Sunday, May 05, 2019

A Practical Theory of Equality Is Relative

"Equality" is a "problematic" concept due to a lack of nuance when applied to practical matters such as human affairs.

Take, for example, the standard axioms of equality theory:

x=x
if x=y then y=x
if x=y and y=z then x=z

In human affairs, many people extend equality theory with one more axiom:

∀x,y(x=y)

That is, everyone is equal to everyone else.

This doesn't get one very far in practice.

Now does it?

On the other hand, let's talk about relative equality theory with a new notation:

"x(y=z)" which means  "x regards y as the same as z".

Reformulating the standard axioms of equality theory:

x(y=y)
if x(y=z) then x(z=y)
if x(y=z) and x(z=w) then x(y=w)

Now, we're in a far more interesting domain of discourse, aren't we?

For example, let:

x = "US Constitution"
y = "Some White Guy"
z = "Some Black Guy"

We have:

US Constitution(Some White Guy = Some Black Guy)

In contrast, if we let:

x = "Race"
y = "Some White Guy"
z = "Some Black Guy"

We have:

Race(Some White Guy ≠ Some Black Guy)

(Yes, I know, I didn't introduce the axioms for "≠" yet... so ban me from Facebook.)

PS: I can't claim credit for this, very powerful, notion of equality. See Tom Etter's paper, "Three-place Identity".

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Ockham's Guillotine: Minimizing the Argument Surface of the Social Sciences

Established interests view "Trumpism" as foreboding a modern "storming of the Bastille".  They wonder, "What form of guillotine will populists roll out this time?  Will my head lop in a bucket?"

This article suggests rolling out an inherently judicious "guillotine":

Ockham's Guillotine

Ockham's Guillotine lops only the metaphorical heads of the social pseudoscience Bastille.  It precisely guides Ockham's Razor down the grooves spanning only those necks.

This it does by selecting the best unified model of society, based on a single number:

The model's size, measured in bits of information.

Deprived of "wiggle room" for their "lies, damn lies and statistics", social pseudoscientists will be helpless as the Razor slips, the buckets receive and the crowds roar.

The science for Ockham's Guillotine is here; its mechanisms driven by one of the most powerful forces in history:

The explosion of computation and social data detonated by Moore's Law.

Harnessing this raw power in the design of Ockham's Guillotine requires a theory equal to the task:

Algorithmic Information Theory

Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT) is the computational form of Ockham's Razor:

The Algorithmic Information content of any data, including social data, is the size of the smallest program (algorithm) that outputs that data.  That program necessarily embodies the smallest model of the data.

AIT founds the exploding field of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).  AIT is sometimes called "Algorithmic Probability Theory" or "Solomonoff Induction".

The final advice given by seminal artificial intelligence figure, the late Marvin Minsky:
"The most important discovery since Godel is Algorithmic Probability which is a fundamental new theory of how to make predictions given a collection of experiences... This is a beautiful theory... that will make better predictions than anything we have today and everybody should learn all about that and spend the rest of their lives working on it."
By "experiences" Minsky meant observations/measurements in the form of data, such as social measurements.

Minimizing the Argument Surface

In cybersecurity, the concept of "attack surface" is the number of ways that an external actor can interact with the system.  Each way in which there is an interaction presents a potential vulnerability to attack.  These interactions can be viewed as "dialogues" based on the communications protocols so, in that sense, they can also be viewed as "issues" over which "arguments" can obtain.

Human conversations between potential adversaries are similar in that the more ways an issue presents itself, the more ways in which sophistic arguments can exploit the social contract upon which civil discourse obtains.  The social sciences are particularly problematic in this respect, involving a myriad of "issues" over which arguments may turn into sophistic exploits.

Ockham's Guillotine reduces the argument surface of the social sciences to just two issues:

1) Is the basis of the artificial intelligence industry valid?
2) What data is relevant to social policy decisions?

#1 is supported by the most powerful modern force as previously described:  The explosion of data, computation and economic incentives behind AGI.

