Fighting AGAINST something is not the same as fighting in favor of something. Fight for constitutional amendments not political seats.#Trump
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-07 11:10:00 UTC
Fighting AGAINST something is not the same as fighting in favor of something. Fight for constitutional amendments not political seats.#Trump
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-07 11:10:00 UTC
The surest means of creating the inevitability of civil war? A set of constitutional demands, plan of transition, and plan of war. #Trump
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-07 11:09:00 UTC
GOODS, SERVICES, AND INFORMATION: SPEECH IS JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT BROUGHT TO MARKET FOR PROFIT.
—“If you derive monetary gain from so-called free speech, including the spoken word, text, graphics, audio, videos, cinema, and theatre – then you can be held to the same standard as any other profession is held to.” — JP Miller
Exactly. If you derive money from your speech then you are using the market – and if using the market, we can demand you warranty your words like any other good, service, or information.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 17:13:00 UTC
—“Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequence of your speech.”— JP Miller
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 17:00:00 UTC
JOURNALISM IS EASILY REPAIRABLE
The craft of Journalism is easily repairable: Restore Defamation, Libel, Slander, and the requirement for Truthful Speech in matters of the commons that the ‘press’ worked so diligently to eliminate from the common law. If one is accountable for one’s words, just as doctors are for theirs, lawyers are for theirs, CPA’s are for theirs, and CEO’s are for theirs, then perhaps ‘journalism’ will cease meaning ‘propaganda that provides opportunity for selling advertising’. Because that’s all it means today.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 07:47:00 UTC
I feel like Judge Dredd:
The law of sovereign men;
and the animals incapable of it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-30 22:03:00 UTC
@jordanbpeterson Dr Peterson (Harris 9) Teachers convey meaning and increase opportunity. Judges decide differences and limit opportunity.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 17:40:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823948707150307328
USE TRUE AND LAWFUL, NOT LEGITIMATE
(updated)(important)
LAWS are moral(true) or not(false). They are constructed correctly(truthfully) or not(falsely).
CONTRACTS are moral or immoral, Lawful or non-Lawful (capital L=Law Proper, lower l=legislation/command).
Contracts can be constructed by a moral process(Truthfully and Lawfully), or an immoral process (Deceitfully and UnLawfully).
Legitimacy is a justificationary moral term, just as Divinely is a theological term. it is a way of ‘hedging’ blame avoidance. The english word arises from a legitimate child: born of lawfully married parents.
The use of the term ‘legitimate’ (lawful, according to rules) evolved in the sense that the authorities have license to exercise violence, or that the construction of some contract or process. Ergo it means ‘moral license’. And from there to reflect the superiority of democratic opinion over natural law. So the term has been, like ‘liberal’ devolved into ‘by popular consent’.
In other words, in common language, it’s used as a soft-deception that claims moral intuition rather than moral truths justify the exercise of the resulting obligations and rights.
Hence why I use true/truthful and legal/lawful not ‘legitimate’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:44:00 UTC
is there any way of keeping propertarian discourse limited to the language of law and entirely divorced from philosophy theology and morality, or will it degenerate into ‘bad old habits’?
hmmm……..
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-19 19:10:00 UTC
QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a private space vs in a public space?
(hints: 1-contractual commons. 2-via negativa. 3-trades)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:26:00 UTC