THEREFORE SOLUTIONS HERE

( … )

4.2 – Immutability of Fundamental, Natural, Rights

4.X – Disambiguate Negative and Natural from Positive and Contractual

( … )

4.X – Disambiguate Rights by Enumerating Differences Between The Spectrum Necessary to Arbitrary Rights: Given that a) Natural, Necessary, Negativa, Fundamental Rights ingroup b) Contractual Constructed, Positiva, Conditional Rights ingroup c) Pragmatic Contactual Rights Outgroup d) Potential Rights Outgroup, e) Opportunistic Rights Outgroup, this provision disambiguates these rights so that none can be falsely claimed or denied. 

4.X – Variation from Negativa Natural Rights by Positiva Contractual and Legislative

(possible, truthful, declarative by commonality/concurrency, cost, externality)

Informal Institutions (hygiene, dress, decoration, language, manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, associations literature, history, mythology)

Natural Interests(necessary), Normative interests(informal), Contactural Interests (constructed), and  Institutional (Formal)

The problem of ‘costly preferences’? it is an exchange as long as it’s not an externality?

So that’s the problem of islam, communism, chinese communism, french colonialism, russian imperialism – is that they can’t produce their preference without imposing external costs – even if that external cost is a long term risk (when they fail).

Can a group legislate Islam, communism, woke etc, if it’s stated truthfully, the costs are stated, and the rules are agreed to by commonality and concurrency? these groups have … is woke criminal? is islam criminal? is communism criminal? Is Judaism Criminal? Was christianity criminal? …. they’r not only criminal but evil.

So as long as it’s non-false ‘nationalism’ for the benefit of the group and the group is willing to pay the costs, then it’s fine? (Material vs Unfalsifiable) Nationalism comes with responsibiity to the nation rathr than externalizing responsibility by excuses onto others.

The whole world has bought into ‘capitalism’ to to speak, but not into progressivism and woke? (Ran a test. Falsified the Test. Abrahamic-Marxist)

Aren’t all these religions and cults seditious against the natural law? Yes, they all are (other than xianity w/o the false promise).

Deprive them of influence (in what?) Church vs State and State vs N-Law – limited to norms. … the problem ends up that they teach lying.

Christianity attempted to account for POTENTIAL that people can be seduced into reciprocity (saved). “Imagine if you are the victim” Turns out to be relatively true.  (we are least hostile to outiers by a large margin)

Christianity … exhaustive justification… (extension of female for offspring)

This is why festivals vs institutional scriptural religions….

OR ELSE? (impose costs on others creates demand for war)

IMMATERIAL: Unfalsifiable false promises are permissible if they produce prosocial behavior, tnat is not irreciprocal, and not in conflict with laws of nature and natural law, but falsifiable false promises are impermissible regardless. (Intertemporal metaphors). But it is inadmissable in court and impermissible in political speech.  (This would be a means of reforming islam into something viable, as well as christianity – but not judaism, communism, etc, feminism, etc.).

4.3 – Variation in Rights By Conditions: All rights are conditional given the three states of a polity: War (sacrifice), Peace (Going Concern), and Windfall (redistribution). This provision limits the government and the people from abuses by expressly stating rights and obligations under each condition.

4.4 – Duty to the Priority of Obligations, Rights, and Inalienations:
(Q: trifunctional problem: priority of State/Military vs Constitution/Law vs Religion/Faith???? Each one seeks a monopoly at the others expense, However they are domains of competency, and we can state the priority in each domain. In other words, if it is a matter of state (survival/defense/order), constitution( reciprocity, testimony), or faith (interpersonal, personal) we know the domain of each. The state’s priority is rare, but universal, the law’s priority is common and universal, the faith’s priority is common and particular to the circumstance.) WHY: if there is a conflict between state, law, and faith which one is false? Because they should be the same if none are false.

GOALS

4.6 – Restore Truth In Public Discourse: Among those laws is the demand for truthful, non-defamatory speech, in public, to the public, in matters public, meaning all academic, political, economic, etc. speech by politicians, media, etc., is equivalent to court testimony and prosecutable by perjury. This will destroy the industrialization of lying – and yes, it will work. We treat information as a product like any other and that information distribution can do harm if it’s speculative or not true. So we extend the warranty of fitness and due diligence from products and services to information. Most of the technical part of P-Law was necessary to make this evolution of our law necessary. You won’t understand this part. And you don’t need to.

4.7 – We include a process (a checklist) for testing Testifiable (Truthful) speech, that is usable in court, usable in public speech, and usable by anyone willing to do the work to learn it – like a more sophisticated form of diagramming sets of sentences. This methodology is the foundation of, and principle innovation of, our work – and is the reason for the success of our project, and ability to articulate European civilization’s strategy in scientific terms. With this method, the philosophical debate over the definition of truth is settled (solved) and while we can never know, outside of the trivial, the most parsimonious truth possible, we can determine if one possesses the knowledge to claim one speaks truthfully, and whether one has done so, and whether such a claim meets demand for infallibility given the question at hand.

4.x – Disambiguate and Categorize Spectrum of Violations of ROIs. Given the incremental discovery and subsequent incremental suppression of categories irreciprocity by legislative, regulatory, juridical, ethical, and moral rules – each requiring increasing precision of decidability, or increasing scale of organization of suppression, that these categories are incomplete in that that these categories consist of a spectrum, and that ‘like the number line’ as human invention of new means of irreciprocity evolve with knowledge and technology,  such that increases in each category of irreciprocity will continue, just as new categories may evolve over time, as human organizations’ scale, and grow in complexity and informational asymmetry. This provision provides the court, legislators, and the people the ability to prevent novel increases in irreciprocity.

4.x – Disambiuate and Enumerate the properties of rights. Given the lack of precision in standards of weights and measures in rights to demonstrated intersets both private and public, and in particular those rights in the commons, we enumerate the specific rights and obligations to use of all demonstrated interests thereby eliminating confusion because of bias assumption habit or tradition, and establishing limits on our use of demonstrated interests whether private or common. (Usus, Fructus, Abusus)

Positive Norms

4.8 – Correcting the Oversight in our Law …. incremental suppression of crimes of false promises, baiting into hazard.

5.4 – The end of trial by public gossip, the end of suppression of truthful speech, and

5.5 – the conversion of political affiliation as protected class, and political speech to protected speech.

5.6 – The liability for truthful display, word and deed in public, to the public, in matters public, and especially so for commercial gain.

5.7 – The liability for seditious display, word and deed

5.8 – universal standing in commons.