I don’t care what you denounce. I care only about whether you fight for rule of law and meritocracy or discretionary rule and equality. if the latter, you just need killing. It’s that simple.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-18 16:29:47 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/5148898710886674
(Interesting. reading through prisoner lists in the 1780’s just after ‘the stocks’ were eliminated, and going thru the list of crimes. Burglary, Burglary in the Daytime, Horse Stealing, Arson, Surprisingly common counterfeiting, Surprisingly little murder and rape; one count of bestiality – which carried a life sentence. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 16:36:00 UTC
As far as I know, “Propertarianism” and “Nomocracy” are synonyms. It’s just that Propertarianism *explains precisely why* nomocracy (rule of law) is moral – and ‘natural’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-15 15:51:00 UTC
I am patriotic to my people, and the rule of law.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 20:45:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897197383595044866
Reply addressees: @Digitalgreatime
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897173148256399360
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/897173148256399360
Is it? Or is it incompatible with the centralization of power in DC instead of as intended, in the states?
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 20:44:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897197246701346817
Reply addressees: @Digitalgreatime
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/897173810444718080
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/897173810444718080
THE PROBLEM IS NOT SCIENCE PER SE, IT IS LAW
First: I think that if you can’t define the term ‘science’ that you can’t make claims about who understands what. And I am fairly certain that very few people can define science in scientific terms so to speak. So there is a very great difference between the definition of science that one warranties and a definition that one does not.
Second: there is a difference between (a) science that identifies a pattern, or opportunity, and science that defines limits of the pattern or opportunity, (b) science that it is possible to draw deductions from, and science that it is not. (c) science that one warranties, and science one does not.
Third: there is a difference between policy one warranties and policy one does not.
The difference between science and non-science is only testable by warranty.
How would science and policy differ if one’s speech and policy were involuntarily warrantied, just as products(property) and services(actions) are involuntarily warrantied?
Is information(science) not a market goods? Is there some special pleading you think that science is worthy of? (no)
The problem is not the definition of science. the problem is lack of warranty of due diligence, and lack of involuntary warranty against falsehood, immorality, and harm.
The problem is not science – it is law.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 09:59:00 UTC
YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND: DEMONSTRATING THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW
You don’t really understand what is going on. The government folded to the 60’s violence in under three weeks. The right is merely attempting to work within the law to demonstrate that there is no law. Once they demonstrate that there is no law, they will no longer work within the law.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 10:53:00 UTC
https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/04/its-time-for-a-class-action-against-facebook-to-force-remedies-the-government-has-not/CLASS ACTION DRAFT AGAINST FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE
I drafted this to show that remedies are possible that provide neutral communication grounds in all ‘monopoly public media’.
The same exact regulations can be applied to Google.
The same exact regulations can be applied to *all* media.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:14:00 UTC
My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I have defined the SCIENCE and LOGIC of producing fully decidable algorithmic law, and a value neutral language of ethics, politics, and law, and completed the enlightenment by solving the question of social science.
Where I differ from other thinkers in psychology and social science is that I have the experience of working on artificial intelligence and I am more confident in the statement that all thought is justificationary, and testimony is as counter intuitive and as difficult to learn as mathematics, reading, writing, grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and engineering.
My position on the application of this science and logic is that the method of decidability in any civilization or culture that each calls truth equally explains all civilizations and their rates of development. And furthermore, that the uniqueness of the west is reducible to martial truth (deflationary reporting) rather than storytelling ( justificationary ) and the combination of heroism, truth, sovereignty, common natural law, and markets in everything – due largely to territory and technology at in the age of transformation. And that this is the scientific means of historical analysis of different cultures and civilizations.
The application of this reasoning produces a *theory*. It is a very, very powerful theory. I have a great deal of confidence in this theory. I believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat that theory. But until it is sufficiently criticized by others – no matter how futile I think that criticism will be – it remains a theory. Because it is a narrative.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 13:20:00 UTC
DEFENSE AGAINST DISCRETIONARY RULE?
The only defense against discretionary rule, as always, is the natural law, the economic self interest of the independent cult of the court, the general self interest of the militia, and the naked self interest of the monarchy.
It’s that simple really.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 15:16:00 UTC