Podcasts about law code

La bolletta dei datacenter per l'IA. La deriva dei modelli LLM. Trenitalia fa retromarcia sui check-in. Sequestro nel mondo del retrogaming. Queste e molte altre le notizie tech commentate nella puntata di questa settimana.Dallo studio distribuito di digitalia:Franco Solerio, Francesco Facconi, Giulio CupiniProduttori esecutivi:Nicola Gabriele Del Popolo, Simone Podico, Alessandro Stevanin, Nicola Grilli, Andrea Nicola Vasile, Roberto A., Daniele Bastianelli, Giovanni Priolo, Raffaele Marco Della Monica, Gabriele Di Lorenzo, Andrea Guido, @Jh4Ckal, Michele Olivieri, Luca Ubiali, Letizia Calcinai, Idle Fellow, Michele Levada, Enrico Carangi, Davide Capra, Donato Gravino, Paolo Bernardini, Christophe Sollami, Davide Tinti, Giuliano Arcinotti, Gianluca Denaci, Michele Francesco Falzarano, Diego Arati, Nicola Fort, Nicola Gabriele Del Popolo, Antonio Taurisano, Manuel Zavatta, Renato Battistin, Michelangelo Rocchetti, @Tiumeito, Matteo Tarabini, Simone Andreozzi, Arzigogolo, Guido Raffaele Piras, Vincenzo Ingenito, Denis Grosso, Alessio Ferrara, Emanuele Libori, Angelo Merendi, Raffaele Viero, Roberto Medeossi, Ftrava, Carlo Tomas, Andrea Picotti, @Ppogo, Marco Grechi, Calogero Augusta, Mario Cervai, Andrea Giovacchini, Anonimo Esse, Paolo Tegoni, @Akagrinta, Alessandro Morgantini, Mario GiammonaSponsor:Squarespace.com - utilizzate il codice coupon "DIGITALIA" per avere il 10% di sconto sul costo del primo acquisto.Links:AI execs meet with White House to talk AI energy and data centersOracle's data center would be powered by 3 small nuclear reactorsWhite House gets commitments from AI companies to curb deepfake pornLLMs are getting dumber and we have no idea whyModel collapse threatens to kill progress on generative AIsMeta scraped every Australian user's account to train its AIFord seeks patent for tech that listens to driver conversations to serve adsEveryone says Chrome devastates Mac battery life but does it?Trenitalia eliminerà il check-in per i treni regionaliUnity is Canceling the Runtime FeeMark Zuckerbergs 20-year mistakeFlappy Bird is finally returning 10 years after its demiseRetrogaming operazione Coin up 80: 12 mila console piratate sequestrateFake retro videogame ring worth 50m smashed in ItalySequestrate migliaia di console: preinstallati milioni di videogiochi piratatiMusic industrys 1990s hard drives like all HDDs are dyingM-DISC - WikipediaApple threatened to move Will Smith movie out of LouisianaGingilli del giorno:eHammurabi - A digital version of the Law Code of Hammurabi, including cuneiform, transliteration, normalization, and an English translation.Commentari degli IncaAnimated Knot ListSupporta Digitalia, diventa produttore esecutivo.

Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 231. This talk is from the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. Stephan Kinsella (Texas), State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code. PFS 2021 Playlist. Also podcast as KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021) For a similar talk, see KOL345 | Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution” or: […]

