“She tore up his speech, which means she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of truthful reciprocal trade between sovereigns, limiting us to testimony (facts).”
Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech.
The western tradition’s first premise is Sovereignty. Every man is his own country, king, legislature, army. We form alliances that insure one another’s sovereignty. In this way we are all equal at the top and seek material achievement – where religions (slaves) are equal at the bottom and seek to minimize material responsibilities. As sovereigns, we appeal to our allies (court) for enforcement of our sovereignty (violations of our interests).
This premise does not take cooperation for granted, it takes sovereignty for granted. It requires only that we do not offend (impose costs upon) one another’s demonstrated interests. But that as sovereigns we are free to war whenever we want. And we need submit to no one.
In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty, the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.
Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.
Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions.
P-Law explains the West and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth-telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.