THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK
The purpose of my work, and taking it to its conclusion, is to produce the ‘bible’ of western civilization, beyond which no man or government may tread: the cult of non-submission: the philosophy of Aristocracy: sovereignty, and its ‘scripture’: natural law.
(Because this sentence seems to strike a chord)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 20:38:00 UTC
Property rights are determined by those able to mass sufficient violence it to define their constituency and their limits.
Under natural law property rights ARE absolute. It is the externalities that determine their limits not whether or not one has demonstrated investment in them.
Ergo, scientifically property rights must be absolute, contingent upon the consequences of their exercise.
Practically speaking property rights evolve to suit the median of the population, which is why western europeans prior to 1900 had the worlds highest degree of property rights.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 20:23:00 UTC
KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it)
The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z
The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations.
Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals.
While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law.
Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place.
WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy.
Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony).
From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined.
But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit.
The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’
So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it.
It’s not complicated.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 14:48:00 UTC
( We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 10:25:00 UTC
BTW: There are really two great crimes in the ancient germanic law: 1) Treason, Military Cowardice and Desertion, and 2) Rape.
You know that well preserved bog man they found? Noose, and throat cut? Treason or Rape (or incest).
It was only after 1000 that we started hanging people in vast numbers.
Why? Restitution is painful. But Death Breeds Retaliation Cycles.
( Compare this to Chinese ‘Law’. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:37:00 UTC
You don’t have any rights intrinsically. You can’t have them. You can aspire to possess them. No other statement is true or possible. We create governments to create legal rights by denying each other choices.
At present many people possess legal privileges not legal rights. These privileges come at the expense of others rights and privileges.
The people who do ‘everything’ (the working and middle class) are tired of losing rights in order that other people may have privileges.
What differentiates a right from a privilege? A Right consists of a prohibition upon the imposition of costs upon that which you have born costs to obtain. A privilege consists of an imposition of costs upon others that you have not born a cost to obtain.
So you must know the difference between a right and a privilege. What has occurred is that the government has attempted to grant as many privileges as possible in order to maintain social harmony in order to maintain the economy and society despite having dismantled our history, our traditions, our culture, our law, and our families.
We tolerate governments so long as the pain of the status quo is less than the pain of revolution.
People have begun to care about their rights, and care less about other’s privileges. This is because the emphasis on immigration and free trade, and globalization has put an undue cost on the ‘moral’ working and middle classes.
This will end badly.
https://www.quora.com/How-close-are-we-to-a-constitutional-crisis-Does-the-current-admin-really-care-about-our-rights
Legally none. Normatively, it functioned as a prohibition on interference in the reproductive economy we call the family, and a reciprocal warranty of the same.
It was better the old way by every empirical measure.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-marriage-and-incorporation
You don’t have any rights intrinsically. You can’t have them. You can aspire to possess them. No other statement is true or possible. We create governments to create legal rights by denying each other choices.
At present many people possess legal privileges not legal rights. These privileges come at the expense of others rights and privileges.
The people who do ‘everything’ (the working and middle class) are tired of losing rights in order that other people may have privileges.
What differentiates a right from a privilege? A Right consists of a prohibition upon the imposition of costs upon that which you have born costs to obtain. A privilege consists of an imposition of costs upon others that you have not born a cost to obtain.
So you must know the difference between a right and a privilege. What has occurred is that the government has attempted to grant as many privileges as possible in order to maintain social harmony in order to maintain the economy and society despite having dismantled our history, our traditions, our culture, our law, and our families.
We tolerate governments so long as the pain of the status quo is less than the pain of revolution.
People have begun to care about their rights, and care less about other’s privileges. This is because the emphasis on immigration and free trade, and globalization has put an undue cost on the ‘moral’ working and middle classes.
This will end badly.
https://www.quora.com/How-close-are-we-to-a-constitutional-crisis-Does-the-current-admin-really-care-about-our-rights
Legally none. Normatively, it functioned as a prohibition on interference in the reproductive economy we call the family, and a reciprocal warranty of the same.
It was better the old way by every empirical measure.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-marriage-and-incorporation
https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/07/evolution-of-a-condition-of-liberty-the-struggle-from-discretionary-to-non-discretionary-to-market-rule/THE EVOLUTION OF A CONDITION OF LIBERTY
(for newbies)(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-10 10:14:00 UTC