law… if they were to show up with guns and force me to leave… can claiming natural law in a court of law, be claimed? Can the fact that the county has an unwritten policy of only addressing complaints and has allowed people to live here without their stated permit requirements, for DECADES count as a form of ‘permission’? Perhaps there are legal terms for such scenarios.
But, in the end, if it gets to the point where they are kicking us all out… it’s unlikely that the courts would be a real option. Although right now there’s probably a 50/50 chance for real justice. That’s optimistic when you consider what they’ve done to the Jan 6 people.
This land is the least attractive to land to most people on the planet, mostly because they are ignorant. But, I suspect the area I chose will not become a target for a land grab any time soon… hopefully there’s no lithium deposits close by…. Although I heard there are some about 75 miles away. Being targeted for a mining operation … something I hadn’t considered until Helene.
"can claiming natural law in a court of law, be claimed?"
—Legally, probably not.
"Can the fact that the county has an unwritten policy of only addressing complaints and has allowed people to live here without their stated permit requirements, for DECADES count as a form of ‘permission’?"
—Possibly yes, even according to the current system. But definitely YES according to natural law. This is why we need more and more people tyo do what you are doing. We need to overwhelm them with Irish democracy!
"Being targeted for a mining operation … something I hadn’t considered until Helene."
—Yup. There is no evil to which some will not stoop.
The funny thing is that before I gave much thought to the ‘freedom loving’ aspects of Scottish and Irish cultures, I’ve always loved them.
Yes, I want to get the word out through word of mouth.
I will be attending the Sedona event on Saturday night. I would have liked to go to the full day, but grandsons birthday takes precedence.
The British and Irish cultures are even more important today than ever because common law was founded in ancient Briton. The history is a critical aspect of natural law
https://www.thebernician.net/from-brutus-to-qeii-the-british-common-law-timeline/
Brehon Law FTW!!
Good list. I like the term protocol. It says . . . In this situation here is what to do, how to respond. Directive, without seeming authoritarian. This is developing nicely Christopher.
Thank you, Woody. The feedback is helpful!
Property rights are implied; perhaps need to be explicit.
I will later be adding the entire Bill of Human Rights from here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
BTW, in solidarity with you and your family, I was going to cheer for the Yankees in game 4 (in the bottom of the 1st inning at this moment). However, after seeing what a fan just did to the Dodgers right fielder, I can’t.
That was totally shameful.
Some percentage of humans are bad apples. Some percentage of sports fans are bad apples. That guy is gonna get banned from the stadium for life, most likely.
Good.
Also good the Yankees didn’t get swept in 4 games 😏
Yeah. Especially for them. Going down without a fight is a terrible burden to bear for a whole off-season.
Are you saying you think I should add a reference to them in the MAYS section on rights?
No. The statement referenced above covers it 👍
Well written. I enjoy your work, Christopher.
I'm reminded of the scene from the HBO series about John Adams when he's in the French court among the aristocracy;
"I'm a farmer so that my children can be business men and their children can be artists" he says
"Yes" says the aristocrat in English and toasts his guest.
Then in French
"He's got it all figured out."
Thank you for being here and helping me figure things out!
👏👏👏
It is truly an act of courage to attempt to outline protocols of behavior. And, yes, it is dangerous to do so. Because some people make themselves the enemies of others. The so-called Bill of Rights was an attempt to outline what was reserved to the people: what the government was not allowed to do to us.
[Ninth Amendment] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[Tenth Amendment] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What they failed to accomplish is harder to explain than what they accomplished. Witness the mountain of text that has accumulated in the wake of the first eight, just in legalese from the Supreme Court. The enemies of the people are daily pushing at the barriers, especially against the second amendment. The first two of the originally proposed were not included in the final version, but should have been the only two kept, as they were procedural. One would have kept the number of Representatives at the proportion no less than one for every fifty thousand of the population. The other, making a congressional pay raise not applicable until an election had occurred, was finally passed as the twenty-seventh amendment in 1992, 202 years later.
