Derive The Law

Derive the Law
Welcome to my blog - Derive the Law. In this blog, as the name suggests, I will derive the law from
observations and principles that can be agreed upon. In the first part of each chapter, I will summarize
the information that is derived by the formal derivation included in the second part (of each
chapter). I hope you enjoy reading it. Feel free to comment.
Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:50 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Chapter 1: A Blank Slate - Free Space
A space is a connected collection of locations. Spaces can have rules that dictate a regimen to follow within the
space. A physical space with no other governing laws than natural laws is called free space. To derive the law, we
have to start with a blank slate - free space.

Formal Derivation

1.0 - If we wish to derive the law, we start with the concept of "Free Space"

1.1 - Definition of a Space: The total connection of locations (that can possibly contain elements) bound by a set (or
sets) of laws.

1.2 - Rules, when understood among a group of people, act as governing rules over the physical space containing
the people accepting them
1.2.1. People have the ability to follow a set of rules they understand.
1.2.2. Rules exist in a Quasi-Abstract Space - the space of the mind.
1.2.3. The mind is connected to and in sync with the body, which resides in physical space.
1.2.4. If rules are accepted, they govern the physical space containing the persons who accept them.

1.3 - Definition of Free Space: A physical space with no set rules other than the natural laws governing the people
within the space.

1.4 - To derive the law, we start with "Free Space."
1.4.1. To derive the law we are to start with a blank slate (i.e. no laws)
1.4.2. "Free Space" is a space with no laws.
1.4.3. To derive the law, we start with the concept of "Free Space."
Chapter 2: Karma and its Implications in Free Space
Karma is the foundation to justice. It is defined as the principle of balance and equality and it is understood
innately. By Karma, all actions performed by one person would equate to an equal reaction by another person.
Suppose all persons in free space are capable of fighting. If a person chose to fight, another person could do the
same in return. In other words, if you were to choose to combat against a person or group of people, you could
expect those people to fight you.

Formal Derivation

2.1 - Definition of Karma:
A principle of equality (or balance) that is understood by all persons. It can also be identified as the foundational
principle used in establishing justice.

2.2 - The Principle of Karma states: For something given, a return should be expected of equal proportion.
2.2.1. Karma is the equalizing principle that creates balance.
2.2.2. To give would be balanced by receiving in equal proportion.
2.2.3. For that which is given, return is expected in equal proportion.

2.3 - If you do something combative in free space, you can expect a reaction of equal measure (that quite possibly
could be combative).
2.3.1. For that which is given, return is expected.
2.3.2. To a person committing an act, there is rewarded something of equal measure.
2.3.3. For a combative act against a person, there is to be expected a reaction of equal measure (possibly
combative).
Chapter 3: The Peace Covenant and the International
Government
If no one wants to be combatted against, they form an agreement. This is a foundational peace covenant that
states whatever we do, we don't fight.
Thus, since the agreement is to not fight, it is the law, and the law must be enforced. Having free will to break any
law, there must be a force maintaining order. Since nations in free space are equal entities, there needs to be a
superior that upholds the peace covenant - the international government.

Formal Derivation:

3.1 - Definition of covenant: a grand agreement in which people submit themselves to a common law and/or under a
certain order.

Case A: Suppose no one wishes to be combatted against.

3.2 - Supposing no one wants to test 2.3, we have a peace covenant.
3.2.1. Suppose no one wants to fight (no one wants to test 2.3).
3.2.2. Then we come to the common understanding (or agreement) that we do not fight.
3.2.3. This agreement is a set way to which all parties involved should adhere.
3.2.4. Hence, the agreement forms a new law - to not combat - to keep the peace.
3.2.5. Therefore, there is a peace covenant (by definition of a covenant).

