PROBLEM STATEMENT?

( … )?

Outline;
(…)

Whereas;

(…)

THEREFORE
REQUIRING
I.III.VI – DUE PROCESS (INSTITUTIONS)

What is Due Process?

The Institutionalization of a process that preserves and promotes both sovereignty of the individual and group, and cooperation between individuals and groups, and the returns on cooperation between them, by the prohibition on arbitrary judgement, ending, reducing, or compensating for the incentives for non-cooperation and retaliation that would diminish the returns on cooperation.

What is the (Purpose) of Due Process is Decidability and Legitimacy

The purpose of due process in a group or polity is the production of a means of decidability and resulting decisions in matters of cooperation, difference, or conflict, and legitimacy in those decisions. 

|Due Process|: Acquisition > Returns on Time > Cooperation > Decidability > Decisions > Legitimacy > Continuity > Innovation, Adaptation, Evolution.

What’s Required for Legitimacy of Decision?

Legitimacy requires non-arbitrary, impartial, impersonal, consistency and as a consequence settlement, the restoration of the incentivest to cooperate between parties, benefits of fostering and preserving cooperation under it, and the suppression, reduction, and elimination of further conflict and retaliatory cycles, by preventing illegitimate arbitrary judgement that violates self determination, sovereignty, duty, reciprocity, truth, excellence, and beauty, that  together would produce illegitimacy, non-settlement and foster conflict and retaliatory cycles, further suppressing defection and subsequent costs of the loss of human capital and productivity for the group.

What Is Required For Producing Legitimate Decidability in Due Process?

Producing decidability, legitimacy, and settlement by due process requires the organization of a process of deciding, a set of rules of decision making (system of measurement), and a group of people who decide (jury) that are bound(limited) by those rules of decision making, and by rules and process preserving self determination, sovereignty, duty, reciprocity, truth, excellence, and beauty.

|Requirements for Legitimate Decidability|: Organization > People > Process > Rules. 

(Note: Excellence and Beauty set a criteria for sufficiency that defends the commons from ‘discounting’ for personal savings of time and effort, and produces the hierarchy of competency that favors the production of desirable commons, and the resulting incentive for persistence and improvement of excellence and beauty.)

Positiva and Negativa Legitimacy: Commonality and Concurrency

Groups must make both positiva agreements on wants and negativa agreements on dispute resolutions that produce commons by a process of legitimacy, resuting in settlement, that preserves sovereignty reciprocity, and the benefits of cooperation at scale.

The Positiva: Legitimacy and Settlement by Evidential to Empirical Concurrency

In the positiva, meaning the agreement on the production of commons, by the empirical evidence of the legitimacy of findings of agreement (consent) among the polity, or a representation of the polity in form of: a pater-familia, a group of headmen, a jury, a thang, a council, a parliament, or houses of parliament, a court of last resort (supreme court), a judge last resort (monarchy), or the militia of the people –  by discovery of concurrency of those agreements (consents) across sexes, classes, and regions of the polity.

So democracy attemts to achieve concurrency across people with similar interests, and so democratic decision mating by simple majority rule is exhuasted when the people affected hold dissimilar positiva interests. Conversely, concurrency ensures that no legislation can be imposed on one group by another because a majority of all groups must approve or reject such legislation. This prevents the “tyranny of the majority” under democracy, or the undermining of legitimacy of the institutions, and the cooperation and coherence of the poplity, by empowering factions.. Ergo the west didn’t invent democracy so much as concurrent democracy.

<sub>Note: This is the reason for the houses of government (classes and regions) at the regional level and houses of government (population(parliament, lower house), classes(senate upper house) at the federal legislative level, and electoral college (population, region, nobility) at the federal presidential level. Ergo democracy doesn’t scale, only concurrency – because it is the only means of ensuring consent.

Note: The successful enumeration of a subset of necessary natural rights as a defense against the usurpation by the elites and the states, was insufficient and unsuccessful because ( …. )</sub>

Legitimacy by Due Process in the Positiva of Agreement on Commons

This is the via positiva democratic process of concurency, or the ‘democratic process’ of empirical evolution of consent of the entirety of the polity into contractual agreements that are legitimate in production because it preserves sovereignty, prohibits irreciprocity, is free of authority, even the advancement of intersts of some group over others, and creates cooperative simplicity by providing a means by which ever larger numbers can contribute capital to the production of commons with the most common returns for all.

The Negativa: Legitimacy and Settlement by Evidential to Epirical Commonality

In the negativa, meaning the resolutions of disputes, by findings of the court, we produce empirical evidence of the legitimacy of findings, by the discovery of commonality of those findings within, between, and across polities. These individual findings (evidence) can be accumulated and generalized into specific rules common to all. The result being the decrease in the risk and friction of cooperation at ever increasing scales.

Legitimacy by Due Process In the Negativa of Dispute Rsolution.

This is the via-negativa aversarial process of commonality, or the ‘common law‘ process of empirical evoluton of bodies of rules of decidability (‘law’) into ‘code‘ that is legitimate in production because it preserves soverignty, is free of authority, and prohibits irreciprocity, and creates cooperative simplicity by recursive reduction of complex rules of cooperation into simple rules in each domain of cooperation – therefore legitimacy is maintained despite complexity, ensuring the people can conform to those laws by knowing a few general principles discovered through the adversarial (competitive) process of dispute resolutions at ever increasing scales.

Summary

So adversarial negativa commonality and aversarial via positiva concurrency together allow facilitate cooperation across sexes, classes, groups, regions, and polities, by the production of due process, legitimacy and settlement, by the difficulty to impossibility of violating self determination, sovereignty, and reciprocity without subverting the institutions of cooperation we call the court and legislature.

I.III.VII Conditional Due Process

Purpose (What is Conditional Due Process)

Populations seek regularity and certainty at all times because it allows them to maximize the certainy of prediction for opportunity and consumption and minimize discipline, savings, and risk, satisfying the instinct to seek the greateatest return in the shortest time with the least effort with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk. Therefore populations attempt whenever possible to organize as a ‘going concern’ that seeks to satisfy the majority of individuals, families, and groups maintaining a pareto distribution of competency in the pursuit of acuisition, and a nash equlibriuim of returns from doing so. Although the truth is that there always exists a disequilibrium favoring some classes more so than others and visa versa. This effect is just the equilibrium of persistence in physics and the homeostasis of life, expressed in social, economic, and political terms.

