Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • “Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheReal

    —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH

    Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciprocal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils.

  • They Are Unfit for Service – and The Constitution

    They Are Unfit for Service – and The Constitution https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/they-are-unfit-for-service-and-the-constitution/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 07:12:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264454306260008962

  • They Are Unfit for Service – and The Constitution

    Feb 3, 2020, 12:36 PM Western Civilization has been since its foundation, A militia. An army. A militarized society. We gain harmony from doing our duty, and sovereignty for having done it. Sovereignty is harder that liberty by permission, and freedom by promise. And all those who have come to us postwar to undermine that civilization are unfit for service. They are unfit for service. That is why they resist our constitution our natural law our markets, our responsibility – because they are not capable of sovereignty. Therefore we have choices: to lose our sovereignty.

  • They Are Unfit for Service – and The Constitution

    Feb 3, 2020, 12:36 PM Western Civilization has been since its foundation, A militia. An army. A militarized society. We gain harmony from doing our duty, and sovereignty for having done it. Sovereignty is harder that liberty by permission, and freedom by promise. And all those who have come to us postwar to undermine that civilization are unfit for service. They are unfit for service. That is why they resist our constitution our natural law our markets, our responsibility – because they are not capable of sovereignty. Therefore we have choices: to lose our sovereignty.

  • No, The Constitution Didn’t Survive the Civil War

    No, The Constitution Didn’t Survive the Civil War https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/no-the-constitution-didnt-survive-the-civil-war/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 07:07:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264452826756976774

  • No, The Constitution Didn’t Survive the Civil War

    Feb 3, 2020, 2:05 PM The constitution didn’t survive the civil war. That’s the whole point. If it had, we’d still be a collection of european states like old europe, like it was intended, and people could move to states that had the values that they preferred, while the entire continent could be protected by a unified army (military) as the founders intended. The left wants to destroy the constitution as a transactional document of natural law of sovereigns and their reciprocal rights to life, liberty, and property. They want to change from rule OF LAW that limits the state and the people from violating that natural law, to rule BY LAW that violates that constitution of natural law. There is no political means of saving the constitution. There is only conflict or at least sufficient threat of consequences of conflict, that will require both parties to settle. The right wants to take over and rule. The left to take over and rule. And I propose converting blue cities to states, with 50% of the population and income, and red states with 50% of the population and income. Then to restore the 10th destroyed by the civil war, clearly numerate the federal governments limited scope of powers, and return all power to these states. This will allow the ‘big sort’ to continue and leftists moves to their cities so that they can continue to cause them to collapse one at a a time, while not letting the leftist disease spread to the rest of us. If this is not ‘fair’ then war is preferable and there is zero chance the right will lose. There is no possible moral objection to the constitutional amendments we have proposed other than to engage in conquest of peoples and to deprive them of rights to self determination. If that is the case then war is what we are left with. You may not deprive us of rights of self determination. Ever.

  • No, The Constitution Didn’t Survive the Civil War

    Feb 3, 2020, 2:05 PM The constitution didn’t survive the civil war. That’s the whole point. If it had, we’d still be a collection of european states like old europe, like it was intended, and people could move to states that had the values that they preferred, while the entire continent could be protected by a unified army (military) as the founders intended. The left wants to destroy the constitution as a transactional document of natural law of sovereigns and their reciprocal rights to life, liberty, and property. They want to change from rule OF LAW that limits the state and the people from violating that natural law, to rule BY LAW that violates that constitution of natural law. There is no political means of saving the constitution. There is only conflict or at least sufficient threat of consequences of conflict, that will require both parties to settle. The right wants to take over and rule. The left to take over and rule. And I propose converting blue cities to states, with 50% of the population and income, and red states with 50% of the population and income. Then to restore the 10th destroyed by the civil war, clearly numerate the federal governments limited scope of powers, and return all power to these states. This will allow the ‘big sort’ to continue and leftists moves to their cities so that they can continue to cause them to collapse one at a a time, while not letting the leftist disease spread to the rest of us. If this is not ‘fair’ then war is preferable and there is zero chance the right will lose. There is no possible moral objection to the constitutional amendments we have proposed other than to engage in conquest of peoples and to deprive them of rights to self determination. If that is the case then war is what we are left with. You may not deprive us of rights of self determination. Ever.

  • “GSRRM IS WITNESS INTIMIDATION”

    “GSRRM IS WITNESS INTIMIDATION” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/gsrrm-is-witness-intimidation/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 07:02:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264451812813352961

  • “GSRRM IS WITNESS INTIMIDATION”

    Feb 3, 2020, 4:17 PM

    GSRRM = Under Natural Law is Witness Intimidation Threatening me with social penalty if I speak the truth (witness) is witness intimidation. We need shorthand for every concept. And those shorthands need to be directly tied to centuries held western male beliefs. —Greg Hamilton

  • “GSRRM IS WITNESS INTIMIDATION”

    Feb 3, 2020, 4:17 PM

    GSRRM = Under Natural Law is Witness Intimidation Threatening me with social penalty if I speak the truth (witness) is witness intimidation. We need shorthand for every concept. And those shorthands need to be directly tied to centuries held western male beliefs. —Greg Hamilton