This program explores the history of the ancient city of Babylon and the land once known as Babylonia.  We'll uncover the story of this great city over the course of fifteen centuries and learn about its impact and why it was so beloved as well as hated by so many in the ancient world.   We'll also meet an interesting and rather eclectic cast of kings including Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim, Rim-Sin, Samsu-iluna, Marduk-apla-iddina II, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal, Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar I & II, Nabonidus, Cyrus the Great and many more. Contents:00:00 Introduction04:00 Before Babylon: The Fall of the Neo-Sumerian Empire05:30 Ibbi-Sin and Ishbi-Erra09:27 Letter of Puzur-Numushda to Ibbi-Sin12:21 Fall of Ur and the Birth of Babylonian Civilization15:11 Dynasties of Isin and Larsa (Isin-Larsa Period)19:00 The First Dynasty of Babylon26:32 Hammurabi of Babylon27:48 Zimri-Lim of Mari29:48 War with Eshnunna30:46 The Sukkalmah of Elam33:12 War with Elam35:51 Hammurabi and Rim-Sin39:41 Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim42:24 The Law Code of Hammurabi46:07 Rebellions during the Reign of Samsu-iluna52:30 The Last Four Kings of the First Dynasty55:29 The Hittite Invasion of Babylonia58:03 The Kassites take Control01:03:45 The Kassites Reunite Babylonia 01:06:30 Rivalry with Assyria 01:09:05 Assyria show Babylon who's Boss01:11:40 Tukulti-Ninurta's Conflict with the Kassites01:14:35 The Second Sack of Babylon01:18:37 Elamite Incursions01:20:10 Babylon Bounces Back01:22:36 The End of the Kassite Era01:25:55 The Second Dynasty of Isin01:27:23 Nebuchadnezzar I Avenges Babylon 01:33:50 Life under the Second Dynasty of Isin01:34:56 Literary Works: Enuma Elish and Sakkiku01:37:24 More Assyrian Meddling 01:43:43 Dark Age and Mysterious Dynasties of Babylon01:44:40 Second Dynasty of the Sealand01:47:43 The Bazi Dynasty01:48:11 The Elamite Dynasty 01:49:10 Dynasty E01:53:52 Tiglath-pileser III and the Neo-Assyrian Era of Babylon02:01:48 Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon and Sargon the II of Assyria02:11:19 Sennacherib 01:24:50 The Destruction of Babylon02:27:50 Esarhaddon Rebuilds Babylon02:33:12 Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shumu-ukin02:39:40 Nabopolassar and the Fall of Assyria02:46:54 Nebuchadnezzar II 02:53:10 Nabonidus, the Last Babylonian King02:56:40 Cyrus the Great and the Persian Conquest of Babylon03:01:04 End of an Era03:07:27 Thank You and PatronsSupport the show

Book interview with Hannarich Asiedu for “Decoding the In-Law Code: Master Your Mind for Peaceful Relationships”

Author of what may be the most often republished sefer of all time.