3.3 - There is to be a governing body upholding and enforcing all covenants.
3.3.1. For a person involved in a covenant, the covenant to which they belong defines laws they are to follow (see
3.2.2 - 3.2.4 for an example).
3.3.2. Human persons have free will - to follow or to break the law.
3.3.3. If laws are broken by someone and no logical consequence is issued, people can break the law with no
repercussions.
3.3.4. When people can break the law without repercussions, the law is meaningless and peace is obstructed.
3.3.5. We desire peace and justice.
3.3.6. So, we must enforce every law.
3.3.7 This means we are to hold covenants at the highest concern (since they, by definition, define laws) by
deriving and enforcing logical consequences for when they are broken.
3.3.8. Since, by Karma, people who are of the same standing are not to impose consequences upon another
(excluding certain karmactic reactions), there must be an authoritative figure above the people that are involved in a
covenant.
3.3.9. Thus there is a governing body as the authority enforcing covenants.

3.4 - If nations do not want to fight, there must be an international government that enforces that rule.
3.4.1. By the agreement to not fight, we have a peace covenant.
3.4.2. By 3.3, there is a governing body upholding our peace covenant.
3.4.3. By the principle of Karma, nations (considered to be of equal standing) are to not have authority over other
nations.
3.4.4. The governing body, as it is the authority over the nations, a) must not be a nation and b) must be above all
nations (as it would concern the covenant).
3.4.5 There is to be an international government governing the peace covenant.

N.B. This does not mean that the international government need have an army; but if the international government
derives the need for war (as the only logical consequence that could possibly remedy a situation), then nations are to
aid in accomplishing the mission behind the war.
Chapter 4: Agreeing to Agree
To establish peace, we look at the reasons peace might be broken. Total peace is a state in which there are no
fights and all potential causes of fights are addressed.
It is to be deduced that to establish and maintain a state of peace, two things must happen: a) we make and keep
agreements so as to avoid disagreements, and b) where justice or peace is obstructed, we derive and enforce a
logical consequence over the obstructer(s).
The second requisite falls on the responsibility of authorities, but the first one applies to all.
In other words, everyone must come to a common understanding (or agreement) before participating in acts that
could be considered objectionable.

Formal Derivation:

4.0 - In order to establish and maintain peace: a) we make and keep agreements so as to avoid disagreements, and
b) where justice or peace is obstructed, we derive and enforce a logical consequence over the obstructer(s).

Case B: Suppose that, despite the implications of Karma, someone finds it fit to fight.

4.1 - To be at total peace, we must remedy all disagreements, misunderstandings, broken agreements, eruptions of
chaos, acts done so as to dominate over another (unless agreed upon and exercised fairly), and senseless acts of
violence.
4.1.1. To be at total peace is to have no fights or potential fights.
4.1.2. We want peace.
4.1.3. We are to eliminate all causes of fights
4.1.4. Fights are based upon disagreements, misunderstandings, broken agreements, eruptions of chaos, a need
to establish dominance, and no reason - just because.
4.1.5. In order to be at total peace, we must eliminate or remedy the factors (named in 4.1.4) that are considered to
be the basis for fights and potential fights.

