Ugh. What’s P-Law on Taboo Subjects in Public Speech? https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/27/ugh-whats-p-law-on-taboo-subjects-in-public-speech-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 14:11:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233031960886489091
—“How would holocaust denial be dealt with under P-law?”– A Friend
How would any public speech be dealt with under P-law? In public, to the public, in matters public, suppression of the truth, or attempts at discovering the truth are prohibited under P-law. Conversely, falsehood is prohibited under P. The difference is that under P-law, speech in public, to the public, in matters public, is involuntarily warrantied. Including the dishonest use of statements masquerading as questions. So, public trial by propaganda, sophistry, and falsehood is illegal and expensive for any party since the cost of correcting public speech is prohibitively expensive. As such one can investigate, and report findings, like we do in any science, but we cannot make claims or imply claims without liability for error, bias, and deceit. Personally I’m far less concerned about this subject than I am the destruction and death by marxism, bolshevism, Leninism, maoism; the current civilizational destruction under postmodernism and denialism; and the ancient world’s destruction by judaism, Christianity and especially the billion dead under islam. So, sure, I tend to think the holocaust industry has gotten out of hand but I don’t know truth from falsehood myself, and I think it would be useful to discover what’s true and what’s false in order to stop both sides from propagandizing. I hate this topic. I try to avoid it at all costs. But I do my job. My job is to answer the tough questions. That’s what y’all pay me for with those donations.
—“How would holocaust denial be dealt with under P-law?”– A Friend
How would any public speech be dealt with under P-law? In public, to the public, in matters public, suppression of the truth, or attempts at discovering the truth are prohibited under P-law. Conversely, falsehood is prohibited under P. The difference is that under P-law, speech in public, to the public, in matters public, is involuntarily warrantied. Including the dishonest use of statements masquerading as questions. So, public trial by propaganda, sophistry, and falsehood is illegal and expensive for any party since the cost of correcting public speech is prohibitively expensive. As such one can investigate, and report findings, like we do in any science, but we cannot make claims or imply claims without liability for error, bias, and deceit. Personally I’m far less concerned about this subject than I am the destruction and death by marxism, bolshevism, Leninism, maoism; the current civilizational destruction under postmodernism and denialism; and the ancient world’s destruction by judaism, Christianity and especially the billion dead under islam. So, sure, I tend to think the holocaust industry has gotten out of hand but I don’t know truth from falsehood myself, and I think it would be useful to discover what’s true and what’s false in order to stop both sides from propagandizing. I hate this topic. I try to avoid it at all costs. But I do my job. My job is to answer the tough questions. That’s what y’all pay me for with those donations.
I understand that roberts is trying to restore the reputation and method of the court. Unfortunately he isn’t willing to make take the corrective actions
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 16:56:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232711008386502656
Reply addressees: @BlameMaxSand @realDonaldTrump
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232697057414127617
It looks like Sotomayor and Ginsberg will be replaced by constitutionalists during the ‘restoration’.
#Trump2020 #Trump @realDonaldTrump
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 14:57:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232681126839361537
Constitutions don’t save you (us). They explain the terms by which others do not need saving from you (us).
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 09:38:00 UTC
[T]echnically speaking, market demand for the production of a commons(institution) that creates natural rights of appeal for defense before an insurer of some sort (court), demonstrably exist. The market demand exists. Sure. Like any commons, markets succeed or fail at producing them. As far as I know, the only natural right that is possible is reciprocal insurance of sovereignty against trespass(imposition of costs upon our demonstrated interests), in life(mind, body, family), liberty (privacy, movement, action, word, display, association, cooperation, production), estate (demonstrated interest, several property, share property, common property, capital), and defense (security, of life, liberty, estate). So Natural Rights: “Reciprocity in Sovereignty, Life, Liberty, Property, and Defense” created by “An insurer to whom one can appeal for restitution, prevention, punishment of offenders.” Lock didn’t get it right unfortunately. We can further enumerate each of these rights in order to prevent others from attempts to usurp them through sophistry and deceit. The declaration of human rights contains a lot of nonsense like ‘dignity’, mostly duplication, and at the end, impossible aspirations that cannot be construed as rights,
[T]echnically speaking, market demand for the production of a commons(institution) that creates natural rights of appeal for defense before an insurer of some sort (court), demonstrably exist. The market demand exists. Sure. Like any commons, markets succeed or fail at producing them. As far as I know, the only natural right that is possible is reciprocal insurance of sovereignty against trespass(imposition of costs upon our demonstrated interests), in life(mind, body, family), liberty (privacy, movement, action, word, display, association, cooperation, production), estate (demonstrated interest, several property, share property, common property, capital), and defense (security, of life, liberty, estate). So Natural Rights: “Reciprocity in Sovereignty, Life, Liberty, Property, and Defense” created by “An insurer to whom one can appeal for restitution, prevention, punishment of offenders.” Lock didn’t get it right unfortunately. We can further enumerate each of these rights in order to prevent others from attempts to usurp them through sophistry and deceit. The declaration of human rights contains a lot of nonsense like ‘dignity’, mostly duplication, and at the end, impossible aspirations that cannot be construed as rights,
—“Liberia’s constitution is almost identical to the american constitution. Constitutions merely enumerate the process for adhering to the norms, traditions ,and genetics of the majority ethnic population, and set the terms of integration for those outside the majority ethnic population.” – A friend (today)
Neither the constitution nor the expansion of democratic republic to full franchise democracy nor coercion into social democracy are an more meaningful than the ethnicity of the groups who formed that constitution, and adapted to it. There will be no United States without Adapting to it.
—“Liberia’s constitution is almost identical to the american constitution. Constitutions merely enumerate the process for adhering to the norms, traditions ,and genetics of the majority ethnic population, and set the terms of integration for those outside the majority ethnic population.” – A friend (today)
Neither the constitution nor the expansion of democratic republic to full franchise democracy nor coercion into social democracy are an more meaningful than the ethnicity of the groups who formed that constitution, and adapted to it. There will be no United States without Adapting to it.