There Is only One Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/there-is-only-one-law-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 17:59:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264979517619056640
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
There Is Only One Law
Jan 28, 2020, 11:21 AM There is only one law with two faces, and that is the law of reciprocity: in the negative as prohibitions – that is the contribution of european man; and on the inverse, the law of exhausting interpersonal forgiveness : in the positive: as demands – that is the contribution of christianity. The Pagan European command of paternalism to domesticate humans from slaves to serfs to freemen, and if possible to citizens and sovereigns. And the monotheistic resistance to domestication by the extension of kinship love to non kin. The original christianity was just another peasant rebellion against better people wanting to domesticate half human animals. The byzantine compromise was a practical solution to the greco roman empire’s loss of wealth and military power: like communism a false promise of reward in the next world, instead of economic reward after a revolution – neither of which is possible. Eventually, we germanized christianity and made it into something decent. It took a long time to undo the horror and corruption of the catholic church. Eventually the Orthodox preserved the ritualism without the politics. Eventually adam smith wrote down ethics in scientific terms, hume the human mind in scientific terms, and slowly we have dragged ourselves kiking and screaming to restore the two thousand years we lost to semitic underclass dark ages of resistance to mans domestication transcendence, and eugenic evolution. So it is possibly true that that the extension of kinship love to non kin is a good thing. It is possibly true that piety for those lacking agency and ability is a good thing. It is better however that we limit the extension of love to kin groups; and that we substitute loyalty to one another rather than piety to a false god.
-
There Is Only One Law
Jan 28, 2020, 11:21 AM There is only one law with two faces, and that is the law of reciprocity: in the negative as prohibitions – that is the contribution of european man; and on the inverse, the law of exhausting interpersonal forgiveness : in the positive: as demands – that is the contribution of christianity. The Pagan European command of paternalism to domesticate humans from slaves to serfs to freemen, and if possible to citizens and sovereigns. And the monotheistic resistance to domestication by the extension of kinship love to non kin. The original christianity was just another peasant rebellion against better people wanting to domesticate half human animals. The byzantine compromise was a practical solution to the greco roman empire’s loss of wealth and military power: like communism a false promise of reward in the next world, instead of economic reward after a revolution – neither of which is possible. Eventually, we germanized christianity and made it into something decent. It took a long time to undo the horror and corruption of the catholic church. Eventually the Orthodox preserved the ritualism without the politics. Eventually adam smith wrote down ethics in scientific terms, hume the human mind in scientific terms, and slowly we have dragged ourselves kiking and screaming to restore the two thousand years we lost to semitic underclass dark ages of resistance to mans domestication transcendence, and eugenic evolution. So it is possibly true that that the extension of kinship love to non kin is a good thing. It is possibly true that piety for those lacking agency and ability is a good thing. It is better however that we limit the extension of love to kin groups; and that we substitute loyalty to one another rather than piety to a false god.
-
Fallen Angels vs Risen Beasts 😉
[S]orry. Man is risen beast (hero) Not fallen angel (criminal). And he is risen by the the law: the physical laws of nature, the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity, the evolutionary law of transcendence. And the priesthood we love is almost always the enemy of transcendence. And the scientists, judiciary, and entrepreneurs are almost always the advocates of transcendence. If you believe we are fallen angels and that man was oppressed, you’re counter to the evidence and will agree with the oppression and power narrative. If you believe we are risen beasts, and that the underclasses were consistently domesticated like all other animals, then you will be in concert with the evidence. The primary difference between races, sub-races, civilizations, and states is the size of the underclass The struggle for man, that only west and far east achieved at all, is the suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive classes by market means, so that the surpluses of production can be devoted to the production of the high returns on commons. There are various evolutionary reasons why those who are ‘insufficiently valuable for the privilege of reproduction” are unaware of their inadequacy. And there are reasons why elites make use of these useful idiots that don’t know better. Slavery in the european tradition mean’t that others took responsibility for your room and board, in exchange for you doing the work for them. In other words, it was a monetary economy. Only once we develop slavery by conquest (stealing people) does it become a negative institution -and even then slaves were protected from abuse by owners (employers). It’s getting difficult to find places in the world where people are uneducated. But that’s a recent phenomenon. Human beings are not very ‘nice’ to one another by nature. Were purely rational creatures and choose the cheapest means of survival. In advanced civs that happens to be cooperation most of the time. But in most of history war, murder, rape, pillaging, was the most profitable private and public industry. Your ancestors weren’t oppressed. They were domesticated.Humans have no intrinsic value.Your quality of life is more dependent on the smallness of the underclass in relation to the middle and upper classes than it is on your abilities.There is no freedom from physical (scarcity), natural (incentives), and evolutionary (eugenic) laws. None.
