There are two intersecting rules:
1. Kin selection
2. Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.
This explains his list of ten common outputs.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 14:04:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105469565197303808
There are two intersecting rules:
1. Kin selection
2. Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.
This explains his list of ten common outputs.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 10:04:00 UTC
Propertarianism SIMPLY Explained https://youtu.be/UAVmWGDD50M via @YouTube
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-08 10:48:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103970681044254721
WHAT DOES P-LAW SAY ABOUT TORTURE?
Torture as punishment? Or torture to extract information?
In the case of common criminals? For involuntary actors: soldiers, warriors, or spies? Or for voluntary actors: traitors, terrorists, enemy combatants?
As a punishment no. Never. That is cruelty.
As a means of extracting information, without maiming, yes.
As a means of extracting with maiming, only for voluntary actors: traitors, enemy combatants, and terrorists, and not for involuntary actors (soldiers, warriors, and spies).
Mercy is for the weak, for fools, and women.
–“And cruelty, for the desperate, the cowardly, the short-lived, and the base.”—Tim Beckley-Spillane
To second Tim, I ‘ll say that men who enjoy war are different from men who enjoy cruelty. And cruelty is never something we want among us.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 21:18:00 UTC
MOST CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE?
—“Curt Doolittle: What’s the most controversial social issue that is the most difficult to solve for propertarianism?”—Philip Clark
Religion without exception. Abortion because it is so passionate and it is not a question of law but of choice on the part of the community. hence the necessity of small custom communities.
I’ll say this:
1. Abrahamic religion is a rather obvious bad – but it appears we are stuck with it.
2. Abortion is very difficult because (a) it is never clear that we aren’t just trying to suppress sexuality (which is fine) but address the underling question not abortion, (b) whether it’s any different or worse than ‘exposure’ by which women have killed more lives than all wars in history combined. (c) whether it’s simply a better choice than putting children into terrible circumstances and hostile environments. (d) whether it’s tragic for many young couples who are not sufficiently adult and if there is any alternative, (e) that there shouldn’t be some additional penalty for failing to use protection. My opinion is keep it legal but make couples pay dearly for it over the long term. But it’s only an opinion.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 13:40:00 UTC
I’m against the ancestral method of competition: false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 13:10:00 UTC
You can study Capitalism or Socialism or both… Or you can study rule of law by natural law and ignore both.
Source date (UTC): 2019-03-05 18:39:00 UTC
They specialize in GSRM and Baiting in to Moral Hazard because they can’t compete by reciprocal and moral means.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-28 17:44:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1101176347290853376
They specialize in GSRM and Baiting in to Moral Hazard because they can’t compete by reciprocal and moral means.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-28 12:44:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52702681_10157018306777264_2367313453032407040_n_10157018306772264.jpg —“Proprietarianism-You can have my donut if I can have yours and no one else gets harmed in the process”–Greg Grzywacz
He forgot the last bit.
—…. Otherwise, either you don’t get my donut, and if you even try, I’m going to end you and eat both our donuts.”–CurtDNicholas Christopher RichardWhat’s the propertarian donut ethic?Feb 28, 2019, 11:50 AMFrancesco PrincipiPrincipi I prefer womenFeb 28, 2019, 11:51 AMZach MattoNicholas Christopher Richard Incremental suppression of people eating more donuts than they’ve earned = the west…?Feb 28, 2019, 12:04 PMMicah PezdirtzLocke, Nietzsche and heraclitusFeb 28, 2019, 12:25 PMDaniel OgburnMarx description/analogy is shockingly wrong.
Some of the others are shaky at best.Feb 28, 2019, 12:27 PMDaniel OgburnAlso,
Freud — the donut is a symbol of man’s sexual desire.
Jung — the shape of the donut
Is a result your childhood
templates.
Ogburn — If you’re fat, don’t eat the
donut.Feb 28, 2019, 12:30 PMDaniel OgburnAlso Ogburn — the donut is anything homeomorphic to s1 x s1Feb 28, 2019, 12:31 PMDaniel OgburnDavin Eastley — the donut reminds me of my sisters.Feb 28, 2019, 12:32 PMDavin Eastleyit’s a teacupFeb 28, 2019, 12:32 PMCurt DoolittleMarx: the classes are at war instead of tripartite, rather than the semites and the aryan are at war, and the semites can’t develop morals and ethics of high trust commons.Feb 28, 2019, 12:38 PMEric BlankenburgThere is something to be said for the directness and simplicity of Locke. ;)Feb 28, 2019, 12:43 PMDavin EastleyPrevent the theft of donuts from the commons.Feb 28, 2019, 12:49 PMDavin EastleyProtect the donut commons from parasitism.Feb 28, 2019, 12:49 PMThorsten NorgateBill & Ted version – All we are is doughnuts in the wind, Dude.Feb 28, 2019, 12:50 PMShannon Constantine Logandonut in totoFeb 28, 2019, 1:29 PMJWarren Prescottfreud was rightFeb 28, 2019, 1:37 PMGreg GrzywaczProprietarianism-You can have my donut if I can have yours and no one else gets harmed in the processFeb 28, 2019, 2:05 PMCurt DoolittlepricelessFeb 28, 2019, 2:07 PMCurt Doolittleadded to op.Feb 28, 2019, 2:08 PMMichael BurkeDerrida: donut, eclair, muffin? What the difference?Feb 28, 2019, 2:19 PMPiero ThymiopoulosWithout a means of power to obtain the donut, one simply can’t obtain it.Feb 28, 2019, 9:44 PMAdrian Folkersamlet’s get this (glazed) bread kingsMar 1, 2019, 3:11 PMBill JoslinReciprocity is shaped like DonutMar 1, 2019, 4:53 PMRob RandallStealing this picture.Mar 1, 2019, 5:14 PMGünther Shroomachersounds weird 😀
edit: let’s make donut together and make sure no one else gets harmed in the processMar 1, 2019, 9:44 PMEric RushNeeds some Lord BerkeleyMar 3, 2019, 5:55 PM—“Proprietarianism-You can have my donut if I can have yours and no one else gets harmed in the process”–Greg Grzywacz
He forgot the last bit.
—…. Otherwise, either you don’t get my donut, and if you even try, I’m going to end you and eat both our donuts.”–CurtD
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-28 11:38:00 UTC