Demand For Variation From Equilibrium as a Going Concern and Supply of Adaptability to do so.

There are at least three categories that define a spectrum of a polity’s demand for adaptation to internal and external opportunities, presures, shifts, events, and shocks that create demand for variation in present state.

• Stress: Conflict (-): Conquest, War, Collapse, Catastrophe, Disease , overextension(political military), overexpansion(population, economic, financial) overinclusion(immigration), (Scarcity, Concentration)
• Peace: Cooperation(=): Peace ( Stability, Going Concern, Productivity, Exploration)
• Windfall: Capitalization(+): Windfall (redistribution(disbursement), Capitalization and Redistribution.

So polities must develop a means of shifting between the three categorical states of due process given the needs to maintain persisteence under the three different conditions 

|Due Process Environment|: Conflict and Conquest < Cooperation > Capitalization and Redistribution

Each of these states cause demand for a shift in:

• Decision Making (where, when)
• Organization and Process (how)
• Capital Allocation and Production (what)
• Priority of Responsibility, Rights, Obligations, and Inalienations (who)

Resulting in:

• Shifts in reseponsibility given the shift in the locus of decidability between classes who hold responsibility for that category responsibilities (military and political, economic and technological, and social and familial, and constraining the agency of those classes whose responsibilities are outside that category of responsibilities. Meaning more of decision making is moved up the class hierarchy of rsponsibilities, and down it according to external conditions. Thus, effectively describing a scale that reflects class differences in ability, knowledge, experience, expertise, relationships, alliances, resources, and responsibilties.
• Reorganizing capital that is currently allocated to the capture of opportunity and satisfication of demand in one environment to the capture of opportunity and satisfaction of demand in the new environment – Including reorganizing human capital in all its forms and both informal and formal institutional capital in all its forms, as well as all forms of material capital.

|Shift In Responsibilty and Capital|: Military and Political <-> Financial Commercial <-> Labor and Family and Individual Consumers.

Note:
|Political Models|: Military(Fascism, Order, Friedrich List) <> Economic(Classical Liberalism, Adaptation, Adam Smith) <> Classical Liberalism with Redistribution of Windfalls(Capitalization, Consumption, Roman Republic)

Rates of Adaptation ( Incremental Change(subtle) vs Great Leaps(obvious) )

( … ) (why are people freaking out today?)

Failure of Adaptation 

The polity can succeed or fail at adaptation sufficient to meet demand for responses to external and internal pressures. Failure to adapt to and from any state causes stress: (internal effect vs long term effect):

• Stress: failure to adapt to stress or failure to adapt from stress
• Peace: failure to adapt to peace, vs failure to adapt from peace
• Windfall : failure to adapt to windfall vs failure to adapt from windfall

Failure of Adaptation Can Result In these failures :

• Failure of Cooperation: resulting in Internal conflict, rebellion, or civil war
  • Inability of the political system to perform causing illegitimacy
  • Capture by a class causing disproportionality of rewards
  • Disproportionality of cost and returns
• Failure of Capital
  • Hyperconsumption, decapitalization, and degeneration
  • Loss of comparative advantage (most)
  • Capital collapse (all: physical, institutional, human)
  • Productive collapse (economy, idustry, tech, education)
• Failure of Persistence by evolutionary computation
  • Decline until conflict and reform
  • Unrecoverable incremental decline
  • Collapse
  • Genocide

Resulting in:

• Deconstruction: collapse of self determination by self determined means, by reciprocal insurance of soveriegnty, reciprocity, and duty. Under the natural law we work to increase agency across scope and scale which requires stewarding sd/sm which in turn requires a foundation of soveriegnty, reciprocity, recirpocal insurance, duty, withough which SD/SM is impossible.  If we imagine the political triangle as a model, then under peace, people are free to move to the points of their preferences (extremes). Under stress collapse people collpase toward the middle in order to achieve the collective condition under which they can return to the pursuit of those preferences and biases, without disruupting the pareto/nash equilibrium that permits them to do so.

Prevention: Maintaining Adaptive Capital Biases Transitions.

Risks:

• Stress: War Conflict Disaster Crisis: (Risk of Tyranny) Concentration of power (the ability to alter the probabiity of outcomes by the exercise of force), in the military political financial, and military-industrial classes risks creating a permanent rent seeking class that seeks to deprive the population of return to a market for voluntary cooperation in the discovery of the satisfaction of individual, familial, and group wants. The result is dictatorship and tyranny, and the end of rule of law by the natural law.
• Peace: Going Concern: (Risk of Oligarchy) Concentration of influence (the ability to alter the probability of outcomes by remunerative reward) in the financial, economic, and consumer sectors such that they are so captured by preservation of private consumption and capitalization, that they fail to invest in, and pay the costs of, the preservation of the formal and informal institutions that make their consumption and capitalizion possible.
• Windfalls: (Risk of Democracy) Concentration of influence (the ability to alter the probability of outcomes by social and democratic demand, undermining, and threat) in the family and consumer sectors such that they demand consumption, hyperconsumption, and evasion of responsibilty habituating that irresponsibility and generating risk, rather than celebrating and capitalizing windfalls – and creating the most disasterous condition were the polity is organized and habituated such that they are unable to pull themselves out of dependency on windfalls that no longer exist – people will easily gain status, but do everything possible to preserve it, even when it’s not possible. And especially not possible without violating the rule of law by the natural law. So the solution is to direct windfalls to those who sacrificed (invested) in the creation of the windfalls whether as military and services in conflict, or labor in the workplace. (and looting for soldiers).

What is that Process (how)

Anticipating Crisis (Insurance, Anti-Fragility)

Via Negativa Governance – planning for crisis and eliminating bads as a means of indirectly producing goods using obvious incentivves, rather than trying to directly produce goods without the obvious or possible incentives to do so. 