     In this section, Moses addresses how corporal punishment was to be meted out by the courts (Deut 25:1-3), how fairness applied to work animals (Deut 25:4), and the specifics of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10). Fair Punishment for Crime      In ancient Israel, like any nation, there were certain crimes that warranted punishment. In this particular case, Moses set a limit on the number of blows a man could receive as punishment for his crime. Moses said, “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt” (Deut 25:1-2).      In Moses' example, a dispute arose between two men who could not resolve their case by themselves and needed to bring it before a court. In this instance, the judges heard and ruled on the case and declared one righteous (צַדִּיק tsaddiq – righteous, just) and the other wicked (רָשָׁע rasha – wicked, criminal). This assumes God's law had been given, that the judges objectively understood the law based on God's intent, that they properly evaluated the case, and rendered a verdict that declared one to be justified and the other a criminal (Deut 25:1). All of this assumes God as the absolute moral Lawgiver who had revealed His will in objective language that could be understood and applied. If there is no absolute moral Lawgiver, then there are no absolute moral laws, and if there are no absolute moral laws, then right and wrong are reduced to arbitrary absolutes manufactured by those in power.      Here, Moses mentions a case, which is vague and probably intended to leave its application open to multiple instances where the judgment might apply. If the wicked person had committed a crime worthy of a beating, it was to be executed right away in the presence of the judge, and the beating was to be in proportion to the crime. Furthermore, Moses set a limit on the number of lashes a criminal could receive, saying, “He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes” (Deut 25:3). The purpose of the limitation was to prevent the criminal from being degraded by excessive punishment. After all, he was still a person with intrinsic value.      The ancient Law Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1750 B.C.) directed a man to be beaten 60 times, saying, “If a seignior has struck the cheek of a seignior who is superior to him, he shall be beaten sixty (times) with an oxtail whip in the assembly.”[1] This shows that public beatings were a common practice in the ancient world. Peter Craigie states: "The substance of this legislation makes it very clear that corporal punishment was subject to many safeguards designed to avoid its abuse. Corporal punishment could be inflicted only after proper trial, and then it was to be carried out, within the specified limit, under the supervision of the judge. In this way, care was taken to see that the punishment was appropriate to the crime, on the one hand, and that the criminal was not grossly maltreated on the other hand; the guilty party was still your brother (v. 3b; a fellow Israelite) and was not to be publicly humiliated."[2]      In the New Testament we learn this particular law was reduced to thirty-nine blows, likely as a safeguard to prevent Jewish judges from going beyond what the law demanded. The apostle Paul had been wrongly beaten with a whip, saying, “Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes” (2 Cor 11:24), adding, “Three times I was beaten with rods” (2 Cor 11:25). Here was an abuse of this law by corrupt Israelites who sought to suppress Paul and his Christian ministry. Fair Treatment of Work Animals      Moses then addressed the just treatment of an ox while it is threshing wheat, saying, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deut 25:4). Moses' point in adding this statement seems to expound on the previous verses. If God required just treatment of animals, how much more the just treatment of people. But it also demonstrated an economic principle that the animal that worked had the right to benefit from its labor. Daniel Block states: "Oxen used for threshing grain must not be muzzled. The ordinance assumes the ancient practice of threshing grain by having oxen trample the stalks or pull rock-studded sledges over the stalks spread out on the threshing floor. Greedy farmers muzzled their oxen or donkeys to prevent them from eating instead of working, or simply eating that which he hoped to harvest for himself (cf. Prov 14:4)."[3] Eugene Merrill adds: "The animal is nowhere “brother to the man” in Scripture but always sharply distinguished from humans. Nevertheless, the animal world, like all nature, is part of the divine creation entrusted to humankind as a stewardship. To abuse animal life is to fail to discharge that stewardship, and to fail to show mercy to God's lowest creatures is to open the door to disregard of human life as well."[4]      Moses had previously addressed humanitarian treatment of animals that were used for work (Deut 5:14; 22:1-4, 6-7). Elsewhere, the Bible reveals a theology of animals that reveals God personally cares for the animals He's created (Psa 104:10-29; 147:9; Matt 6:26), and He expects His people to do the same. Solomon states, “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel” (Prov 12:10).      The apostle Paul used this verse in Deuteronomy as an analogy for compensating pastors for their work, saying, “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing', and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages'” (1 Tim 5:17-18; cf., 1 Cor 9:9-10). In this way, believers help support their pastors for the work they do. Such support is honored by God. The Law of Levirate Marriage      Moses then issued the law of levirate marriage, saying, “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her” (Deut 25:5).      Marrying a sister-in-law was forbidden under the Mosaic Law (Lev 18:16). However, Moses here gave an exception in which he directed the brother of the deceased to take his sister-in-law as his wife in order to bring forth a son (child) in his brother's place. Apparently, this practice existed in ancient Israel (Gen 38:6-10), and Moses here codified it as law. The passage assumes 1) the living brother is not married (or at least willing to take a second wife), 2) that the brothers had lived on the same property together (perhaps sharing adjacent land), and 3) his sister-in-law had no children. Some see the heir as being a son only; however, Moses had previously ruled that a daughter could inherit the land (see Num 27:1-11). If the living brother took his sister-in-law to be his wife, then he 1) had a wife for life, 2) he would raise her firstborn under his brother's name, and 3) the firstborn would inherit his brother's property. This was a sacrifice that cost the brother financially, as he would need to raise his biological child until he was an adult, at which time the child would inherit the land. If the surviving brother refused to marry his sister-in-law, and she died childless, then his brother's property would likely become his own. Earl Radmacher states: "The ancients greatly feared having no heirs to carry on the family's name. Furthermore, a widow with no children to take care of her would quickly become a beggar. Taking a brother's widow as a second wife protected her and preserved the name, memory, and interests of the deceased brother. The dead brother would be acknowledged as the legal father of the firstborn son of that marriage. This practice is called levirate marriage, from the Latin word for brother-in-law."[5] Thomas Constable adds: "The Israelites were to practice levirate marriage only in cases where the brothers had lived together (v. 5) and the remaining brother was not already married. Living together meant sharing the same estate, not necessarily residing under the same roof. When another kinsman voluntarily assumed the responsibility of the surviving brother, that brother was apparently under no obligation to marry his sister-in-law (cf. Ruth 4)."