Are they actual experts though or are they just claiming to be experts? Are they experts in the area of study they are commenting on? Do they have a conflict of interest? They might be experts but they might also be lying.

I think we already have a vulnerability to misguided experts in the current system. These are judges.

Anyway, I was not claiming that we listen to specific experts. I was proposing that a 'scientific consensus' type of thing is reached for 'laws', meaning that you can't pass a law with 51% of yes votes, only with maybe 90% of yes votes (or more). Also, this vote should not be an opinion but a statement about agreement with the proof and inability to disprove it. I guess it wouldn't be a vote but a confirmation or refutation. If enough plausible refutations occur, then the law would not be arrived at until the issues are resolved. I think if you let enough people debate, things like conflicts of interest and ideological biases would likely cancel each other out and not interfere with the truth of the matter too much.

There are wars going on between entities all the time. From my observations, it looks like they are all mafia type organizations that engage in predatory behavior. They all must be eliminated.

"And you might want to consider just why that is."

I don't mean to sound so bold but I was thinking something along the lines of 'humanity not reaching my level yet'.

I guess I might be delusional, however, I just can't see how that is possible. My thinking seems to be logical and my assumptions seem reasonable. I'm definitely not going back to my prior beliefs that I disproved over the years.

It was conventional wisdom that the Earth is flat and bloodletting cures many ailments. Turns out that was wrong.

A majority (conventional wisdom) doesn't have the right to forcibly make others do as the majority wants. If someone wants to make a 'wrong-sided' road, let them.

For being so incredibly ignorant of how the law works you have an interesting insistence of its shortcomings...

Please review the concept of "jury trial." Please also include the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."

Murder is also rather final. And with your method, the murderer is still free to murder again.

"If there exist a counterexample, there is probably something else going on..."

Please find that counterexample then.

Dreams are interesting, but it is where they intersect with Reality that matters. That's the entire reason we have the scientific method: to create a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis to determine its potential validity. UNTIL that hypothesis has been tested, it is sheer fancy.

"I am guessing..."

Yes. That is true. You might want to try something a little more concrete...

You seem to have an interesting idea of what a "law" is. Laws define consequences for actions - both those actions which comport with the law and those which don't. Are there some "physical" laws which we do not have the power to break? Yup. But that isn't to say that the law does not exist simply because it isn't a law of conscious choice. Moral laws do, in fact, exist. There are consequences for breaking those laws. Just because those consequences may be temporarily delayed does not mean they will not at some later point take effect.

Again, "payback" in monetary terms only works for crimes in which a monetary value may be assigned. For any crime beyond simple theft, it's not possible. One can approximate using monetary terms, but that is because it is the only venue available - not because it is an equitable one.

"This also prevents frivolous punishments for violating arbitrary made up laws where no victim even exists."

Please go study basic legal terms. In particular, you might profit by noting the difference between a civil torte and a criminal "crime".

Freedom is self control. I know that sounds paradoxical, but it is accurate. The only way not to run afoul of the consequences of universal law is to know them all and to act in accordance. That is freedom. That is how to avoid the slavery of those unavoidable consequences.

You can't have choice without consequence - that is the lie. If there is action without consequence, the entire universe falls to chaos.

"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."
Lavrentiy Beria

Beria was Josef Stalin's (USSR) Merrick Garland, IRS, CIA, and FBI rolled up in one person.

The opposite of the rule of law is the rule by whim.

"There are some services which are more efficient when presented by a monopoly."

Yes, I agree there is some overhead with multiple companies providing the same service. There are 'economies of scale' effects with a big customer base.

However, this is no excuse for allowing violence.

My argument was that a forced monopoly is likely going to become wasteful and actually cost more than if there was competition with extra overhead.

"It's a classic economic problem."

More like, it is a classic statist propaganda argument.

"people never want to pay for until the service is critically needed"

Well then, I guess they will have to reap the consequences of their own decisions.

I buy health insurance, business insurance, etc. I do it even without anybody forcing me to do it.