#2 can be dealt with by the simple expedient of not arguing about it:  If the sophists demand that their data be included in the corpus, then let it be included.  This is enabled by the explosion of computation capacity on the one hand, and the ruthless nature of AIT on the other.  AIT is ruthless in the sense that any biased data will best be modeled by algorithmic explication of said bias that corrects the data accordingly.  Then the corrected data will be brought into consilience with the larger body of knowledge/data rather than standing alone, which requires more bits of information.

Perhaps the most ruthless approach to "nuking the social pseudosciences" would be a monetary prize for improvements in the unified model of society.  An exemplar of this kind of prize is The Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge, which targets natural language modeling based on Wikipedia's corpus.  Prize awards are paid out for each incremental improvement in the compression of Wikipedia.

A prize of this sort, targeting a unified model of society could trigger an avalanche of activity resulting from the social pseudoscientists attempting to take on the juggernaut of industrial artificial intelligence at the same time that hundreds or thousands of young people, eager to prove their chops (and earn money) increasingly embarrass the corrupt authorities of academia.

A preliminary data set of a wide range of longitudinal social measures for Ockham's Guillotine is available as an example at github.

Thursday, April 04, 2019

Chlorine Sequestration During Exponential Remediation of Civilization's Footprint

UPDATE: The research below exposed a possible new way of synthesizing EdenCrete from in situ resources -- one that bypasses the Calera process hence obviates the chlorine disposal problem.  It may also reduce the energy per mass.  This would reduce the doubling time and simplify the process.  A future article will discuss the implications.  For now, this article remains the best approach to balancing the geochemistry of the reference proposal.

The greatest challenge of the proposed "Exponential Remediation of Civilization's Footprint" is the necessary sequestration of chlorine evolved during the production of concrete, from oceanic salt ions (Ca++, Na+, Cl- and CO3--), for 70,000 Bowery Atolls.  The cited Calera process concrete produces 71% of its weight in chlorine (see "Comparison With Land Based Geologic Sequestration of CO2" below) while sequestering CO2 in the atoll concrete.

Geologic Sequestration


Later, we'll compare the magnitude of chlorine to the magnitude of land-based geologic sequestration of CO2, which can support many times the CO2 projected to be sequestered in the Bowery Atolls. But that requires transportation of evolved chlorine to those sites.  So first, we'll look at the in situ potential for geologic sequestration.

In situ resource utilization is highly desirable in an exponentially growing system.  The civil engineering sense of "in situ" is applicable:  "construction which is carried out at the building site using raw materials... which are present at or near a project site".  In situ resources obviate their transportation cost which, in exponential growth, can represent a severe constraint.  In the present case, resources include not only those that go into the atoll concrete, but also the resources to dispose of waste: geologic formations under the tropical doldrums suitable for chlorine sequestration.

Look at this map of deep sea marine sediments.

Map showing distribution of marine sediments.
  • Gray: land.
  • White: Sediments of the continental margin.
  • Blue: glacial sediments.
  • Orange: land-formed sediments.
  • Brown: pelagic clay.
  • Green: siliceous sediments.
  • Yellow: calcareous sediments.
Notice the eastern equatorial Pacific (doldrums) sediments are yellow, with green just to the north.  Underlying the construction site are "siliceous" and "calcareous" sediments.  There are sand (very fine grained, suitable for EveCrete binding) and calcium carbonate sediments, respectively, available in situ.

Another map disagrees somewhat but substantially supports the general point:



Sand is used in the concrete.  Calcium carbonate sediments lying about 1000ft beneath the ocean floor, offer virtually ideal chlorine sequestration via the reaction:

CaCO3 + 2HCl => CaCl2 + H2CO3 + heat

Chlorine sequestration is thereby turned into H2CO3 (carbonic acid) sequestration, 1000ft beneath the already several-kilometer deep ocean floor.  The H2CO3 will act as a connate fluid that is gradually expressed from the sediment, upward toward the ocean floor 1000ft above, over geologic time during lithification:  the process turning sediments to sedimentary rock.  Unlike water, the usual connate fluid, this particular connate fluid chemically interacts with the CaCO3 sediments via carbonate buffering.  This provides additional environmental protections in the form of pH stabilization and slowing of the already geologic time rate of reentry to the biosphere.

Is There Enough Sediment To Contain All That H2CO3?


In a word: Yes.