[6]      Moses gave the reason for the levirate marriage, saying, “It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel” (Deut 25:6). The firstborn child would be the biological offspring of the living brother, but would eventually become the legal heir of his deceased brother, thus perpetuating the dead brother's name in Israel.      However, though this was the honorable thing to do, it was not commanded of the living brother. Moses described a scenario in which the living brother refused to perform his levirate duty, saying, “But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.” (Deut 25:7). Though Moses does not give a reason why the brother refused to marry his sister-in-law, it could be the brother was motivated by greed to get his deceased brother's property. If so, this would be a violation of the command, “You shall not covet” (Deut 5:21a). Daniel Block states: "The reason why a brother might refuse to marry the widow probably is to be found in a desire for personal gain. If he married the woman and there was a male child, that child, who would legally be the son of the deceased man, would inherit his “father's” property. In the absence of such a child, however, the surviving brother might hope to inherit the property of his deceased brother (Num. 27:9; this would apply only if the widow had no children at all, male or female). If such were the motive, it deserved the reprobation of the community."[7]      However, the widow was not without recourse to persuade her brother-in-law to marry her and to give her a child, as she can take the matter to the elders of the gate of the city and plead her case. Daniel Block writes: "Moses authorizes the bereaved widow to present her complaint before the elders at the town gate (v. 7b). As a legally competent plaintiff, he invites her to present her case before the body responsible for applying Israel's family laws. Having lost her husband, who would otherwise defend her interests, she may appeal to the elders to stand up for her. In addition to authorizing women to take their cases to the elders, he also advises the women on how to present their case."[8]      After the widow made her case, Moses directed the elders, saying, “Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,' then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house'” (Deut 25:8-9). Here was social pressure applied to the man to coerce him to perform his levirate duty, which was the selfless act of marrying his deceased brother's widow and raising up a child to carry on his name. However, if the elders of the city could not persuade the man, then the widow was permitted to publicly humiliate him by taking his sandal, spitting in his face, and publicly declaring how the man had failed to behave honorably. Keil and Delitzsch state: "The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Ruth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions. The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property, he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man's position and property. … But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face."[9]      Though we cannot be certain, it's likely the taking of the sandal served as a receipt of the transaction in which the widow took possession of her deceased husband's property, albeit without a husband or son to take ultimate inheritance of the land after she died. Daniel Block states: "The action represented a symbolic action of shame, but it also symbolized the transfer of the brother-in-law's rights to the deceased's widow and to that portion of the patrimonial estate that her husband would have received when it was divided. Since the woman would take the sandal home, it would function like a receipt, providing concrete proof of the present legal proceedings (cf. Ruth 4:7–8)."[10]      If this is the case, it could be that when the widow died, the land would return to the brother who refused to execute his levirate duties. However, until then, and throughout his life, the man would bear the public shame of his selfish act. So, Moses stated, “In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed'” (Deut 25:10). Here was a legacy of shame that carried on for many years, all because a man would not live honorably and selflessly as God directed. One action can have lasting consequences that can carry on for years. No doubt, his other relatives and children would be marked by the man's selfish actions. We must realize that every moment is an opportunity for integrity. The Example of Ruth      Ruth was married to an Israelite man who died and left her a widow (Ruth 1:1-5). Ruth became a believer in Yahweh and committed herself to caring for Naomi, her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16-17). After going to Bethlehem with Naomi, Ruth happened to glean from the field of Boaz (providentially), who was a kinsman to her deceased husband (Ruth 2:20), and he was amenable to caring for her (Ruth 2:1-8). Under Naomi's guidance, Ruth came to Boaz as her kinsman redeemer and sought levirate marriage (Ruth 3:1-11). However, being an honorable man who desired to live according to God's law, Boaz informed Ruth there was another man who was a kinsman closer to her (Ruth 3:12), and Boaz was willing to approach the man concerning his duty (Ruth 3:13). When Boaz approached the man at the city gate, he explained the situation concerning their dead relative, Elimelech, and the need to purchase the land for Naomi, who needed the resources (Ruth 4:1-4). However, Boaz also informed his relative that he would need to take Ruth as his wife and to fulfill his levirate duty (Ruth 4:5). Upon hearing this from Boaz, the nearest kinsman declined the offer, fearing it would impact him in such a way so as to jeopardize his own inheritance (Ruth 4:6). Having executed a legal transaction (Ruth 4:7-8), Boaz agreed to purchase the land from Naomi and to take Ruth to be his wife in order to raise up a descendant to inherit the deceased relative's land (Ruth 4:9-10). Boaz' actions were acknowledged and praised by the elders and citizens who witnessed the transaction (Ruth 4:11-12). Boaz and Ruth married and bore children who eventually led to the birth of King David (Ruth 4:13-22), and Jesus the Messiah (Matt 1:5-6, 17).      The marriage of Boaz to Ruth adhered to the law of the levirate marriage, in which Boaz would father a biological son that would eventually not be his son, but the son of his deceased relative, Elimelech. Gary North states: "Boaz became the biggest covenantal somebody in his generation only because he was willing to become a covenantal nobody in the extension of Elimelech's line. The land that he presumably bought from Naomi became the family inheritance in another man's line. Any improvements that he made in this land became another family line's property. By abandoning his own name covenantally, he thereby became the greatest name of his generation, a name that is listed in both of the messianic genealogies in the New Testament (Matt 1:5; Luke 3:32)."[11]     [1] James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with Supplement. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 175. [2] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 312. [3] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 580. [4] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 326. [5] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 259. [6] Tom Constable, Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), Dt 25:5. [7] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 315. [8] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 583. [9] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 954–955. [10] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 583–584. [11] Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy; Chapter 62, Levirate Marriage and Family Name, https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter62.htm.