It is immoral to force someone to buy something they decide not to.

"how's that exactly going to work?"

Right now you pay taxes and somebody else uses them to fund security services in your area. With my idea, instead of somebody forcing you to pay taxes (and skimming off the top), you would hire security services directly. If you need help, you would call them instead of 911.

"Flesh out your plans from soundbites into real proposals."

Yes, I agree. It is just a bit difficult to do in a forum format. My plan was to maybe write a book once I nail down my vision to something less vague. Which is why I am engaging with you guys, to try to get some initial feedback. I'm sorry to disappoint.

"No training. No badge. No official capacity?"

They wouldn't be able to do it for long, as they would make mistakes and quickly accrue huge debts due to being sued for all the damage. Nobody would insure them. They would quickly be taken down by another law enforcement body that knows what they are doing.

Monetary value can always be attached to damage. That's how one knows there is damage done, they can tell how much stuff was lost. One minor issue is that in some cases it is probabilistic.

It takes a certain amount of resources to support one's life. Usually, you are able to acquire much more resources by producing than it takes to support your life. So, you get 'profit' that you can use to either enjoy your non-working hours or to invest into something, such as children. So, if someone is killed (against their will), the murderer owes victim's future 'profit' to the victim.

It might be a little difficult to determine the monetary value for rape, but the idea is the same. The victim has negative effects on their future production as a result of the rape (physical and psychological). The rapist must pay back what would be lost. It would probably be less than with murder.

Drug dealing is a mutually consensual activity, so, nothing is lost as a result of violating anybody's will. If the drug user experiences any damage, it is a consequence of their own decisions. Now, if the drug dealer forces someone to become addicted to their product using either violence or fraud, then that is a different question. In that case, the drug dealer would be liable for the damage that was caused to the victim.

In a lot of cases, the damage is not just to the single victim but to multiple parties. Killing a CEO might bankrupt their company, so, shareholders might also be victims in that case.

I don't know yet how to deal with probabilistic nature of damage calculations. Maybe an expected value calculation can be used for this. This is something to think about and improve on.

The amount of damage that can be done can be quite substantial. The perpetrator may not even have enough from their estate plus the 'profit' from the remainder of their life to be able to pay back the full amount. However, that does not free them from the repayment obligation in any way.

My way doesn't remove protection, probably improves it.

yes, it can happen

much less likely these days with cameras and DNA

and DNA alone is not proof
and police lie as we see with the FBI

but something must be done to protect people
MUST BE DONE!!!

"There are no 100% logical humans; the emotional biases and ignorance they inject foil a system based on logic."

Seems to work more or less fine in science and engineering. All you have to do is ensure failure in cases of incorrect logic.

"We've seen all this before"

I don't think so.

I don't want academic running things. I don't want anyone in charge. I want academics doing law proofs. There is only two ways to do a proof: the wrong way and the right way. Any mistake would be easily uncovered. There is going to be no room for opinions with this situation.

I don't think you understand how radically different my vision is from the current situation.

There will be no room for initiatives. If somebody wants to start a war on my behalf or use my money for their own little project, they are going to have to go without.

"Case law is nothing more than the attempt to rule using existing principles on novel circumstances."

Not according to my observations. Certain cases basically make law, such as with judge rulings regarding collection of sales taxes across state lines. Or am I not seeing this right?

"You're saying contradictory things"

You are confusing things. Law enforcement is not the same thing as law making.

"who exactly are you going to have performing this task"

Law making (rather, law deriving): academia or something similar
Law enforcement: private security firms hired by people/entities who need law enforcement services. These entities might be cities, neighborhoods or even individuals.

"But it isn't efficient"

The point I was making was that you can have the Internet without DNS. It was not about efficiency, but mere existence.

You can also have a different systems that serve the same purpose that are just as efficient and even decentralized (https://namecoin.org.

Hence, your argument that the Internet is not usable without DNS (and the very small extent of its centralization) is rebutted.