1. Stress: War, Conflict, Disaster, Crisis: As industrialization and wealth increased, so did the ability to maitain standing militaries, produce stores of arms, and employ them quickly – to the point where we have weapons of mass destruction ready at all times. As such the swich from going concern to condition of war can no longer tolerate the debate over a declaration of war. Where a declaration of war is the means by which we alter the responsibilities of the government, the economy and the population such that they bias in favor of the needs of the conflict (the commons) over their own wants and needs (the private). This change to large standing militaries at the ready has lead to the ability to conduct limited warfare without altering the political order out of the state of a ‘going concern’. But likewise this condition has created the opportunity to incrementally drag a polity into a war and war economy (or crisis of any kind) without such a declaration. And so we must distinquish between war and a state of war, as the difference between not altering the responsibilities of the polity to enage in a conflict, then altering the responsibilities of the polity to enagage in a full scale war.  This same challenge can occur in response to a disaster or to a plague: there are resources at the ready and then the mobilization of resources that are not at the ready, but otherwise engaged in the economy of a going concern.
   Requirements:
   As such a ‘declaration contract’ is required for any action that requires mobilization: alteration of the political, economic, social, and familial rights and obligations.
   • Note: The covid crisis did not follow this obligation, eve though it was the equivalent of a military mobilization that drastically imposed costs of the population – and for questionable purposes using questionable knowledge.
2. Peace: Going Concern: As industrialzation expanded, and people were increasingly moved off subsistence farming and the self-determination available to them as subsistence farmers, They were increasingly distanced from the self determination of subsitence farmers, and they became increasingly interdependent, meaning dependent on increasingly abstract (distant) influences and forces, with less and less of a net beneath them in case of failure. Instead, exchanging the risk of bad harvest for the risk of economic volatility. This created uncertainty against nature over which they had no control, for uncertainty against others and the state that under participatory government they bore the illusion of some sense of control – and that the state had more control than it did. During times of peace there is an opportunity for self fulfillment by the direction of all one’s proceeds to consumption or capitalization of one’s choice – and a tendency to treat the opportunity for consumption and capitaliztaion during peace as ‘deserved’ or normal, rather than a temporary respite from a world in evolutionary conflict as normal.
   Requirements:
   1. Clear rights obligations and inalienations under each condition.
   2. A general staff of crisis planning
   3. War (crisis) Plans
   4. War (crisis) organizations (the civil society)
   5. “War (crisis) Games” – “test to failure”
3. Windfalls: 

response to anticipation of responses to the environment….

general staff: war games, neutral games, windfall games.

1. response to anticipation of responses to the environment…. general staff: war games, neutral games, windfall games.

What Does That Change Consist of?

ROIs

Responsibiilty:
Government
Finance 
Industry
Business

Education
Community orgs
Family
Children (women)

Individual

Mitigation of Risk

1. Limiting privatization at all three scales, while enforcing continuous capitalization by preservation of universal juridical defense of the commons by all from all.
2. Maintaining enough capital (institutional, physical, knowledge, behavioral, war games etc) to respond to changes in pressure and opportunity by suppressing rents and privileges when they interfere with that capital reserve. 
3. Providing an institutional means of transformation between states using evidential criteria in and impersonal process, which consists of a contract of the commons (legislation) that determines testable predictable criteria for entry an exit of the changed state

And what is the due process for changing between the three states of scarcity, cooperation, and consumption?

Withdrawing from Crisis or Winfall

Relieve War Debts, Relieve Going concern Debts, hold a celebration

Strategic Consequences

Why do we demand due process, commonality and concurrency => responsibility => rapid adaptivity (maneurver) => European group strategy is manuever warfare (OODA).

But responsibility is dependent upon ability, training, incentives, and will -> so the class hierarchy (Patriachy -> Parentiarchy) may be necessary for the production of different economies (just as in the military) that provides direction at the bottom and independence at the top.

The maximization of evolutionary velocity by the evolutionary computation of innovation, adeaptation, and evolution by discovery and preservation of opportunities, means, and returns on cooperation, by any body of people, by exchange of responsibility for the reciprocal insurance, by force of arms, of individual Self determination by Self Determined Means, By tests of Sovereignty in demonstrated interests, demonstrated by suppression of and prohibition on the imposition of costs on the demonstrated intersts of others by the test of Recprocity in display word and deed, insured by impersonal due process, producing Legitimacy of decidability, thereby suppressing retaliation, retaliation cycles, and malincintives not to cooperate, which together insure preservation of cooperation, the private and common returns of it, fostering incentives to cooperate at ever greater complexity, and the benefits of that cooperative velocity, volume, and complexity for all.

POSITIVA

( … )

NEGATIVA

Causes of Conflict by Violations of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Duty…

Even within group there exists imperfect cooperation, violations by accident, violations by impluse and passions, violations by unethical and immoral advantage, violations by direct action and intention for the purpose of gains, and violations for the purpose of intentional harms, and even the purpose of evil, seditious and treasonous harms.

|Conflict|: Imperfect cooperation > accident > impulse and passion > unethical and immoral informational asymmetry > material crimes of property > material crimes of bodily harm > evil, seditious, and treasonous crimes.

Grievances Against Sovereignty and Reciprocity

Conflict leads to retaliation. Retaliation leads to retaliation cycles. Retaliation cycles lead to externalities. Externalities lead to increases in risk, declines in trust, velocity of cooperation, discounts on time, and resulting individual and group prosperty, and group comparative advantage, and group reduction of evolutionary velocity and potential. In other words, harms cause contagion unless reversed and repetition suppressed.

|Grievances|: Violation > Conflict > Retaliation > Retaliation Cycles > Contagion( External Consequences) > Decline.

Insurance of Sovereignty and Reciprocity

All social animals practice the instinct for altruistic punishment. The instinct, intuition, and universal norm of Altruistic punishment is violated when and individual incurs a cost to themselves to punish another individual, even at a personal cost, for a perceived violation of social norms or cooperative behavior, even when the punisher is not directly harmed by the violation for the purpose of the enforcement of social norms, cooperative behavior, discouraging future violations, and promote overall group welfare. This is because the individual’s condition as a social animal is dependent upon the cooperative condition of the group, more so than even his or her own actions.

As such the polity produces institutions that insure one another against such contagion. This insurance is both informal in the case of norms, traditions, values, and formal in the case of individuals pater familia, headmen, chieftains, and kings, and groups thangs, juries, judges, lawyers, legislatures, laws, and constitutions.

Courts for the Redress of Grievances

Under the Natural, Common(and concurrent) law, we produce the institution of Courts of dispute resolution for the redress of grievances with the goals of such courts being determination, restitution, and prevention, and public insurance against retaliation – and as such retaliation cycles and the consequences for the individuals and for the polity as a whole.

