Jan 22, 2020, 12:02 PM
—” I’d be curious to hear cowardice put into economic terms. I’d say something like: an irreciprocal transfer of risk onto the leadership/heros.”–Daniel T. Johnson
It’s the conservative form of GSRRM. Guilting others for not acting on their behalf, as cover for their cowardice on acting on all of our behalf. It’s fraud. Allegations of irreciprocity to cover one’s irreciprocity.
Jan 24, 2020, 11:52 AM
—“Nature is the mother of reciprocity. Cold, brutal and uncompromising. Pay its price or cease existing.”—Eric Bumpus
Jan 24, 2020, 11:52 AM
—“Nature is the mother of reciprocity. Cold, brutal and uncompromising. Pay its price or cease existing.”—Eric Bumpus
Passive Morality Isn’t Moral It’s Immoral – Free Riding https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/passive-morality-isnt-moral-its-immoral-free-riding/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:25:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264986029876031494
Jan 25, 2020, 4:23 PM by Luke Weinhagen Passive morality isn’t. Conflating docility (submissive to morality, passive) with morality is like conflating helplessness (being incapable of violence, passive) with being peaceful. Both may describe your behavior but not your character nor your potential for reciprocity.
Jan 25, 2020, 4:23 PM by Luke Weinhagen Passive morality isn’t. Conflating docility (submissive to morality, passive) with morality is like conflating helplessness (being incapable of violence, passive) with being peaceful. Both may describe your behavior but not your character nor your potential for reciprocity.
Why Does Reciprocity Make Libertarians Butthurt? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/why-does-reciprocity-make-libertarians-butthurt/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:20:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264984687161663488
Jan 26, 2020, 8:57 AM
—“I shared some Curt Doolittle posts about reciprocity and libertarians got extremely butthurt. Why is that? When I started talking about the cultivation of self, of yourself as a man, my “friends” from secret groups started trying to get me to denounce what I said and repent in public. Sjw-like behavior. But why?””—Christopher M Matthews
Because rothbardian libertarianism is an SJW-targeted system of thought, argued with SJW logic, producing another Abrahamic cult of sophism. There is only one source of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and that is the natural law of reciprocity, insured by all able bodied men bearing arms. There is nothing more to be said. Libertarians won’t pay for the commons, because like those whose immoral ethics and sophomoric reasoning they imitate, they want to parasitically free ride upon the payment for commons by others, just as if they were wandering sheepherders or hunter gatherers with no necessity or responsibility of land holding. They don’t somehow grasp, despite some economic understanding, that one must produce sufficient commons to defend against the strongest opponent in the market for territory, polity, and order of their preference. So, those that produce greater commons in one way or another (whether predatory, parasitic, or productive) defeat those that do not produce commons sufficient to compete with them. Ergo, the market demands at least sufficient funding of commons to preserve sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and it turns out that holding territory sufficient to create a condition of sovereignty is expensive. That is why all those who’ve failed are gone. It’s why there are at present something like 500 dead gods – the tombstones of peoples who failed.
Jan 26, 2020, 8:57 AM
—“I shared some Curt Doolittle posts about reciprocity and libertarians got extremely butthurt. Why is that? When I started talking about the cultivation of self, of yourself as a man, my “friends” from secret groups started trying to get me to denounce what I said and repent in public. Sjw-like behavior. But why?””—Christopher M Matthews
Because rothbardian libertarianism is an SJW-targeted system of thought, argued with SJW logic, producing another Abrahamic cult of sophism. There is only one source of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and that is the natural law of reciprocity, insured by all able bodied men bearing arms. There is nothing more to be said. Libertarians won’t pay for the commons, because like those whose immoral ethics and sophomoric reasoning they imitate, they want to parasitically free ride upon the payment for commons by others, just as if they were wandering sheepherders or hunter gatherers with no necessity or responsibility of land holding. They don’t somehow grasp, despite some economic understanding, that one must produce sufficient commons to defend against the strongest opponent in the market for territory, polity, and order of their preference. So, those that produce greater commons in one way or another (whether predatory, parasitic, or productive) defeat those that do not produce commons sufficient to compete with them. Ergo, the market demands at least sufficient funding of commons to preserve sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and it turns out that holding territory sufficient to create a condition of sovereignty is expensive. That is why all those who’ve failed are gone. It’s why there are at present something like 500 dead gods – the tombstones of peoples who failed.
Jan 26, 2020, 4:25 PM
—“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—
Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity. it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it. “can you warranty my life? No only I can.” “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.” “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.” Edit