http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/709969832192679936/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=709969832192679936No Natural Right To Oppressive Religions
#AltRight #NRx #conservative #Libertarian #propertarianism https://t.co/qAUkAnLqxp
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-16 01:09:00 UTC
http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/709969685983453184/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=709969685983453184THE LIMITS OF THE MORALITY OF PROFIT
#AltRight #NRx #conservative #Libertarian #propertarianism https://t.co/DObQrU6Fjp
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-16 01:09:00 UTC
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/272864-coulter-id-like-to-see-a-little-more-violence-from-trump
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 14:33:00 UTC
Why do I bother? Really. Sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 13:41:00 UTC
Worth Repeating: Markets don’t fail. We do.
#libertarian #tlot #NRx #Altright #conservative https://t.co/cK5osQpxNm
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 12:27:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709717603137228804
It’s not so much that the Chinese lie, but that they have no concept of truth.
FROM ELSEWHERE
——
“The US had better watch itself for not being a source of destructive forces against world peace”
I am not an american, and I have to agree with some of your points, but this last one is just enraging.
Aren’t you chinese the ones who dump their underpriced crap on other countries? Aren’t you the ones who support Kim Jong Un-s totalitarian system, that threatens American with nuking Manhattan? Aren’t you the ones who occupied Tibet? Aren’t you the ones who are building an artificial island in the South China Sea so you can claim more territory and possibly project millitary power? Aren’t you the ones who often have your soldiers practice how to overrun the Republic of China?
With these in mind, I don’t think America is the bigger threat to world peace to be honest. —Anonymous
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 08:57:00 UTC
So back to technicals (Andy Edwards Jay Dyer), it is always better to seek to understand than to assume you are correct. At present, as far as I know, my work provides the greatest explanatory power that is currently available to us. The problem with it may be the problem with all the sciences: that as a science of the rule of law, it survives all scrutiny. That I can also create a revolutionary demand for it. But that as a personal philosophy, and an ideology, a science is insufficient. And that my estimate that truth is enough of an incentive because it provides a purely meritocratic ethic – is insufficient to inspire. The question remains only whether I am able to do that which I did not set out to do. I set out to create a language, that language has evolved into a science, and a science that is sufficient to restore the west to it’s orgins as the people who take the oath to speak the truth and not steal. But that it is not sufficient to inspire a war. It is still open to me whether that is something I should try to do or not. If to counter our upcoming defeat is not sufficient an inspiration, then I do not see why a story (narrative) would matter. But then I am not motivated by such things, I find them somewhere between entertaining, childish and silly. It is not my language. But that does not mean it is not the language of others.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 08:53:00 UTC
http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/709717603137228804/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=709717603137228804Worth Repeating: Markets don’t fail. We do.
#libertarian #tlot #NRx #Altright #conservative https://t.co/cK5osQpxNm
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 08:27:00 UTC
A FALSE DICHITOMY IN CHESTERSON CLARIFIED.
—“You can be guided by the shrewdness or presence of mind of one ruler, or by the equality and ascertained justice of one rule; but you must have one or the other, or you are not a nation, but a nasty mess.”–G.K. Chesterson.
He makes the mistake of confusing republican rule of law, with monarchical discretion. And he does not know enough about his past to identify market government as the third option instead of there being only two. Nor does he seem to grasp that whether we possess one decision maker, or many, or a market, that all three must regulate by rule of law, or none can produce good, and all will produce ill.
But I am criticizing him for a point he does not make. He is merely saying that there must be rule. whether it is pure rule of law and competing commons (market government), rule of law with representative decision makers producing monopoly commons, or a monarch bound by rule of law, but with sole discretion over the production of commons, rule of law is a constant, and the means of decision making over the production of commons is simply a matter of the heterogeneity (republicanism) or heterogeneity (market and monarchy) of the interests of the population.
My preference is to treat these three methods of decision making as a distribution of labor, and to say that the king must make decision on war, and hold veto (act as judge), the senate must make decisions on commerce(revenues/production), and the common people must make decisions on commons (insurance and consumption). And that if none can find legal means of veto then the measure should pass as a legitimate contract between the classes.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 07:19:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 06:21:00 UTC