Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Free-riding is a form of theft because it involves benefiting from a resource or

    Free-riding is a form of theft because it involves benefiting from a resource or service without contributing to its cost, thereby imposing an irreciprocal burden on those who do pay. Here are some reasons why free-riding is often seen as a type of theft:

    Exploitation of collective goods: Free-riders exploit goods or services that are collectively funded or maintained, such as public infrastructure, social services, or environmental resources. By using these resources without contributing, they are essentially stealing from the collective.

    Irreciprocal cost distribution: When some people free-ride, the costs of providing the resource or service must be borne by a smaller group of contributors. This leads to an unfair distribution of costs and can make the provision of the resource or service unsustainable in the long run.

    Violation of reciprocity: Societies operate on the principle of reciprocity, where people are expected to contribute in proportion to the benefits they receive. Free-riding violates this principle by taking benefits without giving anything in return.

    Depletion of resources: Free-riding leads to the overuse or depletion of scarce resources, as people have no incentive to conserve or use them efficiently. This is a form of theft from current and future generations who may be deprived of the resource.

    Undermining of social cooperation: Free-riding erodes trust and cooperation in a society, as people become reluctant to contribute to collective goods if they believe others are not doing their fair share. This leads to a breakdown of social institutions and a loss of social capital.

    Reply addressees: @ViandeTiede666 @AutistocratMS @josh61597760 @GiwdulBielsira @FerghaneA @PLIB_fr @Cobra_FX_ @_ThDa @PBlanrue @arthurhomines @NIMH_Rage @RageCultureMag @Doomit_Doomit @PaduStream @Etienne_Chouard @ObjectivismeFR @cercle_cobalt @Bunker_D_ @JRochedy @MonsieurPhi @liberteadoree @fare @VillonAdam @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 23:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778935679663144960

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778933904830869788

  • Gary, I’ve worked on this problem longer than anyone else, and there is an ‘algo

    Gary, I’ve worked on this problem longer than anyone else, and there is an ‘algorithm’ for ethics, morality (reciprocity) that is always decidable. And it’s not even that complicated. It’s just lagging because like science being falsificationary, logic being falsificationary,…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 20:17:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778880191600689563

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778770765053374842

  • NLI 2024 04 12 Office Hours: 9 questions answered

    NLI 2024 04 12 Office Hours: 9 questions answered https://www.youtube.com/live/uu9_tN_Xwo0?si=_Uahw7ps1tFFCWQQ


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 17:03:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778831347714244710

  • If so, what is the difference between Rothbardian ethics and classical liberal e

    If so, what is the difference between Rothbardian ethics and classical liberal ethics?

    (Suggestion: what responsibilities do individuals bear in return for a condition of sovereignty and reciprocity from one another?)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 14:00:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778785336027382012

    Reply addressees: @JarlGandalf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778777641501290875

  • Common failure of false premises. Claims verbal argument pursuit of truth under

    Common failure of false premises.
    Claims verbal argument pursuit of truth under pre-established consent to reciprocity, instead of verbal negotiation under presumption of possibility of violence.

    In other words, Hoppe’s argument, a derivation of marxist argument by hoppe’s mentor, Habermas, and like most of rothbardian libertarianism is circular because it assumes its conclusion in its false premise. Once you recognize that all rothbardian ethics are circular by this same method you will grasp that you too. have been suckered by the feminine > jewish > abrahamic > marxist sequence of seduction into false promise by baiting into hazard via positiva, and sedition by undermining using critique via negativa.

    I don’t err. There is a reason I left MI and PFS behind as failed programs when you were still a child. And there is a reason the Rothbardians are afraid of me. It’s because I am correct. Rothbardianism is a sophistry of middle class marxism – a means of evading European natural law of reciprocity, and the demand for capialization of the commons that disambiguates diasporic separatist and middle eastern low trust ethics, from territorial federated European high trust ethics.

    That you don’t know this is just your lack of experience in the field. And don’t feel bad. This technique of deception is as sophisticated as the european techniques of truth discovery. In fact that is why the feminine -to – abrahamic – to.- marxist sequence was originatelly invented: as resistance against greek reason and the superiority of the indo europeans whether persian or greco-roman.

    Reply addressees: @StephaneGeyres @GiwdulBielsira @FerghaneA @PLIB_fr @ViandeTiede666 @Cobra_FX_ @_ThDa @PBlanrue @arthurhomines @NIMH_Rage @RageCultureMag @Doomit_Doomit @PaduStream @Etienne_Chouard @ObjectivismeFR @cercle_cobalt @Bunker_D_ @JRochedy @MonsieurPhi @liberteadoree @fare @VillonAdam


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 02:21:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778609241277779968

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778599486069121128

  • Does it? Or does it mean that the cost of taking your life, property, women, chi

    Does it? Or does it mean that the cost of taking your life, property, women, chi

    Does it? Or does it mean that the cost of taking your life, property, women, children, livestock, and other assets is a matter of the ratio of violence and risk of it’s consequence? It’s the latter. In other words, Hoppe’s argument it circular.

    Here, from first principles… https://t.co/tQuh7llt2J


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 00:26:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778580367231869251

    Reply addressees: @ViandeTiede666 @RageCultureMag @GiwdulBielsira @FerghaneA @PLIB_fr @StephaneGeyres @Cobra_FX_ @_ThDa @PBlanrue @arthurhomines @NIMH_Rage @Doomit_Doomit @PaduStream @Etienne_Chouard @ObjectivismeFR @cercle_cobalt @Bunker_D_ @JRochedy @MonsieurPhi @liberteadoree @fare @VillonAdam

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778563371639374197