Whether you are getting married or married for days or years, in-law drama does not have to be part of your life. Even if you have been spared the drama and have a great relationship, you can always find new ways to make it better. Relationships with in-laws can seem like a nightmare. If you've ever faced difficulty with your spouse's parents, you're not alone. The good news is there is hope. Hannarich Asiedu is an author, speaker, philanthropist, mother, and wife. She graduated from the University of Ghana with a bachelor's degree in English and French. She is also certified in the science of well-being under the instruction of cognitive scientist Dr. Laurie Santos at Yale University. Hannarich's website Decoding the In-Law Code Billie's website    

The Torah is centered around the idea that the descendants of Abraham are the rightful residents of the land of Israel and the religion they follow is the one true faith. Their law code comes from Moses and the land is granted to them according to divine covenant with Yahweh. But according to the Bible itself Abraham came from Babylon and the Law Code was written in Persia. And maybe, just maybe, the entire story of Abraham and Moses were written to provide Jewish pedigree for Persian ideas.

The Israelites had a superior morality given them by God according to the 1929 find at Ugarit. God bless you and thank you for listening! Please subscribe!

Audition Template: 1 Mono Host track (with Speech Volume Leveler), 1 Mono Interview track (with Speech Volume Leveler), 1 Stereo Sound FX with effects, 1 Stereo Music Bed track. 44.1k, 16 bit, Stereo Master.

Lt. Ryan Turner talks with officers from each of the four Administrative Law Division (Code 13) branches to discuss a typical day in the life. The division advises Washington activities and field commands on law, policies, statutes, and regulations pertaining to Department of Navy (DoN) administration.

This fascinating legal code, written by a ruler on the Sumerian Kings List, was used for 100's of years as a school textbook. God bless you! We appreciate you listening! Please join us daily!

Often cited as the oldest legal code, we don't actually have a copy, only what was written in other sources. God bless you and thank you for listening!

Good morning! This morning I highlight an article written by @eaglelex_eth. In his article he brings to light the issues with the general assertion that "Code is law" in the crypto space and dev world. While we all want to reform the current system that is rife with systematic oppression and segregation, what happens if we completely replace it with code? Does this open the door for new types of attacks and/or a dehumanization of the law? Does this set into motion a Moloch-style mechanism that goes on auto-pilot and leads humanity into destruction? Lots of these light-hearted questions are going through my head on this happy Sunday morning! Sources: BanklessDAO Newsletter November 27, 2021 https://twitter.com/eaglelex_eth https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://medium.com/cryptronics/the-5-most-common-smart-contract-vulnerabilities-738de4fae3ba