-
A State Religion?
Feb 1, 2020, 9:52 AM
—“Would a P government endorse a religion?”–Tim Abbott
P-law allows the truthful reciprocal construction of any form of government and any economy as long as it’s stated in strictly constructed p-law. A continuation of the european sovereigns under rule of law by natural law of reciprocity, that we see in the proto-germanic, germanic, anglo saxon, english, british, american constitutions would yes, permit and possibly require a state religion. It would require compatibility with natural law. This leaves only traditional european religions (all of them), and christianity, and prohibits all others. And it posits chirstianity in scientific terms. In general, history has taught us that state religion is necessary, and so it appears we will have a set of state religions and state funding of religion as we do schools. Even though that religion will cover a broad spectrum of secular, pagan, and monotheistic christian religions.
-
A State Religion?
Feb 1, 2020, 9:52 AM
—“Would a P government endorse a religion?”–Tim Abbott
P-law allows the truthful reciprocal construction of any form of government and any economy as long as it’s stated in strictly constructed p-law. A continuation of the european sovereigns under rule of law by natural law of reciprocity, that we see in the proto-germanic, germanic, anglo saxon, english, british, american constitutions would yes, permit and possibly require a state religion. It would require compatibility with natural law. This leaves only traditional european religions (all of them), and christianity, and prohibits all others. And it posits chirstianity in scientific terms. In general, history has taught us that state religion is necessary, and so it appears we will have a set of state religions and state funding of religion as we do schools. Even though that religion will cover a broad spectrum of secular, pagan, and monotheistic christian religions.
-
Chapter on “Cooperation (Morality)”
SUBJECT HEADINGS: 1. Time 2. Division 3. Rationality 4. Reciprocity 5. Immorality 6. Morality 7. Forbearance 8. Trust 9. Virtue
Elegant.
-
Chapter on “Cooperation (Morality)”
SUBJECT HEADINGS: 1. Time 2. Division 3. Rationality 4. Reciprocity 5. Immorality 6. Morality 7. Forbearance 8. Trust 9. Virtue
Elegant.
-
To Violate Our Sovereignty Is to Invite Us to War
Feb 1, 2020, 7:45 PM See, you don’t get it. The only reason not to conquer, deprive, exploit, enserf, enslave, or end – or worse, is reciprocity. You see, ‘sovereign means’ capable of defense – every man a sovereign: a king, a legislature, a knight, a husband, a craftsman and all else he might be. That is why natural law and international law are the same: because no man has say over another unless he violates the sovereignty of another – and if so then they may war. If they choose not to war they may duel. If they choose not to duel they may seek decision from the people in a jury. If they do not abide by the jury they have lost the insurance of their sovereign peers, and are limited to their own defense. And as such, they will easily be the victims of war by the polity rather than just their prior enemy. We are the men of Europa. We are sovereigns – all. And to violate that sovereignty is to invite us into war.
-
To Violate Our Sovereignty Is to Invite Us to War
Feb 1, 2020, 7:45 PM See, you don’t get it. The only reason not to conquer, deprive, exploit, enserf, enslave, or end – or worse, is reciprocity. You see, ‘sovereign means’ capable of defense – every man a sovereign: a king, a legislature, a knight, a husband, a craftsman and all else he might be. That is why natural law and international law are the same: because no man has say over another unless he violates the sovereignty of another – and if so then they may war. If they choose not to war they may duel. If they choose not to duel they may seek decision from the people in a jury. If they do not abide by the jury they have lost the insurance of their sovereign peers, and are limited to their own defense. And as such, they will easily be the victims of war by the polity rather than just their prior enemy. We are the men of Europa. We are sovereigns – all. And to violate that sovereignty is to invite us into war.