In other words, the courts and the people insure against violations of their sovereignty, restitution if violated, and prevention of imitation and retaliation cycles, as a means of producing the commons of cooperation at scale, and velocity and the gains that result from that commons.

Insurance of Juridical Defense

Those insured by the polity require insurance of their self determination, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, truth, excellence and beauty, both by others and from others (and in particular from those with responsibiity for authority) by a warranty of decidability under the natural, common (concurrent), body of law by independence from arbitrary judgement using the due process necessary to do so.

This process of insurance by the court is called Juridical Defense. This means no individual may be subject to restitution, punishment, or prevention of repetition without insurance by Juridical Defense.

Requirements for Legitimacy of Juridical Defense

( … ) Creates Settlement,  creates settled law. legitimacy is produced by settlement, (acceptance, and public insurance, maintaining cohesion and trust).

Requirements for Juridical Defense
What does juridical defense require under natural law? Juridical defense requires independence from the arbitrary judgement of any individual or group, by tests of variations from natural, constitutional, common, and legislative laws, using an adversarial competition between parties to determine what are the most likely, or least unlikely facts, that together produce a narrative sufficent for rendering a decision (judgement) independent of those opposing narratives stated by the parties.

a process for the discovery of the facts – adversarial competition, referee
a set of rules to determine the variation from the law – adversarial competition, referee.
a process for determining sufficiency of decidability – jury
a process of decision making – the jury.
a process for provision of restitution, punishment, and prevention – judge, jury
a process for settling the matter and demanding insurance of its settlement by the polity – judge, polity, sheriff, militia

Requirements for a Court

What is a court? A group of people, organized for the purpose of resolving a conflict by juridical defense, fulfilling their obligation to insure the sovereigty in demonstated interests of the insured, by the use of due process of judgement, to ensure against arbitrary judgement, and the obligation by the polity to ensure the settlement of and resolution of that conflict by their judgement.

|Court|: Criteria for Legitimacy > Charter > Rules > Processes > People > Envorcement.

The Evolution of the Court

The Indo-European societies were characterized by a warrior aristocracy, where status and power were often tied to martial prowess. In such a society, where each warrior, his family and clan provided his equipment and was expected to fight for the tribe or clan, it was impossible for a central authority to exert control. This led to a social and political order that emphasized individual sovereignty and collective decision-making where decisions were made collectively by the warriors, a form of proto-democracy. 

The importance of the family and clan reinforced this system. With land and resources often controlled by extended families or clans, power was distributed among many different groups, necessitating a system of governance facilitated the interests and opinions of these various groups – preserving their alliances, loyalty and trust of one another.

This tradition continued as the indo european steppe raiders combined horse bronze and wheel, and then moved into and conquered europe. THese people formed different major groups the balto-slavic, germanic, italo-celtic, hellenic, and anatolian that remain today in their many variations.

As such the early germanics persisted these traditions, with the spartans, athenians practicing similar traditions, but differing in who had opinions, as they spread southward, conquered and often enslaves local people, then engaged in sea trade.  

|Evolutionary Sequence|: (of below) 
… Proto European (West Indo European) 
… … Proto-BaltoSlavic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic, Proto Italic, Hellenic, Anatolian.
… … … ( … )

|Participatory Spectrum|: West Indo European > Germanic (maximum participation) > Athenian (wide participation) > Roman Class Based Governance > Spartan Elite Governance