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 359. From the recently-concluded Fifteenth Annual (2021) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sept. 16–21, 2021). For others, see the links in the Program, or the PFS YouTube channel, including the growing PFS 2021 YouTube Playlist. Additional media of the proceedings will be released presently. https://youtu.be/hPPC9OfzHgI For a similar talk, see KOL345 | Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021). My notes are below: State Constitutions vs. The Libertarian Private Law Code Notes Stephan Kinsella Property and Freedom Society Annual Meeting Sep. 19, 2021 – Bodrum, Turkey   Joke: I've prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in the next half hour. Part I, Section A, Subsection 1: “Definitions.” Just kidding. I'm not going to read it. I haven't even finished it yet. My wife said “is this what you geeks think is funny?” I said we'll see. Half of them may be relieved, but some of them will be saying “Oh damn, I wanted to hear a Libertarian Constitution read to me.” Tell Hoppe Porcfest choking joke. I'm going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism—whether the idea makes sense at all. Since I've been a libertarian in the early 1980s, I've seen various utopian libertarian projects, many of them scams, most of them failures— cruise ship nations, now seasteading (Blueseed); Oceania—The Atlantis Project Same people: Project Lifeboat: “From the people who brought you the Oceania project so many years ago comes the Lifeboat project. An attempt to create a spaceship for the purposes of saving the human race from the singularity predicted by Vernor Vinge.” crazy guys homesteading abandoned oil rigs and declaring sovereignty; private justice, arbitration, and common law groups; The “Creative Common Law” project (Jamin Hubner), an anarcho-capitalist project in which I was enlisted as an advisor, only for it to later turn from “Creative Common Law 1.0: Anarcho-Capitalism” to “Creative Common Law 2.0: Anarcho-Socialism/Syndicalism” Always be wary of “Waystation libertarians” Tom Bell's “Ulex,” or “Open Source Legal Operating System”; LiberLand, which I helped draft an early constitution for see “The Voluntaryist Constitution” Galt's Gulch Chile, a scam that ended in disaster; the Honduras special economic zones; General Governance (David Johnston), the idea of leveraging Indian tribes' special status to extend their federal tax-free enclaves or zones; even the Free State Project National Constitution Center's “The Libertarian Constitution” Roderick Long's “Imagineering Freedom: A Constitution of Liberty Part I: Between Anarchy and Limited Government” and Michael Darby's “Draft Constitution for a Reviving or New Nation,” both at http://freenation.org/a/ Dennis Pratt https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-libertarian-bill-of-rights-look-like/answer/Dennis-Pratt-3 Siegen, Bernard H. (1994) Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging into Freedom. 2d ed.  Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University Press. I've been dragooned into helping some of these as consultant or advisor— General Governance, we met with Indian tribe north of Texas; now you get a 404, as David Johnston moved on to bitcoin, after assuring me that within 6 months we'll have a libertarian nation. Joel Bomgar, a libertarian-leaning conservative Christian businessman and Mississippi legislator. LiberLand (swam with Wit Jedlicka, the president, in Turkey) Mediterranean sea. Others I've forgotten. Often these projects involve the drafting of a new “Constitution” or some similar code or legal document. Why do we even use the word “Constitution”? The modern libertarian movement originated in the US in the 1950s with the work of Ayn Rand,

What does an ancient law code from Babylon have to teach us about how to discern God's will? How are we supposed to apply Jesus' words about divorce in real life? Jeff and Tyler tackle these topics and more in today's episode! #KindFaith