The volume of in situ calcareous sediments is on the order of 10,000 times greater than the total volume of H2CO3 evolved (which is comparable to the volume of Cl2 evolved from the 70,000 Bowery Atolls).  If only 1% of that volume is utilized for geologic sequestration, the volumetric concentration would still be only 1% of that reduced volume.

How Costly Is the Geologic Sequestration?


Existing deep sea drilling technology suffices as an economic existence proof.  A deep sea drilling platform costs about 10% of the net present value of an atoll.  Even if each atoll requires its own drilling platform, this is not blocking.  If chlorine is delivered to the sediment with ocean floor of about 12,000ft, liquid chlorine density of 1.5625gm/ml will provide about 8,000psi over-pressure at the ocean floor due to its higher density than water.

12000ft;1.5625g/ml?psi
(12000 * foot) * ([1.5625 * gramf] / [milli*liter]) ? psi
= 8128.6473 psi

This is well within the engineering limits of deep sea drilling.  Going 1000ft deep into CaCO3 sediments will subtract about 1,000psi from that injection pressure.

1000ft;2.7g/ml?psi
(1000 * foot) * ([2.7 * gramf] / [milli*liter]) ? psi
= 1170.5252 psi

The compressive strength of concrete is only about 5,000psi so even if the CaCO3 sediment is in the form of concrete, the injection pressure at that depth will combine with the corrosive nature of Cl2 will fracture the sediments, permitting the ingress of liquid chlorine.

The connate fluid already in the sediments will be dominated by H2O, thereby producing HCl via the reaction:

2Cl2 + 3H2O => 5HCl + HClO3 + heat

It is this HCl that will participate in the reaction already described that produces H2CO3.

Comparison With Land Based Geologic Sequestration of CO2


Land-based geologic sequestration capacity is known to be vastly greater than that required for sequestering the CO2 sequestered by 70,000 Bowery Atolls.

As it turns out, the liquid volume of CO2 sequestered in the concrete of the artificial atolls is significantly greater than the liquid volume of Cl2 produced.

100000people/atoll;7e9people;20km/atoll;(20/100)*2000tonne/m?tonne
 = 5.6E11 tonne
Total CaCO3 mass of atolls.

(12/100)*5.6E11 tonne?tonne (12 / 100) * (5.6E11 * ton_metric) ? ton_metric
 = 6.72E10 tonne
Total C mass of atolls.

(40/100)*5.6E11 tonne?tonne (40 / 100) * (5.6E11 * ton_metric) ? ton_metric
= 2.24E11 tonne
Total Ca mass of atolls.

321003271mi^3;0.04%*1020kg/m^3?tonne
= 5.45904E14 tonne
Total Ca mass in the entire ocean.

(2*35.45/100)*5.6E11 tonne?tonne
= 3.9704E11 tonne
Total Cl2 mass evolved during atoll construction from Calera process.

(44/100)*5.6E11 tonne?tonne
= 2.464E11 tonne
Total CO2 mass sequestered during atoll construction from Calera process.

1.5625g/cm^3;3.9704E11?m^3
= 2.541056E11 m^3
Total (liquid) Cl volume as geologically sequestered (prior to mineralization)

1101 kg/m^3;2.464E11 tonne?m^3
= 2.2E11 m^3
Total CO2 volume as it would have been geologically sequestered (prior to mineralization)







Friday, March 29, 2019

Now Amassing The Army aka #HighNoonPatriots

TL;DR

As many days as you can, at high noon central time,  do SOMETHING VISIBLE (and legal*) petition for redress of grievances.  Include the hashtag #highnoonpatriots to show solidarity with others.  Do it anonymously as appropriate.

END TL;DR


About 1 in 3 Americans believe that civil war will breakout in the near future.  Individuals are increasingly vulnerable to mobs, particularly as mobs capture American institutions established to protect the individual from mobs.  Individuals, powerless against and fearful of the growing power and virulence of mobs, seek safety in numbers by joining mobs.

First we must answer the question, "What happened?"

Next we must answer the question, "How can individuals protect themselves against institutionalize mobs?"


What Happened?


