There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial…. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490592681537627&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 22:30:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186771842582876160
HUMAN NEEDS AREN’T HUMAN RIGHTS
—“I can’t have a right to food, but I can have a right to eat.”– JWP
There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial. But one cannot POSSIBLY exercise a right that was not created by others, and one cannot possibly exercise a positive right that places demands upon others. As such all existentially possible rights are only via negativa: freedom from harm by others. There are many desirable GOODS that we might work together to obtain. There are however no existential rights no matter how much we pay wish there work (or lie that there are).
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 18:30:00 UTC
NEED FOR A VIDEO EXPLAINING P TO SCHOOL AGE AUDIENCE.
To: John Mark (P-Teachers)
Just rec’d a phone call on at the Institute asking for a john mark style video targeted to home school,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490456818217880&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 18:12:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186706883983347713
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… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490420804888148&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 17:11:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186691447656828929
NEED FOR A VIDEO EXPLAINING P TO SCHOOL AGE AUDIENCE.
To: John Mark (P-Teachers)
Just rec’d a phone call on at the Institute asking for a john mark style video targeted to home school, middle school, and high schoolers who are exasperated by the current climate and are looking for answers.
I explained that yes, most talk is radical because that is how all reform movements begin: at the fringes with people who are very angry, and they slowly ‘domesticate’ as they evolve into more mainstream acceptance where people are merely frustrated.
I think that if we were to state the problems we’re trying to solve in simple terms: de-deception, de-politicization, de-financialization, de-‘individualism’, and re-familialism, the restoration of reciprocity, and restoration of local control over manner, norm, custom, and tradition – at the cost of restoring voluntary disassociation (city-states, and county-states), that we might be able to reach this demographic … and I was wondering if that isn’t the way to reach the majority.
I might take a cut at it but I don’t want to do much before getting thoughts.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 14:12:00 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): 2019-10-22 13:10:00 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): 2019-10-22 12:26:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW ON MARRIAGE – FOR THE INTERESTED
Marriage is a private contract yes, but it is insured by the community, because of the consequences of broken families placing a burden via moral… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=489932184937010&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 02:00:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186462228381343745
NATURAL LAW ON MARRIAGE – FOR THE INTERESTED
Marriage is a private contract yes, but it is insured by the community, because of the consequences of broken families placing a burden via moral hazard on the community. So, a marriage contract consists (under natural law) as partnership (not corporation) constructed by the mutual exchange of powers of attorney limited only by those limitations stated, but insured by the polity, and therefore the law (judiciary), against interference that would cause harm unrestitutable harm to family members. As such interference in a marriage exposes one to liability for (very large) damages. And distribution of fault is determined court if not determined by the parties. There is no community property. The children are not property but the insurer of the children, and the polity from the children like any other domesticated animal. The law can have no position on divorce, other than empirical, which is that immature children are the responsibility of the mother in the event of a divorce. Mature children may decide which to live with if parents accept their responsibility as insurer. Upon maturity (puberty) that decision belongs to the children. But no liability exists in either direction. That means no alimony, no child support. Because marriages are transitory, and while a woman may sell her sex, affection, and caretaking the man must sell his productivity.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 22:00:00 UTC
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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 21:12:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186389733670297600
Reply addressees: @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186389319088529409
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays 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.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1186389319088529409
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays 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.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1186389319088529409