My experience with sheriffs is that they are universally excellent. My experience with the police, everywhere, is universally, extremely, questionable. And that’s given that I understand and am sympathetic with their plight. My opinion is that its due more often to the kind and distribution of who defends what commons, and their career interests. In general, you want a sheriff dedicated to the constitution.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 14:23:00 UTC
Red flag law will be thrown out by the supreme court. We just need to get a case to the court. That will happen. However, I think we are going to have either a revolution or civil war start before that happens.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 12:09:00 UTC
No. Toll Roads Are Not Permitted Under P-Constitution https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/17/no-toll-roads-are-not-permitted-under-p-constitution/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 01:47:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229220686671028227
—-“How would P-Law handle toll roads. More specifically, our current highway into Houston is a regular tax funded highway, with an oversized median between the two directional lanes… however they’re in the process of building a new toll road in the median & converting the current highway into a feeder road with all the hassles of stop lights. At present, it’s a 45 minute non stop trip on a publically paid for highway. How would P-law handle the govt changing our current highway into a toll road?”—Clinton McLaggan
[I]t’s a debatable and technical point, however, P-Constitution prohibits toll roads. While at first blush it would appear possible under natural law, its a violation of two criteria: first, the only necessary right of a commons – of movement in two dimensional space, and secondly: it’s open to rent seeking – a fee without contributing to production. In other words if you want a road you can build one, but you can’t create such a commons and extract tolls for it. Same for bridges. Not for ferries. NOTE: One of P’s prohibitions is non-exclusory use of property. Meaning you can’t wall someone out of access to territory. This is a very old common law tradition. If you want to wall something off you have to provide passage along the borders.
—-“How would P-Law handle toll roads. More specifically, our current highway into Houston is a regular tax funded highway, with an oversized median between the two directional lanes… however they’re in the process of building a new toll road in the median & converting the current highway into a feeder road with all the hassles of stop lights. At present, it’s a 45 minute non stop trip on a publically paid for highway. How would P-law handle the govt changing our current highway into a toll road?”—Clinton McLaggan
[I]t’s a debatable and technical point, however, P-Constitution prohibits toll roads. While at first blush it would appear possible under natural law, its a violation of two criteria: first, the only necessary right of a commons – of movement in two dimensional space, and secondly: it’s open to rent seeking – a fee without contributing to production. In other words if you want a road you can build one, but you can’t create such a commons and extract tolls for it. Same for bridges. Not for ferries. NOTE: One of P’s prohibitions is non-exclusory use of property. Meaning you can’t wall someone out of access to territory. This is a very old common law tradition. If you want to wall something off you have to provide passage along the borders.
The Law of Public Speech https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/17/the-law-of-public-speech/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 01:45:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229220242062266370
UGH. WHAT’S P-LAW ON TABOO SUBJECTS IN PUBLIC SPEECH?
—“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. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 14:59:00 UTC
NO. TOLL ROADS ARE NOT PERMITTED UNDER P-CONSTITUTION
—-“How would P-Law handle toll roads. More specifically, our current highway into Houston is a regular tax funded highway, with an oversized median between the two directional lanes… however they’re in the process of building a new toll road in the median & converting the current highway into a feeder road with all the hassles of stop lights. At present, it’s a 45 minute non stop trip on a publically paid for highway. How would P-law handle the govt changing our current highway into a toll road?”—Clinton McLaggan
It’s a debatable and technical point, however, P-Constitution prohibits toll roads. While at first blush it would appear possible under natural law, its a violation of two criteria: first, the only necessary right of a commons – of movement in two dimensional space, and secondly: it’s open to rent seeking – a fee without contributing to production. In other words if you want a road you can build one, but you can’t create such a commons and extract tolls for it. Same for bridges. Not for ferries.
NOTE:
One of P’s prohibitions is non-exclusory use of property. Meaning you can’t wall someone out of access to territory. This is a very old common law tradition. If you want to wall something off you have to provide passage along the borders.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 21:10:00 UTC
P EMPHASIZES THE COURT (effective) NOT VOTING (ineffective) https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/14/p-emphasizes-the-court-effective-not-voting-ineffective/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 16:00:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228348295992532996
Feb 11, 2020, 9:11 PM by John Mark [I]n any nation there will be capable and incapable people, wealthy and poor, etc – all across the spectrum. There is a huge difference between giving less capable people (who often tend to vote for free stuff stolen from others) “via-negativa” power thru P-law (the power to STOP violations of reciprocity) and giving them “via-positiva” power thru voting (the power to INITIATE violations of reciprocity). The Propertarian system does NOT allow less capable (often parasite-minded) people the ability to INITIATE violations of reciprocity, and at the same time it DOES allow everyone to stop violations of reciprocity. So you can see it solves 2 problems at once: It TAKES AWAY via-positiva initiating power from a demographic that has a majority of parasite-instinct people, and GIVES via-negativa power to STOP violations of reciprocity, to everyone. And under P-Law the average person WILL have MUCH more power to counter the well-heeled than today. First, keep in mind that poor people even today often have no trouble getting legal representation when the lawyers believe there is strong chance of a big financial reward. P-Law would provide significant $ rewards – violators of reciprocity will have to pay damages, and the richer the violator, the greater the financial reward for taking them to court will be in many cases. Second, under P-Law there will be very few if any frivolous lawsuits because loser has to pay extra damages. This reduces/eliminates the ability of rich people to use their wealth to “play the lawsuit game” as a tool of control over the poor. Everyone regardless of wealth level will be much more careful about their actions and words in general (so as not to end up in court by violating reciprocity), and careful about going to court (poor people if they have a good case will have no trouble finding a good lawyer, rich people will not be able to use frivolous lawsuits to intimidate & wear out opposition). (Curt has thought this through very thoroughly. People just need to stick around long enough to find out that the multiple changes outlined in the propertarian system fix multiple problems as well as they can be fixed, keeping in mind that no fix will be 100% perfect.)
—“The importance of voting is evidence the American experiment failed. The greater the importance, the greater the evidence, the greater the failure.”— Luke Weinhagen