This is an initial list of frequently asked questions about Propertarianism, largely drawn from questions I have received while doing interviews etc. We will continue to expand on this list as we go along.

How do we keep the judiciary from being corrupted or co-opted?

(Note: The judiciary is harder to corrupt or co-opt than other groups targeted by the Left, because they are already high status and well-paid, so they are not nearly as dependent on the Left for status or income as compared to members of “The Academy” - media, colleges/universities, etc.)

The concern here relates to discretionary rule. When we say “corrupt judges” we’re talking about people with partial power to rule, who may do so outside of the purview of that power i.e. at their discretion. This is rule BY law, not rule OF law. Rule of law - strictly constructed - precisely prevents discretionary rule as it sets the criteria by which one applies power. Any decision which does not adhere to that criteria, either has no footing (legitimacy) and/or puts that judge under the scope of law (as a law breaker).

The issue here is that we currently live via positiva law; laws which are continuously written and rewritten. Having the power to write law allows one to change the criteria of judgements to fit their discretion. Natural Law of reciprocity, as a negativa law, and the ONLY law, removes the ability for judges to use the law for corrupt means. They don’t write new laws, they create new remedies for law breaking. One Rule of LAW which never changes is what prevents corrupt judges.

Will this “legal solution” be weakened or destroyed by scum lawyers and their legalese/loopholes, or the rich and powerful just being able to afford to go to court more than the little guy?

See above - by attempting “slap suits” or a judges being paid off, demonstrates costs and externalities placed upon the court, society and individuals involved. This then demonstrates a breaking of the law which can be prosecuted. Right now we can’t prosecute some types of these things (political- personal-professional favors, common interests etc) because our legal definitions don’t capture those behaviors. Natural law does capture those behaviors and thus makes them prosecutable. In other words, it won’t prevent it from happening, but gives legal recourse to deal with it which we don’t have now.

Won’t this create the need for more court cases, more judges, more lawyers etc.?

(Yes. And this is good. It is a major secret to our civilization.)

Because in Propertarianism law-writing is no longer a juggernaut - industrial level production of ever increasingly complex jargon, the law is simple enough for anyone to understand (and participate). This opens up the franchise toward “everyman a judge”... but also provides a chilling effect, in that it would be quite easy to break the law as a judge or sheriff as well - incentives to get it right and if you can’t get it right then best to stay out of it (leads to incremental suppression of parasitism).

Everyman a Judge (a sheriff, a warrior, etc.)

Will the Left (or parasitic elites) be able to use the definition of property for their own purposes, claiming, “I invested in this, thus it’s my property?”

These changes to law (under Propertarianism) prevent the left (and anyone else) from being damaging (parasitic). Everyone can use the law to defend their property, using the propertarian definition of property. Currently the left’s expression of their instincts is damaging, because our system allows them to act parasitically. If prevented from acting parasitically, their instincts could find some expression in non-parasitic (not damaging) ways.

If you take it all the way back, didn’t white people steal America from the Indians? Where do you draw the line? How do you resolve the disputes?
No, where indigenous people demonstrated investment (hunting routes, village sites etc) Europeans respected this (these are the foundations of the treaties). The rest of the land (almost all of it) showed no investment (no commons creation) and thus it was not property to which they had rights to be respected. We decide and resolve disputes based on a demonstrated definition of property. 1) has an investment been made 2) if so did the investor demonstrate a desire to defend it 3) if so is the claim proportional to the investment (are they claiming more than the investment justifies) 4) was there damage to the property 5) decide on remedy to restore reciprocity.

How will Propertarianism deal with religion? Will Testimonialism make it impossible for religious leaders to speak publicly to religious followers in religious services?

No, religion is not outlawed. Taking legally consequential actions (and speech) (i.e. public actions) without being able to warrant them is outlawed. Religious claims so far are unwarrantable claims - therefore taking public or legally consequential actions based on religious arguments will land you in hot water. You are free to believe in any religion you like - you are NOT allowed to impose upon others and society writ large based on unwarrantable reasons of any kind (religious or otherwise).

(Note from John Mark - we will continue to expand on this answer and add more clarity as we go forward.)