1. Proto European (West Indo European) societies spanned a wide geographical area and included diverse cultures such as the ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germanic tribes, and Vedic societies in India. Common legal concepts and practices include:
   1. Oral Tradition: Many Indo-European societies relied on oral tradition rather than written codes for their laws. This is in contrast to the common law tradition, which places a strong emphasis on written case law and legal documentation.
      Why? (a) Until a polity is settled and produces trade, contract, debt-credit, and taxation, there is little need for writing, and there is status available for those who memorize laws. (b) Traditional law contains legitimacy that assists in the prservation of sovereignty….
   2. Trial by Ordeal or Combat (public) or Duel (private): Some Indo-European societies used trial by ordeal or combat to determine guilt or innocence. This is a significant departure from the common law tradition, which uses evidence and legal argument in a court setting.
      Why? (So nonsense-conflicts are not brought to the courts. Maintains the seriousness and and competency of the people in ‘court’. Demonstrates the conviction and therefore honesty of the participants. Insulates the jury and judge from retaliation. Is the final form of demonstration of sovereignty.
   3. Restitution Rather Than Punishment: Indo-European legal systems emphasized restitution to the victim rather than punishment of the offender. This differs from the common law tradition, which includes both punitive and restorative elements.
      Why? Restitution satisfies both parties, and prevents retaliation cycles, and doesn’t produce distrust, defection, or disloyalty that military organizations cannot tolerate, that later settled agrarian civilizations, and certainly strong state civilizations can tolerate.
   4. Role of Kinship Groups: In many Indo-European societies, kinship groups played a significant role in the legal system, being responsible for ensuring restitution or retribution. In contrast, the common law tradition places the responsibility for law enforcement and justice on the state.
      Why? Migratory people (warrior cattle raiders) lack the apparatus to produce taxation and a state, so they are reliant of the civil society to provide services. 
2. Spartan: Spartan society was an oligarchy ruled by two kings and a Council of Elders. While there was an assembly of male citizens, real power was concentrated in the hands of the few.
   1. Ephors: The ephors were a group of five officials elected annually by the Spartan citizens. They had broad powers, including judicial powers. They could bring charges against any Spartan, including the kings, and preside over trials. Their decisions could only be appealed to the Gerousia.
   2. Gerousia: The Gerousia was a council of elders that included the two Spartan kings and 28 other men. The members, who had to be over 60 years old, were elected for life by the Spartan citizens. The Gerousia had legislative, executive, and judicial powers. It could try criminal cases, especially those involving homicide and certain other serious crimes. Its decisions could be appealed to the Apella.
   3. Apella: The Apella was an assembly of Spartan citizens. It had the final say in many legal matters, including appeals from the Gerousia. However, its role in the judicial system was less prominent than that of the ephors and the Gerousia.
   4. Kings: The two Spartan kings had some judicial powers, especially in relation to religious matters and during times of war. However, their judicial role was limited compared to the ephors and the Gerousia.
3. Germanic: Early Germanic societies were tribal and lacked centralized political structures. Decisions were often made collectively in assemblies known as “things,” where free men could voice their opinions and settle disputes. This could be seen as a form of direct democracy, but it was limited to free men (those who held responsibility for self, family, commons, and polity) and excluded women, slaves, and others.
   Why? ( … ) The early Germanic legal system was quite different from the Roman system, reflecting the decentralized and tribal nature of Germanic societies:
   1. Participation: Given the small scale of these polities, and the locality of their reach, participation was open to all men not slaves. Why? Because in these pre-state societies all men form a universal militia as the only means of defense, and as such the necessity of individual sovereignty. 
   2. Things: The primary judicial institution in early Germanic societies was the “thing” (Old Norse: þing, Old English: þing, Old High German: ding), a public assembly of free men. Things were held regularly to settle disputes, make laws, and decide on matters of common interest.
   3. Law Speakers: Laws were primarily oral and were memorized by law speakers – an equivalent of a secular priesthood – who would recite them at the thing. Over time, some Germanic societies began to write down their laws, often after the introduction of Christianity and the Latin alphabet.
   4. Trial by Ordeal: Germanic law made use of trials by ordeal to determine guilt or innocence. This could involve physical tests, with the idea that divine intervention would reveal the truth.
   5. Restitution and Compensation: A key principle in Germanic law was the concept of restitution or compensation. If a person was injured or killed, the offender was required to pay a compensation (wergild) to the victim or the victim’s family.
   6. Blood Feuds: In some cases, if compensation was not paid or was not sufficient, disputes could escalate into blood feuds between families or clans. Some Germanic legal codes included provisions to regulate and limit these feuds.
   7. Local and Decentralized: The Germanic legal system was local and decentralized, with different tribes and regions having their own customs and practices. There was no centralized authority or bureaucracy enforcing the law. Meaning there were common customs and practices but no attempt to synchronhize, synthesize and generalize those customary laws and practices across the germanic civilization.
4. Athenian: Athenian democracy was a form of direct democracy where citizens (free adult males) had the right to participate in decision-making processes. However, like the Germanic societies, this excluded women, slaves, and foreigners.
   Why? ( … )
   1. Participation: The Athenian court system, with its emphasis on widespread citizen participation, is often considered one of the most democratic in the ancient world. In Athens, ordinary citizens were chosen by lot to serve as jurors in the popular courts (dikasteria), and any citizen could bring a case to court. This level of democratic participation in the judicial process was quite unique.
   2. Popular Courts (Dikasteria): The courts were made up of ordinary citizens, who served as both judges and jury. There were no professional judges or lawyers. Cases were argued by the litigants themselves or by their non-professional representatives. The jurors were chosen by lot and could number from a few hundred to over a thousand, depending on the case.
   3. Public Trials: Trials were public events, held in open-air courts. They were often attended by large crowds. The trial process was relatively quick, often completed in a single day.
   4. Simple Procedures: The legal procedures were relatively simple, to allow ordinary citizens to participate effectively. Each side was given a specific amount of time, measured by a water clock, to present their case.
   5. Majority Rule: Decisions were made by majority vote of the jurors. There were no unanimous verdicts or hung juries. In the case of a tie, the verdict was in favor of the defendant.
   6. Range of Cases: The popular courts dealt with a wide range of cases, including both private disputes (such as property and contract disputes) and public cases (such as prosecutions for public offenses).
   7. Appeals: There was no system of appeals. The decisions of the popular courts were final.
   8. Adversarialism: The athenian courts were adversarial although they differed significantly from the modern concept of an adversarial system. In Athens, litigants presented their own cases before large juries of ordinary citizens. There were no professional lawyers or judges, and the jury had the final say in both determining the facts and interpreting the law. This is similar to an adversarial system in that the parties to the dispute controlled the presentation of evidence and argument, but it is different in that the jury, rather than a judge, had the final say in legal interpretation.
5. Hittite:
   1. King’s Court: The king was the highest judicial authority in the Hittite kingdom. He would hear important cases, particularly those involving high-ranking officials or serious crimes. The king’s court was the highest court in the land and its decisions were final.
   2. Royal Judges: The king could appoint royal judges to hear cases and administer justice. These judges had the authority to hear cases throughout the kingdom and were responsible for ensuring that local officials were administering justice correctly.
   3. Local Courts: At the local level, disputes were often settled by local officials or assemblies. These local courts would have dealt with a wide range of issues, including property disputes, contracts, and family law matters.
   4. Mixed Discovery: It appears that the Hittite court was both adversarial and inquisitorial but we are not certain.
   5. Written Laws: The Hittites had a well-developed system of written laws, known as the Hittite laws. These laws, inscribed on cuneiform tablets, covered a wide range of civil and criminal matters, and would have been used as the basis for judgments in court cases.
   6. Punishments: Punishments in the Hittite legal system were often restorative rather than punitive. For example, fines and compensation were common. However, physical punishments and the death penalty were also used for serious crimes.
   7. Legal Professionals: The Hittite legal system included various types of legal professionals, including judges, witnesses, and scribes who recorded legal proceedings and decisions.
6. English Evolution of the Modern State
   ( … )
   Early Medieval (Germanic, Anglo Saxon Era) 5th to the 11th centuries:
   1. Folk Moots: Local assemblies that met to discuss matters of common concern, including disputes between individuals. They were often held at significant geographical landmarks.
   2. Hundred and Shire Courts: Local courts that dealt with civil and criminal matters. The Hundred Court was a local court for a subdivision of a county (a “hundred”), while the Shire Court was for the county as a whole.
   3. King’s Court: The king also had a court, dealt with important cases and disputes involving the king’s own interests. However, the king’s power was not absolute, and he was expected to rule in accordance with the law.
   4. Ecclesiastical Courts: With the spread of Christianity, the Church established its own courts, which dealt with matters of canon law.
   5. Compurgation and Ordeal: In the absence of evidence, guilt or innocence might be determined through compurgation (swearing an oath of innocence, supported by a group of “oath-helpers”) or ordeal (a physical test, such as carrying a hot iron, with the belief that God would protect the innocent).
   6. Wergild: This was a system of compensation for harm done. If a person was injured or killed, the offender was required to pay a compensation (wergild) to the victim or the victim’s family.
   7. Dooms: These were codes of law issued by kings. The most famous is the code issued by King Æthelberht of Kent in the 7th century, which is the earliest written law code in any Germanic language.
   The High Middle Ages in England, (Norman Era) spanning roughly from the 11th to the 13th centuries :
   1. Manorial Courts: These were local courts held by a manorial lord. They had jurisdiction over the tenants of the manor and dealt with minor criminal cases and disputes between tenants.
   2. Hundred and Shire Courts: These were local courts that dealt with a variety of civil and criminal matters. The Hundred Court was a local court for a subdivision of a county (a “hundred”), while the Shire Court was for the county as a whole.
   3. Royal Courts: The Curia Regis, or King’s Court, was the precursor to the later royal courts of King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer. The Curia Regis was a court held by the king and his advisers, and it dealt with a variety of legal matters.
   4. Assizes: These were periodic courts held in each county. They handled serious criminal cases, which were tried by a judge and a jury.
   5. Ecclesiastical Courts: These were courts held by the Church. They dealt with matters of canon law, including marriage, divorce, and probate.
   6. Trial by Ordeal and Combat: These were methods used to determine guilt or innocence in certain cases. Trial by ordeal involved a physical test, such as holding a hot iron, with the idea that God would protect the innocent. Trial by combat involved a fight between the accuser and the accused, with the outcome determining guilt or innocence.
   7. Writ System: The use of writs became increasingly important during this period. A writ was a written order from the king or a royal official that commanded the recipient to do something or to refrain from doing something.