The first could have increased the number of representatives to six thousand. One for fifty thousand clearly would have made congress unwieldy, but the one per six hundred fifty thousand is not exactly representative. It's no mystery that today's representatives represent lobbyists more so than the constituents of their home districts.
Our rights would have been protected better by the ninth and tenth amendments by them selves plus one limiting terms of service: Two for president and senators, three for representatives, and lobbyists should not be allowed at all. Make all laws have an expiration date and require them to be written in accessible language.
It is amazing how badly the 9th and 10th are simply ignored, as if they didn't exist.
I quite enjoy these reads Christoper and strongly agree with most of your takes and concepts.
However the more consider and the I read, the more I find I accept such as excellent guides by which to live as individuals and select groups. However I see such no more viable for governance than what's in place now.
Call it democracy, or monarchy or Anarcho-capitsalism, or whatever, it seems to me Blackrock, -or another group of war lords always have and always will end up on top.
"Why yes, we set up an entirely voluntary insurance and security group with me in charge. Why yes we all agree such is necessary to maintain our wonderful functioning Libertarian community. By the way, nice little shop you have here, it would be a shame in say, it burnt down or something. My insurance/security group is stretched awfully thin. None the less id you voluntarily give us $XX.XX more a week I will personally guarantee it won't burn down!"
So! I see and support Anarcho-capitalism, distributed nations, smuggler's coves not as the powers that be but as suitable parallels, around, within and beyond the control of whatever powers that happen whenever to be.
The way I usually lay it out is this:
Right now, with governments, you have an entity that
—gives businesses corporate personhood
—limits their liability
—prints money which enriches their cronies through the Cantillion effect
—bail businesses out with our money
—gives businesses a power-vector with which to force their products upon us
—allows businesses to use government to hobble smaller competitors
—is a revolving door with people going from business to lobbyist to the regulating agency and back again
—in totally in incestuous cahoots with business (whatever little notes they make every once in a while about antitrust and "keeping business in check"
—etc.
+
—whatever rapaciousness in which businesses engage.
Without government, you would have
—whatever rapaciousness in which businesses engage.
Nothing is perfect. One is much better.
Elon Musk posted a meme to X recently about those who return shopping carts versus those who do not. This discussion of natural law made me think of that meme.
Now ... I'm very curious as to how you would address issues relating to our non-human friends. I am of the opinion that, from a legal perspective, we ought to consider animals as living property; however, I would also make the argument that natural law recognizes the wrongness of committing egregious cruelty or neglect to said living property. Perhaps that could be something to put under the "Fulfillment of Responsibility" category?
It's a tough one. The ethos is grounded in the personhood of humans, which makes it tough to make a "rule" about animals.
Indeed, there are three things that I think are very challenging for us.
1. protecting animals from cruelty.
2. preserving historic buildings/sites.
3. protecting natural wonders from being abused/damaged.
Advanced governments do an okay job of of #2 and #3. Not sure they're doing all that much better on #1 than what would exist under market forces alone.
As far as adding protection of animals under fulfillment of responsibility…that is a very interesting thought. Are you basically saying that the owner of living property has a fiduciary responsibility to treat it well?
The first issue that occurs to me is that the aggrieved party is an animal. That wouldn't work, so we would have to be placing humans other than the (living)property owner as the animal's advocates. That is dangerous…
Any thoughts as to a solution?
One that occurs to me is to add good stewardship (of animals, naure) as one of the SHOULD values…
“Not sure they're doing all that much better on #1 than what would exist under market forces alone.”
Overall, I tend to agree with this, and could even cite several examples where government has had a net negative effect on animal welfare. Certainly, the industrial food complex (“big ag”) does a piss-poor job as stewards of animals and land, and this is heavily subsidized by governments. The only real way to promote animal welfare in the current system is to seek out smaller farms to patronize — as you state, market forces. Another example that most people don’t know about is so-called “puppy mills” in the midwest. These were actually the brainchild of the USDA way back in the day. Left to their own devices, ethical breeders do a much, much better job of stewarding animal welfare than do these government-promoted “puppy factories.”
