Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just sayi

    Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just saying there is no rule of law, and lying has replaced violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 18:37:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853678791637561344

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Who is going to decide who is using true or false speech? The right? The left? Bad idea mate.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416

  • There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error,

    There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism + deceit.

    Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just saying there is no rule of law, and lying has replaced violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:38:00 UTC

  • WE? WHO ARE ‘WE’? We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:10:00 UTC

  • No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostraciz

    No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostracize(remove), or kill those who do not limit their actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs either directly or by externality against that which others have obtained an interest by the same means. People will not happily cooperate, they will cooperate because it is profitable for those who enforce such cooperation to enforce it, and profitable for people who are the victims of involuntarily imposed costs, and unprofitable for those who even attempt to impose costs. In other words: rule of law, under natural law, the scope of property being demonstrated by acts reciprocity.

    Now, go ahead and try to refute that, and I’ll eat you for lunch like pringles with beer.

    I don’t do pseudoscience, or pseudorationalism, or idealism, or supernaturalism. I do science.

    Now try it. Go a head. Lets see if you can hold your own without lying, prevaricating, or straw manning. ;)

    btw: I never said the state is a market. I said the state is an error of corporatism. But that commons are necessary for the competitive existence and persistency of a polity capable of producing liberty. So, how can one produce commons while preserving rule of law, while preventing the rise of discretionary rule (a state)? I can answer that question. You cannot. You cannot because you allowed the problem to be framed as impossible – and developing excuses to pretend it wasn’t necessary, rather than solving the problem, or simply admitting you could not – as rothbard could not – solve the problem.

    Read more

    Reply

    I don’t use a state. I use nothing but private property and rule of law, under natural law.

    How will you create the commons of property rights if commons are ‘invalid’?

    Well, someone would have to sue the mises institute for fraud, damages, etc. Which I assume would occur. But there is no ‘state’ to take action in the absence of private suit against those who distribute falsehoods.

    Reply

    Funny. I though my ”whole thing’ was to eliminate jewish marxism, jewish libertinism, jewish neo-conservativsm, anglo french and german pseudorationalism and pseudoscience, and restore empirical (truthful) government and a market between the classes using multiple houses of representatives chosen by lot.

    But then with a name like (((Rose))) I suppose you are just another liar doing what liars do – whether lying by intent, whether culturally indoctrinated into lying, or whether genetic predisposition to lying. 😉 (bait)

    Here is how to translate Rose: “I want a way to steal. I want to steal private production (jewish socialism), I want to steal commons production (jewish l ibertarianism) or I want to steal political production (jewish neoconservatism).

    Conservatives just want to stop you from stealing. Anglo Libertarianism just want to stop you from stealing even a little – even including stealing by their own.

    –“We”–

    We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon 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. IN which case we will happily exterminate people like you who continue to advocate methods of parasitism. ;)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:09:00 UTC

  • One need not require truth, only prohibit falsehood, incompleteness, and irrecip

    One need not require truth, only prohibit falsehood, incompleteness, and irreciprocity – something courts do every day.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:02:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853609659332276225

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471 @primalpoly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853575968040026112


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayMan471

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller This is impossible to implement.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853575968040026112

  • THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false,

    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?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 13:44:00 UTC

  • DEFLATIONARY GOVERNMENT: 0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocall

    DEFLATIONARY GOVERNMENT:

    0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non.

    1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for:

    2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?)

    3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests)

    4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons.

    5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information.

    6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction.

    7) A market for the resolution of disputes over property in toto by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary)

    8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers)

    9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 13:25:00 UTC

  • And we can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims

    And we can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims. There is no reason not to in political speech also.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 11:38:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853573303268782080

    Reply addressees: @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392


    IN REPLY TO:

    @gmiller

    SJW logic: offensive speech is a form of violence, so is not #1A-protected. Also, violence is a form of free speech, so is #1A protected. https://t.co/6VBuO1FgQb

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392

  • How about we worry about TRUE and FALSE speech. Because that’s the problem. Free

    How about we worry about TRUE and FALSE speech. Because that’s the problem. Free speech was hotly debated and a mistake. Only truthful.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 11:36:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853572858081140736

    Reply addressees: @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392


    IN REPLY TO:

    @gmiller

    SJW logic: offensive speech is a form of violence, so is not #1A-protected. Also, violence is a form of free speech, so is #1A protected. https://t.co/6VBuO1FgQb

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392

  • NO, TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS EASY TO IMPLEMENT CURT DOOLITTLE We can require truthful

    NO, TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS EASY TO IMPLEMENT

    CURT DOOLITTLE

    We can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims. There is no reason not to in political speech also.

    JAYMAN:

    This is impossible to implement.

    CURT DOOLITTLE

    Jayman.

    Lets have a debate on that ’cause i’m positive you’re wrong. 😉

    We can never know truth proper, but falsehood is easy.

    And we can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims. There is no reason not to in political speech also.

    One need not require truth, only prohibit falsehood, incompleteness, and irreciprocity – something courts do every day.

    So no, it’s not only possible, it’s easy. And we do it in many, many ways already, successfully, every day.

    And it will serve as the completion of the scientific enlightenment that we have struggled and failed to perform for centuries.

    And it will provide as great a set of returns as has empiricism. If not more.

    —–

    NOTE: I can’t go into testimonial grammar on twitter. so no, I can’t explain it there….

    (edited for grammar and context)

    #jayman


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 10:09:00 UTC