The late medieval period in England, spanning roughly from the 13th to the 15th centuries:

1. Manorial Courts: These were local courts held by a manorial lord. They had jurisdiction over the tenants of the manor and dealt with minor criminal cases and disputes between tenants.
2. Hundred and Shire Courts: These were local courts that dealt with a variety of civil and criminal matters. The Hundred Court was a local court for a subdivision of a county (a “hundred”), while the Shire Court was for the county as a whole.
3. Royal Courts: The three main royal courts were the Court of King’s (or Queen’s) Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Exchequer. The King’s Bench dealt with criminal cases and disputes involving the king, the Common Pleas dealt with civil cases between subjects, and the Exchequer dealt with financial and revenue matters.
4. Assizes: These were periodic courts held in each county. They handled serious criminal cases, which were tried by a judge and a jury.
5. Court of Chancery: This court dealt with matters of equity, providing remedies when the strict application of common law would result in an unfair outcome.
6. Ecclesiastical Courts: These were courts held by the Church. They dealt with matters of canon law, including marriage, divorce, and probate.
7. Parliament: While not a court in the modern sense, the medieval Parliament (particularly the House of Lords) could hear legal cases. Over time, it developed into a legislative body.
8. Jury Trials: The use of juries became increasingly common during this period. Juries were used to determine the facts of a case, while the judge would determine the law.

The early modern period of English history, spanning from the late 15th to the late 18th century, saw significant developments in the legal system. Here are some key features of the English court system during this period:

1. Manorial Courts: These were local courts held by a manorial lord. They had jurisdiction over the tenants of the manor and dealt with minor criminal cases and disputes between tenants.
2. Quarter Sessions: These were local courts that met four times a year. They were presided over by justices of the peace and handled a wide range of criminal cases, as well as administrative matters.
3. Assizes: These were periodic courts held in each county. They handled the most serious criminal cases, which were tried by a judge and a jury.
4. Court of King’s (or Queen’s) Bench: This was one of the superior courts of common law. It had jurisdiction over criminal cases and also heard civil cases involving trespass and other wrongs.
5. Court of Common Pleas: This was another superior court of common law. It heard civil cases involving disputes over land, debts, and contracts.
6. Court of Exchequer: This court was originally responsible for matters of revenue and finance. However, over time, it also developed a jurisdiction similar to that of the King’s Bench and Common Pleas.
7. Court of Chancery: This court dealt with matters of equity, as opposed to the common law courts which dealt with matters of law. The Court of Chancery could provide remedies when the strict application of common law would result in an unfair outcome.
8. Star Chamber: This was a court of law which evolved from the King’s Council in the 15th century. It was known for its arbitrary methods and severe punishments. The Star Chamber was abolished in 1641 during the English Civil War.
9. Ecclesiastical Courts: These were courts held by the Church of England. They dealt with matters of canon law, including marriage, divorce, and probate.

The British legal system is rooted in the common law tradition, which emphasizes case law and judicial precedent. Here are some key features of the British court system prior to the World Wars:

1. Magistrates’ Courts: These local courts handled most minor criminal cases and some civil cases. They were presided over by justices of the peace, who were local dignitaries appointed by the Crown.
2. Quarter Sessions: These were local courts that met four times a year. They handled more serious criminal cases that were beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts but did not warrant a trial by jury.
3. Assizes: These were periodic courts held in each county of England and Wales. They handled the most serious criminal cases, which were tried by a judge and a jury.
4. High Court of Justice: Established by the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, the High Court was divided into three divisions: the Queen’s (or King’s) Bench Division, which handled serious criminal cases and civil cases involving contract and tort law; the Chancery Division, which dealt with equity cases, including disputes over wills, trusts, and property; and the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, which handled probate and matrimonial cases, and maritime disputes.
5. Court of Appeal: Also established by the Judicature Acts, the Court of Appeal heard appeals from the High Court and the county courts.
6. House of Lords: Prior to the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009, the House of Lords served as the highest court of appeal in the UK. However, only Law Lords (members of the House who were senior judges) participated in judicial decisions.
7. Jury Trials: In serious criminal cases and some civil cases, disputes were decided by a jury of the defendant’s peers.
8. Barristers and Solicitors: The legal profession in Britain was (and still is) divided into barristers, who represent clients in court, and solicitors, who handle legal paperwork, give advice, and may also represent clients in certain courts.

6. American Experiment:

The American court system is a complex, multi-tiered system that includes both federal and state courts. Here are some key features:

Federal Courts:

1. U.S. District Courts: These are the trial courts of the federal system. There are 94 district courts across the U.S. and its territories. They handle a wide range of civil and criminal cases under federal law.
2. U.S. Courts of Appeals: These are the intermediate appellate courts of the federal system. There are 13 Courts of Appeals, each covering a specific geographic circuit. They review decisions of the district courts and administrative agencies.
3. U.S. Supreme Court: This is the highest court in the U.S. It has the final say on issues of federal law, including constitutional law. The Supreme Court hears appeals from the Courts of Appeals and, in some cases, directly from the district courts or state supreme courts.