Centralization of power forces everyone, as a matter of self defense, to vie for the center of power.  This encourages mob mentality.  The centralization of power in America has gradually empowered mobs of all stripes.  The fatal blow was the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 steadily increasing immigration decade after decade -- a policy overwhelmingly opposed by AmericansWhy was this the fatal blow against the individual?  Because about 80% of naturalized citizens vote for greater centralization of social policy in the Federal government.  

That's why.  

And that's what happened.


How Can Individuals Protect Themselves?


Act together or act individually and hang individually.  

First and foremost, this means synchronized action.


Why Synchronized Action?


Think about the public "shutting down the Congressional switchboard" in response to mass media inspired outrage.

Any synchronized action is vastly more effective than asynchronous action because of the effects of transients on networks upon which civilization depends

Start small and symbolic but synchronized. This will build a pattern of victory.


How Can Individuals Synchronize?


Do something visible to others at high noon central time.


Every Day?


As many days as you can.




*Prior versions of this article recommended less frequent but more targeted and even costly actions, as a way of providing quorum sensing in a decentralized manner impervious to managerial class censorship.  Daily and less targeted, but still synchronized, action will provide a bigger tent.

Monday, February 11, 2019

The Expropriation Condition For a Single Tax On Wealth

Perhaps the greatest fear of a wealth tax, more accurately called a tax on liquid value of net assets, is that it would expropriate liquidation value.  To calculate the level of expropriation it is helpful to assume a single tax on wealth and then measure the difference in liquidation value.  This can be done by subtracting the owner's original value under activity (income) taxation, from the prospective buyer's value under asset (wealth) taxation:

\[\frac{  \mathit{buyer\_ income}-\mathit{buyer\_ expense}}{\log{\left( \mathit{buyer\_ interest\_ rate}+\mathit{asset\_ tax\_ rate}+1\right) }}-\frac{\left( 1-\mathit{income\_ tax\_ rate}\right)  \left( \mathit{owner\_ income}-\mathit{owner\_ expense}\right) }{\log{\left( \mathit{owner\_ interest\_ rate}+1\right) }}\]

WHERE
income_tax_rate = the aggregate tax rate on economic activities, such as income, capital gains, value added, etc.
asset_tax_rate = the net asset tax rate (on liquid value)
owner_income = the owner's expected gross periodic income from the asset
buyer_income = the buyer's expected gross periodic income from the asset
owner_expense = the owner's expected periodic expenditure on the asset
buyer_expense = the buyer's expected periodic expenditure on the asset
owner_interest_rate = the periodic interest rate paid by the owner in borrowing to purchase the asset
buyer_interest_rate = the periodic interest rate paid by the buyer in borrowing to purchase the asset

The more negative this difference goes, the greater the expropriation of liquid value.

It is important to note that the above formula assumes the buyer does not enjoy a standard deduction -- for example a homestead deduction as normally protected under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Such a deduction is an ordinary feature of wealth tax proposals and would frequently come into play in a change to single tax on wealth as tenants  purchase their residences from landlords.

The derivation follows:

\[\tag{profit_stream}\frac{\left( \mathit{income}-\mathit{expense}\right) \, \left( 1-\mathit{income\_ tax\_ rate}\right) }{{{\left( \mathit{interest\_ rate}+\mathit{asset\_ tax\_ rate}+1\right) }^{t}}}\]

\[\tag{net_present_value}\frac{\left( \mathit{income}-\mathit{expense}\right) \, \left( 1-\mathit{income\_ tax\_ rate}\right) }{\log{\left( \mathit{interest\_ rate}+\mathit{asset\_ tax\_ rate}+1\right) }}\]

\[\tag{AT_ NPV}\frac{\mathit{income}-\mathit{expense}}{\log{\left( \mathit{interest\_ rate}+\mathit{asset\_ tax\_ rate}+1\right) }}\]

\[\tag{IT_ NPV}\frac{\left( \mathit{income}-\mathit{expense}\right) \, \left( 1-\mathit{income\_ tax\_ rate}\right) }{\log{\left( \mathit{interest\_ rate}+1\right) }}\]

\[\tag{Buyer_NPV}\frac{  \mathit{buyer\_ income}-\mathit{buyer\_ expense}}{\log{\left( \mathit{buyer\_ interest\_ rate}+\mathit{asset\_ tax\_ rate}+1\right) }}\]

\[\tag{Owner_NPV}\frac{\left( 1-\mathit{income\_ tax\_ rate}\right)  \left( \mathit{owner\_ income}-\mathit{owner\_ expense}\right) }{\log{\left( \mathit{owner\_ interest\_ rate}+1\right) }}\]

