Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • EXPOSING THE FALSE MORALITY OF THE FUNDAMENTALISTS WITH THE TRUTH OF SCIENTIFIC

    EXPOSING THE FALSE MORALITY OF THE FUNDAMENTALISTS WITH THE TRUTH OF SCIENTIFIC MORALITY

    (important)

    —“Without God who cares. Women can lie and men can harass them. There are endless ways for people to be unfair and cruel. Without the conscience that comes with a Christian civilization people will beg for tyranny to live in peace.”—Bill Amy Grady

    If that was true then there would only be one interpretation of christianity instead of hundreds. Astrology, Numerology, and Scriptural Interpretation are the three most common forms of sophistry and deceit. And the jewish method of pilpul (lying by sophistry) was institutionalized by the three ‘books of pilpul’.

    Instead, there is only one law with two faces, and that is the law of reciprocity: in the negative: prohibitions – that is the contribution of european man; and on the inverse, the law of exhausting interpersonal forgiveness : in the positive: demands – that is the contribution of christianity.

    The rest of christianity is lies and parables that offer false promises of unwarrantable rewards, in an impossible life after death to simple illiterate people lacking knowledge of reason, logic, science, economics and mathematics.

    The Jewish method is expressly evolved for the purpose of profiting from free riding, parasitism upon the dominant males, and undermining using false promise and deceit – by demanding verbal or intellectual skills.

    The islamic method is the same form of parasitism but depends on blind imitation rather than verbal or intellectual skills.

    The christian method was just, like communism, a false promise to the underclass, in the semitic war against the european, iranic, egyptian, and north african peoples.

    There is but one law of life: persistence of that form of organization we call life by the defeat of entropy and capture of energy by doing so – and the only difference between the physical world and the human is that we have memories, and can account for debts and credits between each other with extraordinary precision. And as long as our accounts are in balance with one another, or at least as long as we can foresee our accounts balancing, then we can continue to cooperate and to take risks to cooperate.

    Truth: you use god as a shield by which you can ignore other humans, fail to compromise with other humans, fail to face your worth to other humans, fail to join the collective efforts of other humans, and instead to descend into self centeredness, self-congratulation, ignorance and obedience like the muslims, all while claiming you are doing good.

    But you are just the man praying while others do the work: free riding on the efforts and honesty of better men.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-28 09:55:00 UTC

  • Let’s avoid conflating sentience, awareness, and the consciousness spectrum – an

    Let’s avoid conflating sentience, awareness, and the consciousness spectrum – and prevent overreach. These things are our food. Not abusing them and not eating them are two different things. And the reason not to abuse them is that we don’t want such people in our midst. https://t.co/sO1yvXPoyg


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 13:44:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221791016304480261

    Reply addressees: @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221727831966662657


    IN REPLY TO:

    @clairlemon

    “Sentience extends to cows, chicken, pigs & even fish. These are beings with a consciousness. They experience pleasure and pain, bond with their young & pursue their own purposes, even if they are simple purposes such as seeking food” https://t.co/m6gXxcevjS

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221727831966662657

  • INTERSEX “DISCIPLINE” (hard questions) (judgemet of the natural law) —“Serious

    INTERSEX “DISCIPLINE”

    (hard questions) (judgemet of the natural law)

    —“Serious question, is it ever justifiable to hit a woman if she grsm’s you too much? What is the recommended amount of force under P?”—Jack Hwite

    This is a great example of how sovereignty has been used throughout our history. And why this question has such a long history in our law: because it’s a common problem.

    Justifiable isn’t a meaningful term. Instead, under natural law, and under traditional european law, you can challenge anyone male of female to a duel, demand apology, demand satisfaction, and if refused exercise sovereignty in self defense.

    Or put differently, in natural law, each of us is sovereign, whether male or female. But the sexes differ in our exercise of force.

    “A male physical super-predator exchanges the forgoing of his violence with women so long as women social super-predators exchange forgoing their their undermining (GSRRM) in return. If this contract is broken then physical violence and undermining are both licensed.

    Or the individuals may choose to forgo the duel and simply have at each other in words and hands.

    A judicially sanctioned duel before peers is preferred, since differences in ability can be minimized by traditional pit and bag or other means.

    A conflict can be brought before the court instead and settled there. Because “Scolding” is just as much a violation of sovereignty and the peach as is physical violence.

    However, this is limited to discipline for insult, and when the other party lies down and submits the conflict must stop – otherwise the parties extend beyond the judicial duel into attempted murder.

    This competition is the only way to prevent male and female warfare by their individual means.

    We have constrained men’s violence but let loose women’s violence – and we are paying the price of undermining our civilization as a consequence.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 11:14:00 UTC

  • Me and mine who pay for the commons because commons produce extraordinary return

    Me and mine who pay for the commons because commons produce extraordinary returns, want to know why you shouldn’t be imprisoned, enslaved, enserfed, ostacized or hung for obtaining the benefits of our commons without paying for them.

    Why should we permit you any freedom or liberty at all? Why is it that we don’t hang you? What’s your reason?

    (The difference between capitalizing commons, common infrastructure that improves trade, and redistributive consumption that is not a commons – I assume is rather obvious.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 09:58:00 UTC

  • BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER N

    BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER NATURAL LAW

    Inalienability means you can’t give up certain rights even ifyou want to, because by doing so you give up obligations to others. This means that the cowardly, weak, unable, and those lacking agency can defect and destroy ‘natural rights under natural law’.

    —“John Mark discusses lying to the public in his videos. but web search manipulation and subconscious/subliminal programming is much more vague. deceiving ppl by encouraging people to put themselves in harms way is discussed, like for example the message to give up your 2A rights, but what if that encouragement is subtle and subliminal? are you familiar with how it works in advertising?”—Brian Avran

    It’s called (a) false promise (b) baiting into hazard. And there is a reason why the tribe specializes in comedy, script writing, gossiping, and undermining, INSTEAD of offering a competitive solution.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 05:54:00 UTC

  • IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1

    IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD

    When you’re testing for reciprocity ask:

    1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not?

    2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete.

    3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests?

    4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others?

    5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality?

    6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution?

    For example:

    WHEREAS;

    Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms.

    WHERE;

    1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms.

    2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth.

    3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise.

    4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation.

    5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other.

    6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self.

    7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests.

    THEREFORE

    9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits.

    This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 16:41:00 UTC

  • “I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the curre

    —“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.”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 16:25:00 UTC

  • by Alain Dwight The ability to use reciprocity, commons, and agency to rule out

    by Alain Dwight

    The ability to use reciprocity, commons, and agency to rule out all other versions of ethics as self contradictory takes separating fact from value to another level.

    Separating emotional loading from operations at that deep of a level is a super power.

    Takes all the power away from ORRGSM.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 09:54:00 UTC

  • PASSIVE MORALITY ISN’T MORAL IT’S IMMORAL – FREE RIDING by Luke Weinhagen Passiv

    PASSIVE MORALITY ISN’T MORAL IT’S IMMORAL – FREE RIDING

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-25 16:23:00 UTC

  • Rights(weak) vs Demands(strong). Demands aren’t overrated. πŸ˜‰

    Rights(weak) vs Demands(strong). Demands aren’t overrated. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-25 16:13:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221103720076922880

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite @ClownBa73413423

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221103290710208512


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    @ClownBa73413423 @curtdoolittle I think the right needs to realize that rights are overrated, and especially giving them away for free is a sucker move.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221103290710208512