—“settlement is sub-optimal”—@JackHwite
Refusal of settlement on mutually beneficial terms only increases moral license to escalate. 😉
(I think stuff thru) 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 14:12:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189545598225207296
“Infringe” in P-law = “Imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, whether demonstration by action or inaction, in seizure of opportunity, articulated as Property-in-Toto as enumerated herein.” There is nowhere to go. Even misrepresenting it’s a crime.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 14:01:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189542904768786434
Reply addressees: @ironpatriot2016
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189517212664713218
IN REPLY TO:
@viralstrikeai
@curtdoolittle The left has issues with context and reading simple words like “infringed” we have the same issues.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189517212664713218
Refusal of settlement on mutually beneficial terms only increases moral license to escalate. 😉
(I think stuff thru) 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 13:58:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189542090180628482
Reply addressees: @JackHwite
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189539221570310145
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189539221570310145
“Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”
—“…
… One Law to Rule Them All
… One Law to Find Them
… One Law to Bring Them All
… And into Reciprocity Bind Them.
… The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence,
… Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets
… in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into
… the Gods we Imagined….
… —“
—Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7
Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version:
1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only.
2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command.
3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action).
4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons.
5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public.
6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech…
7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable.
8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common.
9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury.
10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here.
Notes:
Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt.
Notes continued:
But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal.
Notes continued:
Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:29:00 UTC
UM. I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH
—“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers.
Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler
Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons.
The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ).
The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry.
Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade.
Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period.
The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries.
The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century.
The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property.
As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism.
The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in
The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism.
The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges.
The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons.
This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:29:00 UTC
DON’T HATE, WE DON’T NEED TO
We don’t need to ‘hate’ anyone, we simply need the “rule of law of reciprocity”, and must insist on truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in public matters, as well as voluntary association and disassociation.
The left are the haters and can’t succeed without lying and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities.
With the “Winning Right”, the rule of law of RECIPROCITY, insistence on truth, voluntary association and disassociation, the losing left would group together in localities where they can create their own local laws and norms suited to their wants and needs. What’s great about that? They couldn’t infect the rest of us with their ideological hell.
Thanks to: John Mark and Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:27:00 UTC
WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS.
Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’)
Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.”
This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance.
Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency.
However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency.
In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:27:00 UTC
RECIPROCITY ENTERING THE MAINSTREAM
—“There’s that word reciprocity again… Where have I heard that before?!?”— JWarren Warren
We will get there. We will standardize that term as the central object of conflict, thereby replacing equality. We probably wont get credit for it. But we will get there. Everyone will use the term. It is the foundation of western civilization. It’s the reason for our success. Its true and it’s moral. But the harder problem in the future will be preventing the use of abrahamic deceit to undermine that term. And every time they try we will have an opportunity to train the world about abrahamic deceit ,and its cause of past present conflcit dark age, and destruction.
THE BIG HISTORY IN P
This is the ‘big history’ (as someone said yesterday) provided by my research into Propertarianism. It’s that the war between the masculine eugenic indo-europea, the feminine dysgenic semitic, the masculine eugenic east asian, remains with India providing the most interesting compromise position at the expense of continuous failure to evolve.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:18:00 UTC
WE HAVE NO CHOICE. EQUALITY IN RECIPROCITY OR IN POVERTY
Our only possibilities are equality in reciprocity or equality in ignorance, superstition, and absolute poverty. There is no choice. It’s just physics. Humans have memories, predictions from memories, and ability to choose to act on those predictions, so that we can outwit time in ways physical processes lacking memory, prediction, choice, and action cannot. However that only allows us to benefit from physical processes not deny or circumvent them. We are as physically constrained as is the rest of the universe. And our only substantial advantage is that the ability to imitate, empathize, sympathize, predict futures from them, and choose to cooperate on those possible futures, is so much more efficient and provides so many greater returns, that we can do a bit better than the rest of life forms – at least with our limits – to convert more calories, and continuously increase our consumption through continuous expansion of cooperation. But in doing so we form Pareto distributions of influence, in order to obtain Nash equilibriums of rewards. And that is a physical necessity of physical reality. We don’t have any choice. We are not wealthier than cave men, our only asset is time. Through cooperation we have made the purchasing power of time increase over and over again throughout history, although disproportionately so with the invention of aristotielainsim, and even more so with the mastery of heat, steam, electricity, chemistry, and now information.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:18:00 UTC
WHY DEFINE NATURAL RIGHTS?
Just as entropy must be articulated as physics, chemistry, biology, etc, Natural Law must be articulated as natural rights for the simple reason that it’s not possible to correctly deduce all applications of entropy without the requisite domain knowledge, or is it possible to correctly deduce all applications of reciprocity without requisite domain knowledge – although when stated that way it’s kind of helpful.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:07:00 UTC