4.2 - We keep peace and ensure justice a) by making and keeping agreements in place of disagreements and b) by
responding to obstructions of peace and justice by removing them and supplying whatever other logical
consequences are derived.
4.2.1. By 4.1.5, to establish total peace:
4.2.1.1. We are to resolve our disagreements. We do this by compromising and making agreements.
4.2.1.2. We are to resolve misunderstandings, and this is done by identifying misconceptions and coming to a
common understanding (the definition of agreement).
4.2.1.3 We are to keep the agreements we make, and for agreements broken (acting as a broken law) there is to
be issued a logical consequence.
4.2.1.4. We are to reestablish order during a chaotic outburst. Since rationalization doesn't reestablish order
during chaotic catastrophes, martial law would be derived as a logical consequence to reestablish order over the
people contributing to the chaos.
4.2.1.5. We are to detain those who fight to establish their dominance (except in the case of a competition).
4.2.1.5.a. If a fight or potential fight is founded on the need for someone to dominate, the person is fighting to
rise above the ones they are trying to dominate.
4.2.1.5.b. Unless a person can be rightfully determined as a superior to another, acts to dominate over
another contradict the principle of Karma - the principle that ensures equality of all.
4.2.1.5.c. The person trying to dominate, by Karma, would be dominated by authority, detained until control is
regained, and issued a logical consequence for obstructing peace and justice.
4.2.1.6. We are to detain those who fight without a reason as this could be classified as chaotic (without reason
or order), and we are to issue a logical consequence for obstructions to peace and justice.
4.2.2. Conclusion: Clearly, by summarizing the deductions, to establish and maintain peace, we are to 1) make
and keep agreements so as to avoid disagreements and 2) derive necessary and logical consequences (such as
detainment, paying money, serving time, etc.) over those who obstruct peace and justice.

Chapter 5: Rights Implied by the Law

If there is a law that, when enforced, establishes total peace (like the law deduced in chapter 4), it establishes
justice as well. And since peace and justice are the desired attributes of a law, a person has the right to follow a law
that says to make and keep agreements so as to avoid disagreements.
People have the right to agree or disagree with anything to which they fall subject. And if they are not involved in a
matter, they do not have the right to agree or disagree with it.
So, a person has the right to act any way they want as long as they: a) do not subject a person that would disagree,
b) do not intended to affect a person that doesn't want to be affected, or c) do not violate the terms of an agreement
by the action.
And authorities can override the first two rules if the action can be derived and people and government can override
the third if the agreement is null, unfair, contradictory, or outdated.

Formal Derivation:

5.0 - A person has the right to act any way they want as long as the action:
5.0.1. does not subject a person that disagrees with it,
5.0.2. is not intended to affect a person that doesn't want to be affected by it
5.0.3. does not violate the terms of an agreement.
5.0.4. (Note: Attached to a person are their possessions)
(Authorities can override a) 5.0.1 and 5.0.2 if the action can be derived and b) 5.0.3 if the agreement is null, unfair,
contradictory, or outdated)

5.1 - You have the right to do anything you want if you keep a law that demands total peace.
5.1.1. People have the right to exercise their free will within the confines of a just, complete law.
5.1.2. If we are at total peace, we have total justice.
5.1.2.1. If we are at total peace, there are no disagreements and no wrongs that aren't being made right (by
logical consequences).
5.1.2.2. If no one disagrees and all wrongs have been righted, all is right.
5.1.2.3. When all is right, there is total justice
5.1.3. If a set of laws, when exercised, establishes total peace, the set of laws is just and complete.
5.1.4. A person has the right to act as they wish within the confines of a law that demands total peace.

5.2 - If you keep the agreements you are a part of and avoid subjecting a person to a matter they would disagree
with, you have the right to do as you please.
5.2.1. From 4.2.2 we learn that establishing and maintaining a state of total peace is synonymous with a) making
and keeping agreements to avoid disagreements and b) providing logical consequences for obstructions to peace
and unlawful activities.
5.2.1.1. (Since the second constituent (5.2.1(b)) of peace places responsibility solely on the government, we'll
concentrate on the first constituent.)
5.2.2. People have the right to agree or disagree with a matter if and only if they fall subject to the matter.
5.2.3. Thus a disagreement can't occur if a person does not fall subject to the matter.
5.2.4. Therefore, as long as you do not subject a person (that does not disagree) by your actions (5.2.3), keep all
agreements you've made (5.2.1(a)), and follow any terms that may have been derived over you, you may do as you
please.

5.3 - It is wrong to act in a way in which you intend to affect a person that does not want to be affected.
5.3.1. If you intend to affect a person, you effectively subject them to your action.
5.3.2. The person, falling subject to the matter, has a right to disagree (5.2.2).
5.3.3. Intending to affect (in any way) a person that does not want to be affected is against the law.