Thursday, July 19, 2018

"Genocide"

You Have Been Misled As to the Meaning of the Word

"Genocide"

You have been taught that nationalism is the primary source of "genocide" -- that nationalists perpetrate "genocide" and that ridding the world of nationalism is an important, perhaps the most important step in eradicating the threat of "genocide".


You have been taught, and are now a believer in, the exact opposite of the truth.


Raphael Lemkin and his work with the Geneva Conventions led the term "genocide" to be incorporated into the Geneva Conventions.

Here is Lemkin's definition:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group."
Cited in "Beyond the 1948 Convention -- Emerging principles of Genocide in Customary International Law," Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, vol. 17, no. 2, Fall 1993, ppp. 193-226.

The conclusion is inescapable:


Those who have taught you that:

"Genocide can be eradicated by eradicating nationalism."

are actually perpetrators of genocide under its proper definition within the Geneva Conventions.

Furthermore, since the pervasive teaching of this ideology has been the primary moral force for the disintegration of, not one, but most national identities during the last half of the 20th century, its teachers have been and are by definition the primary perpetrators of genocide over the last half century.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Declaration of War for The Culture of Individual Integrity

RESOLUTION Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Culture of Individual Integrity and The Culture of Group Integrity and Making Provisions To Prosecute The Same

WHEREAS waging war in the absence of a Formal Declaration of the State of War is typical of The Culture of Group Integrity, found in Nature, such as the social insects, and

WHEREAS Western Civilization is, unique among human societies, founded on The Culture of Individual Integrity, and

WHEREAS Individuals are at an existential disadvantage in a State of War against groups, and

WHEREAS waging war in the absence of a Formal Declaration is fraudulent, and

WHEREAS fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, vitiating the most solemn legislative acts, executive orders, court rulings, treaties, contracts, documents and oaths, and

WHEREAS this State of War has long-been and is replacing The People cultivated by Western Civilization's Culture of Individual Integrity, with peoples cultivated by Cultures of Group Integrity, and

WHEREAS formal Declarations of War have been the means by which Individuals form Groups, known as Armies, of adequate integrity to defeat Cultures of Group Integrity, known variously as mobs, gangs, political parties, rackets and conspiracies, and

WHEREAS Individuals can, themselves, only organize as a Group to wage war at the peril of their essential Nature, and

WHEREAS a Continual State of War cultivates Group Integrity, realizing this peril, and

WHEREAS Individuals have demonstrated that enumeration of Rights, rendered ambiguous by their complexity, are inadequate to provide security against The Culture of Group Integrity's continuation of war by fraudulent means of a primarily legalistic nature,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