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 345. This was my talk delivered today (June 26, 2021) at PorcFest 2021: "Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution,” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code." The notes that I roughly followed are below; pix also below. Transcript below. Youtube (audio is passable in the video; improved audio from my separate iphone track will be added later) https://youtu.be/6qzJXBWLhTA The description from the PorcFest website (which will probably disappear at some time in the future): Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution” —————– When: Sat, 12:00P _(60m) Speaker: Stephan Kinsella {Website} {Pic}, An American intellectual property attorney and Austro-anarcho-libertarian writer and speaker for 25 years. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory such as rights theory, anarchism, contract theory, intellectual property, and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law. His legal works include International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide (Oxford University Press, 2020) and Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011); his libertarian writing includes Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute 2008) and the forthcoming Law in a Libertarian World (Papinian Press, 2021). Forthcoming works include Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (2022), and a systematic, codified statement of libertarian principles as an alternative to constitutions and committee-prepared political platforms. For Whom: Constitutionalists; secessionists; Federal reformers; decentralists; polycentrists; anarcho-capitalists. Description: State constitutions, including the US Constitution, are not libertarian. The purpose of the US Constitution was to establish a new, powerful, central state, not to protect individual rights. Efforts to draft “libertarian constitutions” are also often flawed, as when they presuppose and legitimate a state or a territory owned by a single owner (Liberland). Does the idea of a “libertarian constitution” make sense? What kind of codification or statement of libertarian principles is appropriate? {More} Where: Anth: Anthem Theater, OfficeBld   ❧ TRANSCRIPT Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code Stephan Kinsella PorcFest 2021, Lancaster NH June 26, 2021 00:00:01 W: … published by the Mises Institute in 2008 and the forthcoming Law and the Libertarian World.  So Stephan, I'll let you take it away about state constitutions. 00:00:10 STEPHAN KINSELLA: Okay.  Thanks a lot.  If you can't hear me, let me know.  I have no mic.  I speak kind of loud and kind of fast even though… 00:00:17 W: If we need to turn it up we can, so let us know. 00:00:19 STEPHAN KINSELLA: All right, so my talk is – I'll explain the title as we get into this: Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution.”  So I prepared a libertarian constitution, and I hope to cover as much of its 18 parts and 45 pages as possible in this next hour.  So part one, section A, subsection 1: definitions.  I'm just joking.  I'm not going to read my constitution.  I haven't even finished writing it yet.  I read this to my wife and she said, Is this what you geeks think is funny?  I said we'll see.  I said half the people in the audience might be relieved, but the other half might be, damn, I really wanted to hear a libertarian constitution read to me point by point. 00:01:03 I'm going to talk about the idea of constitutions and libertarianism and whether the whole idea makes sense at all.  So I've been a libertarian since about 1982, and I've seen so many libertarian – utopian libertarian projects that I can't even remember them all.  Most of them are scams I think or failures, and I've been involved in a few of them, so I'm just going to go through a few.

This was my talk delivered today (June 26, 2021) at PorcFest 2021: “Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution,” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code.” The notes that I roughly followed are below; pix also below. A transcript will be released shortly. Kinsella's Libertarian “Constitution” —————– When: Sat, 12:00P _(60m) Speaker: Stephan Kinsella {Website} {Pic}, An American intellectual property attorney and Austro-anarcho-libertarian writer and speaker for 25 years. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory such as rights theory, anarchism, contract theory, intellectual property, and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law. His legal works include International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide (Oxford University Press, 2020) and Louisiana Civil Law Dictionary (Quid Pro Books, 2011); his libertarian writing includes Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute 2008) and the forthcoming Law in a Libertarian World (Papinian Press, 2021). Forthcoming works include Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property (2022), and a systematic, codified statement of libertarian principles as an alternative to constitutions and committee-prepared political platforms. For Whom: Constitutionalists; secessionists; Federal reformers; decentralists; polycentrists; anarcho-capitalists. Description: State constitutions, including the US Constitution, are not libertarian. The purpose of the US Constitution was to establish a new, powerful, central state, not to protect individual rights. Efforts to draft “libertarian constitutions” are also often flawed, as when they presuppose and legitimate a state or a territory owned by a single owner (Liberland). Does the idea of a “libertarian constitution” make sense? What kind of codification or statement of libertarian principles is appropriate? {More} Where: Anth: Anthem Theater, OfficeBld