5.4 - Therefore we have 5.0 - 5.0.4.
Chapter 6: A Fair Game
In life, there are objectives that we have to accomplish. Many times there are obstacles in the way of accomplishing
our objectives. So, we look at all persons as equals with equal rights and create a system of rules that bypass the
obstacles preventing us from accomplishing our objectives.
By submitting to equality, we establish fairness. People will only play a game if they have an equal opportunity as
others to accomplish the game's objective.
Since the game is a grand agreement, it is considered a covenant and must be controlled by the government.

Formal Derivation:

6.1 - To help accomplish objectives, we agree to play fair societal games - games that give everyone an equal
opportunity to accomplish the objective where obstacles (of illegality or impracticality) would have otherwise
prevented us from doing so.
6.1.1. Societal games are meant for everyone to play.
6.1.2. For a person to play a game, they must agree to its terms.
6.1.3. People will only play a game if the terms are just (or if the game gives them an unjust advantage).
6.1.4. A just game is a fair game.
6.1.5. A fair game ensures to all an equal opportunity to meet the objective of the game.
6.1.6. The games we use to run society must give all people an equal opportunity to accomplish the objective of the
game.

6.2 - When we agree to play a societal game, we enter into a covenant enforced by a governing body.
6.2.1. Societal games must give everyone a fair opportunity to accomplish the goal behind them.
6.2.2. Giving a fair opportunity in a game means imposing equalizing rules to keep the game fair.
6.2.3. By combining under a common set of equalizing rules and agreeing with the terms (or laws) of a game, we
have a covenant.

6.2.4. And this covenant has a government regulating the game.
Chapter 7: The Trade Game and the Money Game
In life, there are needs. Not everyone has what they need. So we play a game to acquire what we need in a fair
manner.
The trade game is based on the principle of karma. It says that goods and services can be traded for an equal
amount of goods and services.
So as long as you can provide a service or some possession another person wants, with the trade game, you can
obtain goods or services they provide.
The money game is the trade game where goods and services are exchanged for money, an amount of universally-
accepted worth.
Thus with the money game, you can obtain any good or service you desire (and from any person) as long as you
have enough money to match the worth of the goods and/or services provided.
This money, as it is to be universally accepted, should be created and distributed fairly by the government. And
since, by using money, we have a money game covenant, the government should be able to regulate the use of
money to keep a stable economy.

Formal Derivation:

7.0 - Society needs to run. People need to be able to obtain their needs whether public or personal. We also need
people to offer their services to provide these needs. In the big picture, if each person offers services they specialize
in to others, all of a persons necessary tasks would be performed with greater efficiency. So there must be a way to
ensure that if people offer their services, they can attain all that they need. So, we have the wonderful creation of
money.

7.1 - The Trade Game: It would be just for the goods and services of one person to be exchanged for an equal
proportion of goods and services of another person, assuming both parties agree with the transaction.
7.1.1. Attached to a person are the items they possess. And accounted for, to their benefit, are the services they
perform.
7.1..2. Suppose a person wishes to obtain a good or service that can be provided by another person.
7.1.3. By Karma (the principle of fairness), to receive, one would have to give in equal proportion.
7.1.4. If you wish to receive goods or services from another person, you can justly do so by offering an equal
amount of goods and services of their own - presuming, obviously, that the other person is in agreement with
relinquishing their goods or services for yours.

7.2 - Problems with the Trade Game: a) It's possible that the person possessing the good or ability to do the service
you desire wants no good or service you possess or can do, b) The value of the goods or services one wishes to
trade with another may not be worth the same as what the other wishes to trade and c) there is no leverage for
workers to supply free public services.

7.3 - We must be able to get what we need in life.

7.4 - Money is a universally accepted measurable amount of worth. It offers the assurance that if you have enough to
match the worth of something, you can have that thing.

