|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|Independence Preferred|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 12:46 pm||
|Employing the learned difference between dictatorial, top-down, blind belief in falsehood without question, love it or leave it, take the oath of allegiance to organized crime under the color of law, might falsely making right, immoral choice, and in direct opposition the alternative freedom in liberty choice of voluntary association for mutual defense, the prescription for a possible future of increasing standards of living, lower costs of living, is possible.
More simply put a federal (voluntary) association, rather than a national (involuntary) association can work in ways that can be predicted as will now be shown.
In each area, which can be a number of acres, or square miles, or any metric equivalent, whereby the people maintain rule of law, holding each other to account, in trial by jury cases, cases discovered by grand juries, cases published for the public knowledge, whereby any clear and present public danger affords the members of the grand jury the authority to demand the facts where the facts are discoverable, based upon probable cause, and to thereby put the presumed to be innocent accused, on trial by the country, and if the country in that area demands punishment in that case, in that area, then that is what happens to people who are guilty of that crime in that place. If on the other hand, in another area, someone guilty of a similar crime is offered redemption by restoring the individual victims of the crime (which can be anyone since the public in criminal cases have had their liberty injured by a perpetrator in a criminal case), then that is what happens in that area.
How big are these areas where the people in one area may be inclined to punish perpetrators who are found by the country through trial by jury to be guilty of criminally injuring everyone in that area, and in another area, the people in that area are inclined to offer redemption and restitution to perpetrators of crimes that are not civil matters?
The question is not superficial, as if the size of the area can be any size area found by arbitrarily declaring a size as might happen when dictators decide to subjugate all the people in a target area. The question is intended to help understand the natural laws of mankind, as individuals form voluntary organizations for the mutual defense of everyone agreeing to do so, in a specific area.
Once the size of the area is determined by voluntary choices, then that size of that area can be seen for what it is, seen as something other than a criminal organizations turf.
The natural force in view is now this specific human trait by which some people are inclined to punish, and other people are inclined to restore and redeem instead of punishment.
Thinking in these terms the process can be viewed at first at a family level, and therefore the size of the area being formed into a jurisdiction of law (voluntary association for mutual defense) is wherever the family can influence the whole number of people that constitute that family, such as their home, or their ranch, or their apartment.
If the jurisdiction is a voluntary association and the members of the country are the father, mother, and two children who have grown to an age of independence, then here is where the process of dividing into separate, competitive, areas of jurisdiction can be discovered and investigated.
This family under scrutiny may have been a punishment or a redemption/restitution jurisdiction, and the two children may divide from the family to form 2 more jurisdictions, which then constitute 3 total jurisdictions forming naturally according to the common laws of free people in liberty: voluntary association for mutual defense or saying the same thing voluntary association for mutual benefit since defense is a benefit and if there is no defense then none of the benefits are secured, and as likely as not the lack of defense opens the door for criminal organization replacing rule of law: counterfeiting rule of law.
So now there are in view 3 naturally forming competitive jurisdictions of law as the original family divides into 3 families constituted by natural occurring, voluntary, forces.
Suppose the original family agreed to employ punishment as a rule when dealing with criminals who were found guilty by unanimous agreement, which then prescribes punishment as the remedy. Then suppose that the first division was also a formation of a jurisdiction that agreed with the punishment doctrine. Now suppose that the second division became something different, an adaptation, a creative experiment that remains within the boundaries of voluntary association for mutual defense, something that requires unanimity in any case when dealing with remedies associated with criminal actions perpetrated willfully by criminals upon victims: threats to all the people in the jurisdiction, threats to the public peace in that jurisdiction.
Mom and Pop are inclined toward punishment.
Offspring A moves out, forms another family unit, and those in that family also agree, unanimously, with punishment as the rule.
Offspring B moves out, forms another jurisdiction, and those in that family invent, or agree to adopt an existing invention, whereby redemption and restitution constitute remedy in that jurisdiction.
None of these families force their preferred remedy upon anyone else in any other family, since doing so is preposterous, doing so would constitute an involuntary association, since one family has agreed to punishment as a rule, and the other offspring has agreed to redemption and restitution as the rule, and neither family is going to agree to the other families rules, and there in that explanation are the principles of what constitutes a jurisdiction, and from that the size of the jurisdiction can be accurately measured as those agreements are made, or unmade, doing so while maintaining unanimity.
Anyone not agreeing with the rule can either employ peaceful means to convince everyone else in the jurisdiction to adopt an adaptive rule, or that individual who does not agree with the rule can move from that jurisdiction to a jurisdiction that can be convinced to adapt and adopt a competitive rule, or move to a jurisdiction that has already adapted and adopted the competitive rule: and the chips may fall as they may fall.
From that viewpoint, it can then be reasoned out how those competitive voluntary associations work when dealing with criminals, as those people in those jurisdictions agree, voluntarily, and unanimously, to employ rules such as punishment, or rules such as redemption and restoration, as remedies that work effectively to deter crime in those jurisdictions.
|Current time is 01:30 am|
|Power Independence > Book > Book Work > Independence Preferred||Top|