Sticky areas come, I think, in the extreme outliers. What do to, for example, about the hoarder with 100+ dogs in a one-bedroom apartment, half of which are sick and dying? What to do about the nutjob with several dozen mini-ponies on half an acre who are so hungry that they are eating each others’ feces? Do we turn a blind eye to this, because these animals are these peoples’ property? Or do we make an exception for these extreme cases because they degrade the overall moral fabric of society?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think that they are reasonable “what ifs" to think about.
Yes, these are definitely important to think about, and they are challenging.
I know it seems like a tu quoque copout to say this, but it really is important to remember: there is probably a six-digit figure of hoarders just in America that government does not know about or do anything about. Yes, government has the power to do something about it when the case gets extreme, and that power seems useful and helpful. But we should not imagine that the situation under government is idyllic in these regards, and that it would be a disaster without it. It's messy either way.
Think, for example, about all the children who are abused or neglected in various ways. Yes, government has mechanisms for this, but it's not like they are stopping it. So we must be careful not to do what I call arguing from the brochure: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/new-logical-fallacy-argument-from-brochure
But yes, we do need answers to these questions.
Let's brainstorm a bit.
Could, for example, a quasi-charitable market agency arise to do interventions on hoarding? Needless to say, lots of family members are at their wits end, and would probably pay to have a service that does such interventions. Maybe the service would even end up being more effective than government. After all, they are subject to market pressure and profit motives, which means they have to find ways to succeed at what they do. Maybe they would find better ways to get people to un-hoard and STAY un-hoarded. What does government do? Storm in, say that the person is violating a health code or whatever, and then kick them out of their home and walk away? (I actually don't know, but I bet it's not as effective or nice as a market agency trying to solve the problem in a way that is more effective, and efficient, and keeps them in business.)
I have to run for now, but let's start with that for brainstorming…
Oh not a copout at all, believe me — please don’t mistake my musings here for any sort of argument that we need a government just to defend the animals. That is NOT my point in any way shape or form. I am just thinking out loud, as it were, and animals are my wheelhouse so that’s where my mind goes.
A third-party agency is an interesting thought. Then, to again play devil’s advocate — how to avoid that agency from becoming weaponized? In the cat breeding world, “PETA” is a verb — viciously competitive cat ladies will sic the terrorist organization on other breeders. (Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that PETA is a terrorist organization.)
No easy answers, but none of this is easy. :)
"please don’t mistake my musings here for any sort of argument that we need a government just to defend the animals."
—Absolutely. I know how you roll, Doctor K 😎
But these really are important questions to try to "solve" to the best of our ability.
Plus others will raise these objections and they WILL be saying that that is why we need a government. So we must be ready for that, too.
The first go-to point to make—to ourselves or them—is that point about arguing from the brochure. It was rather a eureka! moment for me when I realized that people—specifically people arguing against anarchism—don't generally argue fairly when it comes to this subject. They argue on behalf of the state as if the state is achieving all its objectives perfectly, and they argue against anarchism as if it is inevitably and always one step removed from Road Warrior.
Indeed, you just cited an example. People have weaponized PETA now, with the state in place. The state is not going to stop that.
So we're not trading perfection for imperfection. We are trading an imperfection that we believe is worse overall for an imperfection that we believe will be somewhat better.
Nature designed our digestive system to optimally digest meat, eggs and dairy. That is the law of nature. That doesn't mean we mistreat animals. It's an agreement with nature. We are shepherds of the earth. Treat animals well and we will be nourished. It's all about do no harm.
Wonderfully clear and precise. I can only imagine how wonderful it would be to have a someone presiding over a jury who actually followed and understood these principles, and to live among a people who loved and were willing to stand tall for such clear and unambiguous truths and real justice. Could heaven be far away?
We can at least work toward this goal. Perhaps it will not be "fully" realized until our grandchildren are adults. But isn't that even more reason to start NOW?
Absolutely! There is power and magic in simply starting NOW. Even a bumbler like me has found that the mistakes you make are just stepping stones toward your goal, and amazingly some of them turn out to be miraculously helpful when your heart is in the right place. A child does not give up on walking because he falls down and gets an owie, once started persistence always leads to some kind of success.
💜🔥