Biblical Genres- Law Code Read Exodus 20: 1-21 The ancient idea of Law wasn’t like our concept of law. Some “laws” carried public consequences for breaking them and some were internal issues that others couldn’t see. Law Code functioned more like a wisdom code. In modern times people have been talking about a “rule of life,” a set of personal values to direct where they are going. There is a context to these commands. They had strict and predictable order in Egypt and now they are in the desert learning how to be a people. This is chaos. Law code is wisdom literature to direct a new people in a way that brings order. Slavery was structured. Freedom is more complex and feels like chaos until you learn to live in wisdom. The point of law code is to give you the structure to build a wise life so you can learn to live as free people. Do you have a different understanding of law code after this weekend? How do you understand this chapter differently? To have a rule of life you have to think about your context. We live in the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has ever known. “You shall have no other gods before me” could be hard to interpret in our modern times. We may not have other literal gods but there are “functional gods” that we put our hope in. What pulls your attention off of God most frequently? The fourth command is to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. This is the one Jesus spoke to and said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus showed us that the law is there to serve us but if we aren’t careful, we end up serving the law. Have you seen the law used against people as a power grab? The opposite of the function it’s there to serve? The first four commands are about how we relate to God. The next five are observable behaviors about how you relate to each other. But the last one is about coveting. That’s internal. It’s not observable unless you act on it. Why would God put a non-observable commandment in the top 10? Verse 20 “Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” Why would Moses say to not be afraid and the fear of God will keep you from sinning? The story transitions after this detail in VS 21. “The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was.” What do you make of the author saying the people remained at a distance? Why do we “remain at a distance” from the challenge of God?

The Navy JAG Admiralty and Maritime Law Division is responsible for the U.S. Navy’s world-wide admiralty and maritime law practice.

In this episode, Josh talks to Hannarich Asiedu. Hannarich is the author of the upcoming book "DECODING THE IN-LAW CODE", the first in a five-part "Decoding" series of books." She is also a speaker, life coach, and philanthropist.

THE EDICT OF ELOHIM HYBRID KINGSHIP GOVERNMENT CIVILIZED KING LAW CODE IS SOVEREIGN. VIOLATED BY UNCIVILIZED EUROPEAN CAUCASOID THEY ARE THEREFORE ORDERED OUT ALL AFRICAN TERRITORIES IMMEDIATELY!  Writing offered new methods for maintaining law and order, as well. The first legal codes, or written collections of laws, were the Code of Ur-Nammu from Sumer, written around 2100 to 2050 BCE and the Code of Hammurabi from Babylon, written around 1760 BCE. The benefit of written laws was that they created consistency in the legal system. (The Kingship government king law code only apply to Elohim gods civilized people and their organized hybrid human orderly society. Not to European uncivilized Caucasoid. They must evacate African hybrid people jurisdiction instantly! First civilizations The first civilizations appeared in major river valleys, where flood plains contained rich soil and the rivers provided irrigation for crops and a means of transportation. Foundational civilizations developed urbanization and complexity without outside influence and without building on a pre-existing civilization, though they did not all develop simultaneously. Many later civilizations either borrowed elements of, built on, or incorporated—through conquest—other civilizations. Because foundational civilizations arose independently, they are particularly useful to historians and archaeologists who want to understand how civilization first developed

On Today's Episode had a chat with a book author about strengthening in law relationships . Hannarich Asiedu is an addicted lover of God. She is the author of the upcoming book “DECODING THE IN-LAW CODE.” She has a Bachelor's degree in English and French.  Hannarich believes that happiness is contagious and longs to see everyone she encounters enjoy a happy and fulfilling life.  As a Speaker and Life Coach, she loves to engage her audience through interactive storytelling.   A boy-mom of three little guys; there's never a dull moment in her life. She is happily married and resides in Dallas, Texas, with her family. For more information on her book releases and other works, please visit her website on http://www.myhannarich.com  --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/justdamie/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/justdamie/support

Hannarich Asiedu has been in Management handling Corporate Relations for almost a decade now. She's an Author, Speaker and Certified Life Coach. She believes that happiness is contagious. https://www.linkedin.com/in/hannarich-asiedu-9b511492/

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb AdkissonTexts: Dt 22.22-29; Ex 22.16-17; Gen 34.1-4; 39.6-20; 2 Sam 13.1-22See also our previous study on the case of Dinah and Shechem (Gen 34): https://youtu.be/myKSKs1YLrA

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb AdkissonTexts: Dt 22.22-29; Ex 22.16-17; Gen 34.1-4; 39.6-20; 2 Sam 13.1-22See also our previous study on the case of Dinah and Shechem (Gen 34): https://youtu.be/myKSKs1YLrA

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Lt. Ryan Turner talks with officers from each of the four he Administrative Law Division (Code 13) branches to discuss a typical day in the life.

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson

Series: Class: Law of MosesService: Sun Bible StudyType: Bible ClassSpeaker: Caleb Adkisson