Creditors In Commerce Sentenced To Prison

[pumpkin]

Playing in the commercial sand box can be a dangerous game. Lots and lots of rules. IMO, it is better not to complicate freedom by trying to find their built in exceptions. Unalienable rights are much more simple than the bureaucracy's BS.

[shikamaru]

Playing in the commercial sand box can be a dangerous game. Lots and lots of rules. IMO, it is better not to complicate freedom by trying to find their built in exceptions. Unalienable rights are much more simple than the bureaucracy's BS.

I view this differently.

Play in that game within its own "sandbox". This is what vehicles such as trusts and corporations (which is a variant of a trust) are for.

Commerce (as is law) are analogues of warfare. The problem is that most participants participate in a fashion which leaves them totally exposed. At least take a defensive position and at some point build a fortification.

There are no freedoms within systems. Systems are based on boundaries, constraints, and rules. One must come out of them for freedom.

[allodial]

Commerce (as is law) are analogues of warfare.

The monetary systems and systems of free trade and exchange are extensions effectively of a courts of equity. The weaponization of commerce, trade or exchange of a society is evidence of inside treason, subversion or the like. Equity must follow the law or it is not equity. If equity is not at the heart of the court's purpose, then it is not a court of equity. The head of the Court of the Exchequer was referred to as "the Treasurer". Lawful money and equity perhaps go hand in hand. Perhaps one can choose inequity/iniquity and the consequences instead (i.e. become a target of prosecution of war)?

[shikamaru]

The monetary systems and systems of free trade and exchange are extensions effectively of a courts of equity. The weaponization of commerce, trade or exchange of a society is evidence of inside treason, subversion or the like. Equity must follow the law or it is not equity. If equity is not at the heart of the court's purpose, then it is not a court of equity. The head of the Court of the Exchequer was referred to as "the Treasurer". Lawful money and equity perhaps go hand in hand. Perhaps one can choose inequity/iniquity and the consequences instead (i.e. become a target of prosecution of war)?

In English history, Lex Mercatoria developed independently of the Common Law. Such systems also developed their own courts independently of the law of the land. Merchant courts focused on speed and quick resolution. It was a ruling by Lord Mansfield that merged Lex Mercatoria with English Common Law. This move was one of the complaints the colonists had against England and was a factor in crafting the Declaration of Independence.

It is interesting that two hundred years after the merger of Lex Mercatoria with Common Law, the federal courts of the US merged the procedures of law and equity with state courts to follow.

While the procedures were merged, the bodies of law, however, remain separate and distinct.

In all likelihood, merchant law is a continuation of Babylonian Law.