State Courts:

1. Trial Courts: These are the primary courts in each state, often organized by county. They handle a wide range of civil and criminal cases under state law. The names of these courts vary by state (e.g., Superior Court, District Court, Circuit Court).
2. Intermediate Appellate Courts: Many states have an intermediate appellate court that reviews decisions of the trial courts. These are often called Courts of Appeals.
3. State Supreme Courts: Each state has a supreme court, which is the highest court in the state. It has the final say on issues of state law.
4. Specialized Courts: In addition to these general courts, there are also specialized courts at both the federal and state levels that handle specific types of cases, such as bankruptcy, tax, family law, probate, and juvenile cases.
5. Jury Trials: In both federal and state courts, cases may be decided by a jury, which is a group of citizens who are called to evaluate the evidence and determine the facts of the case.
6. Adversarial System: The U.S. legal system is an adversarial system, which means that the parties to a case present their arguments and evidence to a neutral judge (and sometimes a jury), who then makes a decision.

7. Roman: The Roman Republic had a mixed constitution with democratic elements, but political power was largely in the hands of the aristocracy. The Roman assemblies were open to all male citizens, but voting was organized by wealth classes, and the aristocratic Senate held significant power.

During the Roman Republic (509–27 BCE):

1. Praetor’s Court: The praetor, a high-ranking official, was responsible for the administration of justice. The praetor would issue an edict at the beginning of his term outlining his interpretation of the law and how he intended to administer it.
2. Centumviral Court: This was a court of civil jurisdiction, composed of 105 members (hence the name). It dealt with matters of inheritance and property rights.
3. Quaestiones Perpetuae: These were standing criminal courts established to hear specific types of cases, such as murder or theft. Each court was presided over by a praetor or a quaestor (another type of elected official).
4. Public Trials: Criminal trials were public affairs, often held in the Forum. The prosecution and defense were usually conducted by orators, who were not professional lawyers but were often politicians.
5. Juries: Juries were composed of citizens, and their composition changed over time. Initially, they were made up of senators, but later reforms opened up jury service to equestrians (a lower social class) and eventually to all citizens.

During the Roman Empire (27 BCE–476 CE):

1. Imperial Courts: The Emperor held supreme judicial authority and could hear cases personally. However, most cases were heard by appointed judges.
2. Provincial Courts: In the provinces, governors acted as judges and could hear both civil and criminal cases.
3. Municipal Courts: In the cities and towns of the Empire, local magistrates would hear minor cases. These courts dealt with everyday disputes and minor crimes.
4. Private Courts: For certain types of disputes, particularly those involving commercial transactions, parties could agree to have their case heard by a private arbitrator.
5. Professional Lawyers: The legal profession became more established during the Empire, and there were lawyers who provided legal advice and represented clients in court.
6. Codification of Law: The laws of the Empire were codified in several major legal codes, most notably the Codex Justinianus (Code of Justinian) in the 6th century CE.

So The legal and court systems of the proto-europeans, the Hittites, early Germanic tribes, Spartans, Athenians, Romans, Germanics, English, French, and Americans and the rest of the anglosphere reflect the distinct political, social, and cultural contexts of these societies:

Similarities:

1. Geographic Limits: As a steppe, plain, and forest people, 
2. Technological Dependence: (horse, bronze, wheel, manuever)
3. Voluntary Organization: Contract, pirate polity, necessitates rule of law.
4. Participation: ( … )
5. Traditional Law: (legitimacy)Persistence of Group Advantage: Preservation of group coherence and loyalty, by preservation of the loyalty of the warriors and their families and clans, by Preservation of their Self Determination, by the neutrality of decision making in matters of conflict, by reliance on duty testimony and ‘skin in the game’,
   Why? This is the ‘why’ of european civilization.
6. Restitution: Emphasis on restitution vs punishmente in these legal systems, with offenders often required to compensate their victims.
   Why? The preservation of group (inter-clan) coherence, loyalty, and administrative legitimacy, suppression of retaliation cycles, preservation of human capital, as well as the tolerance for error.
7. Role of Elite: In all these societies, the elite (whether they were kings, elders, or high-ranking officials) played a significant role in the administration of justice.
   Why? Responsibility of the Aristocracy for the condition of the people by demonstrated competency, the legitimacy that results, and the coherence that results from that legitimacy.
   Q: What occurs with the division of labor between the aristocracy and the professionals (what is the difference in knowledge between the judges and the aristocracy?) ( … )
8. Hierarchy of Courts: All these societies had some form of hierarchy in their court systems, with local courts for minor disputes and higher courts for more serious or complex cases.
   Why? Responsibility for Seriousness of the conflict, and attention of the hiearachy to one’s claims, assists in the legitimacy of the courts, the elite, and the polity, and it’s laws – by the suppression of the potential for arbitrary rule.

Differences:

1. Variance in scale: And therefore variation in the subtlety of judgements as local and specific decisions by aristocracy that are replaced by common and general decisions of professional bureaucracies.
2. Variance in Complexity of Economy and Society:  (knowledge)
3. Variation in Interests: Aristocracy obtains its legitimacy and wealth from a broader platform of responsibilities and has a tendency to make decisions from a position of honor taking into account local considerations and long term consequence – but may bias for political reasons. Whereas professional bureaucracies obtain legitimacy and income from their occupations, and so they may bias for personal income and political reasons, and are more open to corruption. As such legitimacy and settlement are less likely. This problem is referred to as the conflict between personal sensitivity to fully account for individual causes and consequences and professional bureaucarcy that produces greater consistency of cooperation along with greater consistence of decisions as population’s scale, producing higher cooperative velocity.
4. Variation in those Insured and Responsbility for them: ( … )
5. Variation in Political Particpation and Security of the Aristocracy: Security in their station because of the support of the people for them in their station, where that station is self determination under sovereignty and reciprocity. In other words more secure the station of the aristocracy by their demonstrated responsiblity the more open the participation.
6. Variation in Juridical Participation: The Athenian court system was unique in its level of democratic participation. Jurors were ordinary citizens chosen by lot, and any citizen could bring a case to court.
   ( … )
7. Variation in the contingency of participation: ( … )
8. Variation in the Spectrum of Public Prosecution: The Athenian concept of “public prosecution,” where it was the responsibility of citizens to enforce the laws, was unique among these societies.
   Why? (…)
9. Variation by Correspondence between military, government court and economy: ( … )
10. Variation in Religious Influence (variations on trifunctionalism): The Spartan and Hittite legal systems were heavily influenced by religious beliefs and practices. In Sparta, the two kings had judicial powers in religious matters, while in the Hittite kingdom, the king was seen as the chief priest and had the final say in religious disputes.
    Why? Religious RItual was a responsibility of the elites, and indifferent from responsibilty for law and war.