7.5 - The Money Game bases itself off the trade game - where goods and services are exchanged for a universally
accepted amount of worth.

7.6 - Money should only be created by the government.
7.6.1. Money is to be universally accepted.
7.6.2. Suppose money could be freely created by any person.
7.6.3. A person can exchange their money (since it is universally accepted) for anything priced at the value of the
money.
7.6.4. If a person could freely create money, they could create enough to buy everything in the world.
7.6.5. Every person has needs, meaning that the money should supply their needs.
7.6.6. If money could be freely created, goods and services could become unavailable.
7.6.7. Thus money should be standardized (regulated by the government) and distributed fairly, so as to ensure that
all people can buy what they need.

7.7 - Money is to be appropriated to persons that contribute to the needs of society a) so as to motivate them to work
and b) so that they can be assured, in return, that their needs are met.
7.7.1. Since there is a person behind every need provided, we need the people to work.

7.7.2. Since people need money to live and we need people to work, we give people money for the work they do -
using money as the engine that makes us self-sufficient.

Chapter 8: Our Current Money Problem
There are a few problems with the current state of the economy that could easily be mended if a few regulations
were put into place. The two main factors contributing to our economic problems are: a) money leaking out of the
country and b) the ability to freely use the dollar - allowing "sponges" to acquire infinite wealth.
If you'll look at the picture (8.1 - modeled based on the economy of the United States), you will see that there is
money leaking out of the country - more money than is made on exports. When the money leaks, it becomes
property of a foreign country, meaning there are people outside of the country that possess the tool needed within the
country. That money (and all money) must be accounted for - implying the dollar loses its value.
The other problem we see is the lack of restraint. People can acquire as much wealth as they want as long as they
"have a right" to the money. Some of these people have more money than they will ever use - so again, there is
money we must account for that is withheld from being used for the purpose of the Money Game. Also, it makes
more sense for only an authoritative (governing) body to be able to capitalize off a person's accomplishment - not a
person of equal rights.

Formal Derivation:

8.0 - Our current economic problems are occurring due to three factors. There is/are: 1) a leak, 2) "sponges," and 3)
an unrestrained, uninhibited economy that can not be managed (due to rights that allow people to use money in a
way that goes against its intended purpose).

8.1 -

Not depicted (due to complexity):
8.1.1. There are more than 2 people.
8.1.2. There are more businesses than those depicted.
8.1.3. Not all people make the same amount of money.
8.1.4. There are persons the government pays to contribute in providing public services, and the money they make
goes to businesses.
8.1.5. People are taxed.
8.1.6. There is some foreign money that is received in exchange for domestic products.
8.1.7. Often times, the persons employed by big businesses reside in a foreign country, meaning their dollar earned
is going to foreign businesses, not the businesses depicted.
8.1.8. Many businesses are owned by groups of people.

8.2 - There is a leak, and it is destined to hurt the economy.
8.2.1. Draw attention to the yellow line in 8.1.
8.2.2. Suppose more money continually leaves a country than comes in.
8.2.3. Then the money we use to account for needs within the country becomes property of foreign countries.
8.2.4. People and businesses (in this model) need money.
8.2.5. More money needs to be made (since it is no longer in the country), and the money other countries possess
needs to be accounted for.
8.2.6. Thus we have inflation (due to money made) and a weak dollar (since the money other countries have has to
be accounted for).
8.2.7. There should only be equal trade between countries, and this can be done by trading without money or (for
more complicated trades) trading money for money that is to be used promptly.

8.3 - Money should be displaced by the government to account for deficits, or consolidated together by the
government in order to draw from a common account.
8.3.1. There are "sponges" in society that soak up amounts of money beyond what would be considered (even by
them) as "more than enough."
8.3.2. There is money that is not in use that we must account for.
8.3.3. We could make money - which would weaken the dollar; or we could displace the money, which would
prevent us from having to make more money that is to be accounted for.

