Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • But the origins of roman and common law traditions are the same: germanic sovere

    But the origins of roman and common law traditions are the same: germanic sovereignty, and empirical resolution of disputes over property by reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-12 23:08:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984568898233225216

    Reply addressees: @Eric_Eibergen @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984564916987351040


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984564916987351040

  • That’s not quite right. When I use ‘common law’ I refer to the common law of tor

    That’s not quite right. When I use ‘common law’ I refer to the common law of tort, or ‘natural law’. The roman system had to impose rule on others so they converted the via-negativa of the common law of tort into two tiers, and stated it via-positiva to limit jurists.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-12 23:07:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984568692460662784

    Reply addressees: @Eric_Eibergen @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984564916987351040


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984564916987351040

  • Undoing Abrahamic, Marxist, Postmodern, Libertarian, Conflation

    —” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own my personal body & mind. No ???”— No those things are not in any way equal. 1 – Able to: dependent on your ability to physically think, plan, and act. 2 – Have the freedom to: have purchased membership in a group that tolerates your consumption of opportunities to act in your self interest, as long as it is not contrary to the group’s interests. 3 – Possession is a fact, but ownership is determined by contract with others in the group that defends the order. 4 – A Right can only consist of a demand from a third party enforcer (insurer of last resort). The libertarian ethos of pastoralists “what I can get away with” is different from the sovereign ethos of landholders “what will not impost costs upon others”. This is why (((certain))) groups use polylogical ethics, and other groups lke northern europeans use logically consistent ethics. So the marxist -> postmodernist -> libertarian -> neocon spectrum uses many argumentative ’empty verbalisms’ that conflate the meaning of these terms in order to obscure their underlying lack of logical and empirical consistency. This is why the Crusoe’s island example is a constructive fallacy for the purpose of deception. The ocean forms the fortress walls of the island. The ghetto walls do the same in the city. And the borderlands that indefensible do the same in the countryside. But there are no territories not owned by empires. Only those that the empire grants certain privileges in order to encourage settlement by excess population unable to compete in more established areas.

  • Undoing Abrahamic, Marxist, Postmodern, Libertarian, Conflation

    —” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own my personal body & mind. No ???”— No those things are not in any way equal. 1 – Able to: dependent on your ability to physically think, plan, and act. 2 – Have the freedom to: have purchased membership in a group that tolerates your consumption of opportunities to act in your self interest, as long as it is not contrary to the group’s interests. 3 – Possession is a fact, but ownership is determined by contract with others in the group that defends the order. 4 – A Right can only consist of a demand from a third party enforcer (insurer of last resort). The libertarian ethos of pastoralists “what I can get away with” is different from the sovereign ethos of landholders “what will not impost costs upon others”. This is why (((certain))) groups use polylogical ethics, and other groups lke northern europeans use logically consistent ethics. So the marxist -> postmodernist -> libertarian -> neocon spectrum uses many argumentative ’empty verbalisms’ that conflate the meaning of these terms in order to obscure their underlying lack of logical and empirical consistency. This is why the Crusoe’s island example is a constructive fallacy for the purpose of deception. The ocean forms the fortress walls of the island. The ghetto walls do the same in the city. And the borderlands that indefensible do the same in the countryside. But there are no territories not owned by empires. Only those that the empire grants certain privileges in order to encourage settlement by excess population unable to compete in more established areas.

  • ” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own

    —” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own my personal body & mind. No ???”—

    No those things are not in any way equal.

    1 – Able to: dependent on your ability to physically think, plan, and act.

    2 – Have the freedom to: have purchased membership in a group that tolerates your consumption of opportunities to act in your self interest, as long as it is not contrary to the group’s interests.

    3 – Possession is a fact, but ownership is determined by contract with others in the group that defends the order.

    4 – A Right can only consist of a demand from a third party enforcer (insurer of last resort).

