Apr 16, 2017 1:44pm THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false, non-parasitic) political speech. In fact, it was the state that ended our market for truthful speech. Why? … Isn’t science an ongoing discovery process? doesn’t it function as a market for information, with career ending punishments for violators? Don’t we protect against fraud and deceit in the market for goods and services – and provide special protections that PROHIBIT us from defending the market for information against fraud and deceit? Didn’t we, for millennia, protect against libel(written) and slander(spoken), and don’t we grant special privileges that prevent us from using the course to protect ourselves from libel and slander – especially in large scale media? In other words, doesn’t the state PROHIBIT us from self defense against falsehoods? Why is it that we cannot in private advocate for conspiracy (theft), yet in public can advocate for conspiracy (theft) as long as the majority of conspirators approve of the theft? Why is it that we used to be able to protect the environment,and the commons via the judiciary, but the state removed our juridical defense? Why is it that the state removed our juridical defense against members of the bureaucracy, the government, the academy, and the media? Are you going to try to advocate that reciprocity (natural law) is not, in cooperation, the equivalence of truth (decidability)? Or are you saying specifically that people should be able to violate reciprocity and violate truth in order to use large numbers to impose thefts using the violence of the government, in order to obtain by non-reciprocity and deceit, that which they might obtain by voluntary exchange, thereby depriving those who have one thing from obtaining another thing in exchange? Just because you can’t figure out how to create law of information regarding political speech (forcible coercion) such that it holds to the same standards as market speech (goods, services, and information) doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact. it was done for millennia. The question is why did the state take it away, and why can we not restore it?
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
We? Who Are ‘We’? The Martial-Monopoly Judicial-Market Class
WE? WHO ARE ‘WE’? We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon those who act as parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you.
-
We? Who Are ‘We’? The Martial-Monopoly Judicial-Market Class
WE? WHO ARE ‘WE’? We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon those who act as parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you.
-
Reciprocity just makes it preferable to cooperate rather than engage in predation.
t’s not that Reciprocity is good for all of us – even though it is. It’s just that it’s the only condition under which it’s not more profitable, preferable, logical to kill you, take you things, and enslave your women and children. Personally, I kind of prefer the whole kill, take, and enslave thing, but for the good of the women among my kin, I realize they will be happier in a complex, prosperous, cooperative society.
-
Reciprocity just makes it preferable to cooperate rather than engage in predation.
t’s not that Reciprocity is good for all of us – even though it is. It’s just that it’s the only condition under which it’s not more profitable, preferable, logical to kill you, take you things, and enslave your women and children. Personally, I kind of prefer the whole kill, take, and enslave thing, but for the good of the women among my kin, I realize they will be happier in a complex, prosperous, cooperative society.
-
The Grand Sequence
THE GRAND SEQUENCE Oath, Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, Beauty OATH: THE FULLY ARTICULATED OATH I shall not lie, cheat, steal, cause others to bear unwanted cost, or the commons to suffer loss, nor shall I tolerate those who do, nor leave them unpunished by censure, restitution, imprisonment, banishment, or death. TRUTH: TESTIMONY Identity (Categorically consistent) Internally (Logically) consistent Externally Correspondent (Empirically Consistent) Existentially Possible Parsimonious (fully accounted, parsimonious, limits) Moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfers) Beautiful (craft, aesthetic, moral, resources) SOCIAL SCIENCE: Physical Law Natural Law, Family, Market for Commons, Regional Nobility, Monarchy, Nationalism. — GERMAN SUCCESS AND ANGLO FAILURE German success is reducible to the oath under nationalism. Anglo failure to the abandonment of the oath for market universalism: greed.
-
The Grand Sequence
THE GRAND SEQUENCE Oath, Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, Beauty OATH: THE FULLY ARTICULATED OATH I shall not lie, cheat, steal, cause others to bear unwanted cost, or the commons to suffer loss, nor shall I tolerate those who do, nor leave them unpunished by censure, restitution, imprisonment, banishment, or death. TRUTH: TESTIMONY Identity (Categorically consistent) Internally (Logically) consistent Externally Correspondent (Empirically Consistent) Existentially Possible Parsimonious (fully accounted, parsimonious, limits) Moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfers) Beautiful (craft, aesthetic, moral, resources) SOCIAL SCIENCE: Physical Law Natural Law, Family, Market for Commons, Regional Nobility, Monarchy, Nationalism. — GERMAN SUCCESS AND ANGLO FAILURE German success is reducible to the oath under nationalism. Anglo failure to the abandonment of the oath for market universalism: greed.
-
Because I Don’t Trust You
THINK ABOUT THIS SERIES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you?
-
Because I Don’t Trust You
THINK ABOUT THIS SERIES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you?
-
Consent?
CONSENT? We can’t hold people to specific implicit consent because we can’t really state that they understood what they were doing. What we tend to do is hold people account for continuous implicit consent because they can’t say they didn’t understand. this is how the law works today. You can demonstrate your consent by benefiting from something. You cannot demonstrate your consent to some specific agreement that you may or may not have understood. This is why board members and all sorts of organiations vote. It’s a claim that ‘I understand’. This is not true in government and that’s a problem. If liablity were applicable to polticians like it is to boards and officers then we woould ahve 1% of the political problems that we do.