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.
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
Advocate Against the Negative – the Positive Is A Choice
I advocate a world that ostracizes, punishes, or kills those who behave parasitically on the production of others, whether produced by private, kin, or common, and whether life, physical, institutional, normative, or informational.
-
Advocate Against the Negative – the Positive Is A Choice
I advocate a world that ostracizes, punishes, or kills those who behave parasitically on the production of others, whether produced by private, kin, or common, and whether life, physical, institutional, normative, or informational.
-
THE GRAND SEQUENCE Oath, Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, B
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.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 08:47:00 UTC
-
It’s not that Reciprocity is good for all of us – even though it is. It’s just t
It’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.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 07:16:00 UTC
-
Q. What is Propertarianism? In A Word: Reciprocity.
Apr 15, 2017 4:32pm Q: “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” What is Propertarianism? A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law. What is Natural Law? A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics. What do you mean by ethics? The law of cooperation and conflict resolution. What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?Reciprocity. WHAT IS RECIPROCITY? In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality. —“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. WHERE IS THE NAME PROPERTARIANISM FROM? Why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism? We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation. Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Q. What is Propertarianism? In A Word: Reciprocity.
Apr 15, 2017 4:32pm Q: “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” What is Propertarianism? A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law. What is Natural Law? A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics. What do you mean by ethics? The law of cooperation and conflict resolution. What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?Reciprocity. WHAT IS RECIPROCITY? In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality. —“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. WHERE IS THE NAME PROPERTARIANISM FROM? Why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism? We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation. Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Of Course We Can Demand Reciprocity
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?
-
Of Course We Can Demand Reciprocity
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?
-
Is there any reason we cannot warranty due diligence of full accounting of recip
Is there any reason we cannot warranty due diligence of full accounting of reciprocity? (no)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:52:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697710104432641
Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209
IN REPLY TO:
@Its_Lynnocent
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209