Individuals Declare that a State of War exists between The Culture of Individual Integrity and The Culture of Group Integrity, so as to organize into an Army to Wage that War, only so long as the following conditions of The State of Peace, stated in common terms understandable to any Individual, do not obtain:
  1. The current model of “human rights” must be replaced with a single, well defined, Individual Right to vote with one's feet to escape to any State consenting to that Individual's entry. This necessitates 3 material Individual Implied Rights:
    1. The material right to land.
    2. The material right to transportation.
    3. The material right to border enforcement.
  2. The primary Individual Right, that to vote with one's feet, being inconsistent with prisons, necessitates replacement of involuntary incarceration with involuntary border-enforced exile and allowing a State to preemptively exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever deemed appropriate by that State. This, in turn, necessitates a State of Nature to which Individuals are always admitted, even if they are excluded from all other States.
  3. The material Individual Implied Right to land is realized by providing each Individual with a non-monetary rent stream, equal to all other Individuals, assigned to that Individual's State, for competitive reapportionment of State territories according to the census of its residents and the value those States place on land.
  4. The objective condition fulfilling the Individual Implied Right to transportation is that the Individual's current State of residence must, on demand, provide safe transportation to its border.  The borders of adjacent States must therefore provide neutral zones through which migrants may pass unimpeded.  Any other material assistance that Individuals may provide to migrants is entirely voluntary.  States enclosing other States as enclaves must provide some means of escape, even if only a neutral zone that extends through its territory to the enclave.
  5. The State of Nature must exclude all artifacts of civilization not produced there, as well as excluding The Culture of Group Integrity.  Excluding The Culture of Group Integrity necessitates the following laws upholding Individual Sovereignty1, be imposed on The State of Nature:
    1. Except in self defense or enforcement of this Law, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another. No one may secretly restrain another. No one who has reached the age capable of procreation may physically force upon another any offensive, sexually-oriented act; nor engage in any offensive, sexually-oriented act with any person who has not reached the age capable of procreation even when no force is involved. An open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below shall be the effective determination as to whether the alleged act took place and whether the act was offensive and was sexually-oriented. Any degree of participation in group force that results in violation of this point of Law regarding offensive, sexually-oriented acts makes every participant fully guilty of the result, along with the person actually performing the act.
    2. No man shall force the act of procreation on a woman without her deliberated consent. Rape Is hereby defined as an act of procreation without the involved woman’s deliberated consent. Any man who engages with a woman in an act of procreation without her formal, publicly-proclaimed deliberated consent may be found guilty of rape. In the absence of a formal public acceptance, the individual woman involved Is the sole judge of whether an act of procreation was rape. If a woman who has not made advance formal acceptance of a man prior to the act of procreation, formally accuses him of rape within three months after the alleged act, and if a majority of sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below vote that the man engaged in the act, then It shall invariably be construed as rape – even though it may clearly be shown that the woman Invited, or even persuaded, the man to engage In the act. A woman may revoke formal acceptance of a man at will by giving formal public notice of such revocation.
    3. Any individual, either sovereign or shielded, or any group of Individuals, may restrain persons suspected of breaking this Law for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, conduct a trial for them at a specified, easily accessible place on a date, time, and place publicly and formally announced three days In advance, and penalize (in person or by proxy or proxies) those deemed guilty by an open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns at the trial who are permanent residents of the community. (The composition of “community” and the meaning of “permanent resident” is to be defined by those subject to this Law.)
    4. No one shall be required to give testimony at a trial but it Is agreed that one found guilty of perjury by formal trial, as set forth In 3 above, shall be subject to the penalty set forth In 7 below.
    5. No agreements beyond this Law that give a group’s decisions effective power over individuals shall be made. Any group of two or more individuals who make other agreements giving a group decision effective power over Individuals, or who fail to abide by these Laws, shall be deemed a conspiracy against Individual freedom. All acts against them by an Individual or a group of Individuals subject to this Law shall be construed to be self-defense. — Further explanation: Anyone may bring interpersonal problems before a voluntarily convened formal open Forum structured after the manner of a traditional court of law. In such a Forum opinions regarding the interpersonal problems, and deliberated recommendations for settling differences, can be formally given, but such opinions and recommendations will not be binding on those Involved. Those who bring problems before the formal Forum may, if they choose, make personal agreements congruent with the Forum’s recommendations after the recommendations have been made. Those found guilty of making agreements to be bound by the Forum’s recommendations before the recommendations are made are guilty of making agreements giving a group decision effective power over individuals.
    6. Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:
      1. All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.
      2. A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefore.
      3. There shall be up to a one year interval from the time one is challenged to formal combat before one may again be engaged as the challenged. This interval may be shorted by the challenged issuing a formal public declaration of its termination. The challenged may not shield others from the end of combat through the end of this interval.
      4. Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage. All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides. No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground. No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat. When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.
      5. No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.
    7. Guilt for breaking any point of these laws shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found so-guilty shall be death within twenty-four hours.
1The language for the The State of Nature is derived from p90-93, “Valoric Fire And a Working Plan for Individual Sovereignty” From the Valorian Society ISBN 0-914752-18-9, except for the underlined additions set forth in above.  For definition of terms such as "sovereign" and "shielded" as well as further explanation, see introductory text in Sortocracy's "The State of Nature".