Chapter 9: Using Money the Right Way
By consolidating the pots of money businesses possess into a joint-account available to all businesses as money
would be needed, there would be less money to account for, and businesses would not be hindered from growing to
a size that fits the needs of society. The deficits incurred by offering public goods and services would be offset by the
money earned in profitable businesses.
With the government handling the money aspect of all businesses, failing businesses can die peacefully. In addition,
a person's paycheck would never be compromised.
And finally, there would be no taxes (other than property tax), and no inflation (as every dollar is destined to return to
the pot of money.

Formal Derivation:

9.0 - Each person must be payed enough money to support themselves in exchange for an amount of work that,
together with all other workers, would supply all needs.

9.1 -

Not depicted (due to complexity, and one I forgot to add):
9.1.1. There are more than two people and one business.
9.1.2. For reasons of rank, difficulty of tasks, skill level, amount of skills known, demand, request, risk, and any other
reasons that would add to the value of a person's work, people make different amounts of money.
9.1.3. The wonders recycling and finding reliable, sustainable energy sources would have on the stability of the
economy - by enabling us to always have resources available for new goods.

9.2 - The minimum amount a person can earn for the amount of work needed by society should be based on a
budget that accounts for needs and a reasonable amount of desires.
9.2.1. A person has needs. And each person should be able to have extra - for things they desire (if possible).
9.2.2. Everything has a price.
9.2.3. A person should make enough to cover the price of what they want and need.
9.2.4. A budget based upon what people need and desire should be used to determine minimum wage.
9.2.5. Higher paid jobs should be adjusted according to minimum wage by using a multiplier or by adding value,
which ever makes more sense.

9.3 - Some benefits of having the government handling money:
9.3.1. There's no income tax, because income is calculated based on needs, and there's no sales tax or taxes for
public services because the difference between sales and cost of labor and goods (i.e. the CEO's salary) goes
directly to the one joint-account in the name of the government.
9.3.2. There's no inflation because the salary of all persons goes directly back to the government for goods and
services desired, and there is no money unaccounted for.
9.3.3. Money is regulated by the government (as it should be), and thus can serve its purpose.
9.3.3.1. Since the Money Game is a covenant, there is to be a governing body enforcing the terms of it.
9.3.3.2. Citizens' wages are derived and given by the government (a source of infinite money that upholds the fair
game policy), so no one's pay will never be compromised.

The next chapter addresses the many fears that people may have about socialism.
Chapter 10: Fears About Socialism
10.1. With the government in charge of business, products and services will suffer because there will be no
competition.
10.1.1. People would be paid for ideas, inventions, etc. that are used; so there would always be innovation.
10.1.2. The government would hire the best persons for the job.
10.1.3. People would be paid (in proportions that would earn fair wages) for time or tasks completed - for however
much each category is worth based on the job it's for.
10.1.4. This means there will always be new ideas and products developed, and productivity will be improved based
on how people are paid.

10.2. Entrepreneurs don't have the chance to develop profitable, reputable businesses.
10.2.1. All people have different talents: some people create ideas, some people can run businesses, and some
people can create ideas into realities.
10.2.2. We place those who succeed in certain areas into the areas in which they succeed.
10.2.3. If a person succeeds in the area of product or business development, they can have a job in the field.
10.2.4. In fact, without needing to worry about a source of income while starting a new business, it would be easier
for a business manager to accomplish their tasks.

10.3. We can't be assured that new ideas will be developed. Businesses won't need to innovate since the
government has a monopoly on all of them.
10.3.1. If a development or an idea is projected to be profitable, or if it is necessary for the betterment of society, the
government would have to promise to move forward with the idea.
10.3.2. It's also possible to let there be businesses competing for profit (for an increase in salary) while the money
handling is controlled by the government.

Derive The Law

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Derive The Law

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Derive the Law

S-ar putea să vă placă și