    The libertarian ethos of pastoralists “what I can get away with” is different from the sovereign ethos of landholders “what will not impost costs upon others”. This is why (((certain))) groups use polylogical ethics, and other groups lke northern europeans use logically consistent ethics.

    So the marxist -> postmodernist -> libertarian -> neocon spectrum uses many argumentative ’empty verbalisms’ that conflate the meaning of these terms in order to obscure their underlying lack of logical and empirical consistency.

    This is why the Crusoe’s island example is a construcitve fallacy for the purpose of deception. The ocean forms the fortress walls of the island. The ghetto walls do the same in the city. And the borderlands that indefensible do the same in the countryside. But there are no territories not owned by empires. Only those that the empire grants certain privileges in order to encourage settle ment by excess population unable to compete in more established areas.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-10 08:15:00 UTC

  • Laws Not Religions Determine Your People – Religion Is Decoration That Helps or Hurts It

    No. Our common-law tradition and the militia built the west. We escaped Abrahamic religion, and immediately restored our ancient trajectory. The reason for degeneracy is the reintroduction of Abrahamic Religion in pseudoscientific (marxist) and peudorational (postmodernist) prose Nope. The “Germanization” of Christianity was the product of our common law traditions. The ancient trajectory from the Yamna, to the Corded Ware, to the southern migration of those people as conquerors of the Mediterranean, to the Vikings Hansa, and Age of Sail : ONE continuity.

  • Laws Not Religions Determine Your People – Religion Is Decoration That Helps or Hurts It

    No. Our common-law tradition and the militia built the west. We escaped Abrahamic religion, and immediately restored our ancient trajectory. The reason for degeneracy is the reintroduction of Abrahamic Religion in pseudoscientific (marxist) and peudorational (postmodernist) prose Nope. The “Germanization” of Christianity was the product of our common law traditions. The ancient trajectory from the Yamna, to the Corded Ware, to the southern migration of those people as conquerors of the Mediterranean, to the Vikings Hansa, and Age of Sail : ONE continuity.

  • No. Our common-law tradition and the militia built the west. We escaped Abrahami

    No. Our common-law tradition and the militia built the west. We escaped Abrahamic religion, and immediately restored our ancient trajectory. The reason for degeneracy is the reintroduction of Abrahamic Religion in pseudoscientific (marxist) and peudorational (postmodernist) prose

    Nope. The “Germanization” of Christianity was the product of our common law traditions. The ancient trajectory from the Yamna, to the Corded Ware, to the southern migration of those people as conquerors of the Mediterranean, to the Vikings Hansa, and Age of Sail : ONE continuity.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-09 11:47:00 UTC

  • Correct. However, it wasn’t just the philosophers. It was our ancient common law

    Correct. However, it wasn’t just the philosophers. It was our ancient common law. No one else discovered truth telling. Because no one else had an incentive to tell the observable truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-07 22:49:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982752341026844672

    Reply addressees: @Steve_Sailer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982462664176648192


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Steve_Sailer

    Chris Dixon explained how Western philosophy laid groundwork for computing with clickbaity title “How Aristotle Created the Computer;” but, he’s right: “The philosophers he influenced set the stage for the technological revolution that remade our world.”

    https://t.co/cLnrKvJkEx https://t.co/YxXqecNLsl

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/982462664176648192

  • Understanding Trust.

    So, when I say “low trust” I am speaking in terms of the institutional development of rule of law as a means of suppressing corruption, and therefore expanding truth telling. The reason russia is rated (and I rate it) as a low trust country is corruption. That said, I promise you, that you want russian friends more than friends from high trust countries. Just as much as you want government from high trust countries. When I say ‘chinese are a low trust society’, this does not mean that they don’t trust each other. It means that (a) they lie, (b) they cheat, (c) the government is corrupt. So high trust describes a RADIUS of trust, not how you trust the people you interact with. In other words, trust is a question of economics. Honestly, I prefer the company of conservative libertarian western europeans, and educated russians equally. I am a russophile just as much as I am a lover of ukraine. Read Fukuyama’s “Trust”.