Summary ( … )  (similarities are that given the territorial impossibiity of concentrating production and military defense and justic, necessitating small polities, and a universal militia and everyone is armed, the similarities consists of preservation of legitimacy and settlement in that condition, and differences are just scale and complexity. World differences in government, court, and law are due to these factors.)

Inputs to the Resolution of Conflicts in Court

Solving The Hard Problem of Decidability. (explain) ( … )

The Natural Law

The Constitution of Natural Law

The body of surviving Findings of the Court of natural Common concurrent Law

The body of surviving legislation under the natural common concurrent law.

The Conflicting Parties

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jury of Peers (citizens)

Judge(s) (referees)

The Venue

Definitions:

Responsibility (capacity for responsibility,not everyone is capable, and some aren’t willing)

Authority (Responsibilty for the Burden of Decidability Under The Law)

There is no authority but the natural law, we are all sovereign, but call upon others to take responsibility for decidability in matters of conflict, and we label this as authority.

The legitimate purpose of authority consists of: to provide a means of decidability, given the insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity, for those who 

Imperfection (knowledge, bias, crime), capacity of different members of the polity to demonstrate agency and rsponsibility, and capacity of those responsible on their behalf for providing decidability under the law and only the law. 

What are the responsibilities of any authority?

|Decidability|: Causality > Responsibility > Blame(Accountability, Liability) > Restitution > Punishment > Prevention > *Legitimacy* by education (explanation).

• The Problem of Aristocracy-Nobilty vs Reward(middle class)
• Inalienable:
  • Responsibility for education (explanation) of the decision. In other words, a fully informed decision should meet the terms of truth and reciprocity.
  • Authority (permission, in service to the law)
  • Legitimacy ()

|Hierarchy of Decidability|: Self > Family > Clan > Courts > Parliament > King (Decider of Last Resort) > Militia (Insurer of last resort)

|Authority|: Insurer(polity,court,state) > Referee(judge) > Decider(jury) > Advocates(lawyers) > Insured (parties) > demonstrated interstes of parties.

|Legitimate Decidability|: Authority (Not accountable) vs Responsibility (accountability)

Table of Legitimacy of Responsbility for Authority.
. . . . . . . . . Authority
illegitimate ………. Legitimate
Irreciprocity …….. Reciprocity
Irresponsible …… Responsible
Discretionary …… Non Discretionary
Rule (Command)..Rule of Law (rules based)

Dtermination of facts: Causality, Responsibility, Liability(civil), Criminality 
Determination of Consequences: Guilt, Restitution, Punishment and Prevention

COMMONALITY
(define)
Determination of COMMONALITY (Negativa) (Court, Dispute)

CONSEQUENCES OF COMMONALITY
Evolutionary Computation of Incremental Suppression

??? CONCURRENCY (Positiva) (Legislation, Contract)

Summary

|Recursive Cycle of Sovereignty|: Self Determination of Warriors > Insurance of Self Determination > Sovereignty > Legitimacy(process, verb) > Settlement(result, noun) > Group Coherence > Loyalty > Self interest in Self Determination under the benefits of High Trust Cooperation.

Necessity of Positive and Negative Due Process

Problem

( … ) (requirements without training to require)

|Ternary Logic|: Inclusion, Seduction, Pedagogy (-) < —- (=) —–> (+) Discipline, Force, Decidability

–“Given these responsibilities of self determination and individual sovereignty (a) Some people do not have the ability, agency, competency for successful self determination (b) so it’s logical so many prefer serfdom, (c) it’s cruel not to offer it to them, (d) western civilization is organized to maximize individual responsibiity as a means of defense of the commons from free riding or privatization. (e) given the development of humans from infants to adults, and the window of each developmental stage, as the complexity of cooperation, the division of labor, and trade increase, the cost of investing training necessary for the production of agency of individuals increases. (f) and the convergence of that training with the laws of nature (the four sciences) produces the greaest possible human agency.  (n) therefore agency is a form of personal and common capital and any inhibition of the production of that ability, agency, competency, is a crime, to be outlawed – the result being a prohibition on falsehood and false promise and a constraint of political participation to those of demonstrated agency and competency.” — Brandon and Martin

–“The more  abstract view of due process is that we require not only due process in the resolution of disputes but due process in the production of the agency necessary to avoid them while cooperating at large scale” — Brandon

–“The state has the duty to make itself as unnecessary as possible in the production of self determination by self determined means by giving parents or the high trust community the maximum ability to provide that training, but to require that they do provide that training, or outsource it to those who will – because human capital is the most important capital with the greatest influence on the present and future condition of man and training of generations required for the persistence of the capital one inherited. This can only be accomplished in tandem with the prohibition on speaking, spreadding, teaching falsehoods and false promises.”– Martin 

–“The speed of change unleashed by the sequence of industrial revolutions overwhelmed our institutions of the production of ability, agency, and  responsibility creating opportunity for the invention, distribution and sale of non-agentic or anti-agentic incentives narratives and justifications: the industrialization of lying to compensate for uncertainty and alienation by the Cathedral complex of Academy, State, Media, and Entertainment.”– Moritiz

–“The absence of class structure and the stated expecations of each class structure while preserving mobility of class structure, instead of maximizing the potential of individuals within the ability to fill the obligations of a class structure, is cruel as it sets up each generation to fail by the false promise of a middle classe, upper middle class, or in worst case, an aristocracy of everyone. So our purpose is to produce legitimacy of the polity, society, and economy, by maximizing individual potential without the false promise that anything is possible for everyone, and therefore equality of opportunity or outcome is possible for everyone.”– CurtD

–“Necessity and utility of training in the natural law for the production of (SDSDMSdiRdwdDTEB). This may require traditional mythos, ritual and holiday, and formal education from the very beginning, effectively creating a religoin of natural law”–CD