Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • CAN WE OUTLAW VIRTUE SIGNALING UNDER NATURAL LAW? by James Augustus Berens (flaw

    CAN WE OUTLAW VIRTUE SIGNALING UNDER NATURAL LAW?

    by James Augustus Berens

    (flawless)(perfect argument)

    Can we outlaw virtue signaling?

    Yes, it would be limited by default under symmetrical exchange (natural law).

    Virtue Signalling (modern): advocacy for asymmetric transfers of property without warranty, voluntary contract and/or full-accounting.

    If we suppress asymmetric transfers of property-en-toto, then we limit individuals to compete for signals in the market for goods and services, the market for norms, the market for producing and maintaining commons, and the market for defense and rule.

    We suppressed profiteering through interpersonal (in-group) violence (masculine), but we haven’t suppressed asymmetric profiteering from the production of gossip & [mis]information and by advocacy of involuntary transfers (feminine).

    So the problem isn’t so much that humans signal virtue, status and rank, but that we have yet to sufficiently limit the market for signals to warrantied, productive, fully-informed exchanges

    consisting of positive externalities.

    And we can either have an institutional solution (high trust/cooperative/centralized cost) by extending the purview of natural law to include the production of information, or we can re-introduce interpersonal violence (low trust/competitive/distributed cost) as means of re-masculinizing our dominance hierarchies; thereby shifting signals from the feminine, consumptive and dysgenic to the masculine, accumulative and eugenic—and by consequence restoring western aristocratic civilization.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 03:35:00 UTC

  • a definition of “natural as in natural law. Nature (existence and operational pr

    a definition of “natural as in natural law. Nature (existence and operational predisposition within existence) is an archaic term, so I answered what I thought you meant. But I think you mean that the verbal relationship between ‘nature’ and ‘natural law’ is other than etymological. Natural Law = reciprocity. We use the term ‘nature’ pretty widely. But in origin it has both a positive and negative meaning. Like most things the negative is more precise: that which was not created by intent. Originally used as ‘a man’s nature’, and referring to his character and breeding just as we learn by domesticating the personality and fitness of animals.

    The use of the term Natural Law generally refers to the attempt to bind states to the necessity of not imposing upon that which would inhibit cooperation and prosperity. In later generations this would be reduced to reciprocity in property rights. In the current period I use it to refer to reciprocity in property in toto, and suggest that this condition is only possible under sovereignty. And that sovereignty is only possible by militial reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 16:09:00 UTC

  • PREFACE: In my view all people can be domesticated by the common natural law if

    PREFACE: In my view all people can be domesticated by the common natural law if that law provides sufficient suppression of innovative means of parasitism. And that our philosohpers and scientists failed to develop that method of legal suppression for a variety of reasons – most of which had to do with incentives at the time.

    JEWISH PERSECUTION WORLDWIDE

    Sol – the problem for jews is that they want to preserve their separatism and avoid contributing to the host commons, and instead, to live parasitically off it. This is the same strategy as the gypsies but at a much more indirect method. To do this the jews have made a habit of working with the central government against the interests of the people. The fact that this service could not be provided until the templars, and that the templars were crushed by it, left open an opportunity for the jews to seize that function in society as it emerged. Both the church and the Nobility thought it ‘dirty’ work.

    The problem is, that eventually, a shock occurs, and the people who have contact with what they see as licensed predators (sort of how we see the IRS and Collection Agencies today), take out their anger and steal the property of those who have allied with the state against them. (Just as the jews have done in this country).

    i can’t remember the name of the book. I should but I always forget it. But it’s written by a jew, and he recommends that jews end this cycle of parasitism and alliance with the states against the people, and realize that they are not so much victims but deserving of what has happened to them – it’s a problem of their own making.

    This is my position as well. The jewish group evolutionary strategy is successful, but it has lead to a specialization in literacy, and a weakness in numbers, and physicality. Sot hat the jewish people require host civilizations to provide the protection of property while they engage in profitable but continuously antagonizing extractions from the people and their commons. Israel is an interesting experiment because it will demonstrate whether jews can convert from parasitic consumption of commons, to the expensive production of commons. If so, judaism will start looking a lot like presbyterianism.

    Separate but among cannot work unless one pays heavily into the commons. But jews choose primarily those occupations that are not productive and parasitically consume the commons – those that make use of asymmetric information.

    (in other words, having a lot of jewish doctors, physical scientists, and accountants is one thing, but having a lot of jewish bankers, financiers, advertisers, marketers, public intellectuals, artists, propagandists, lawyers, politicians, is a very bad thing because it creates too great a hazard (as we can see from Mr Krugman) such that the cognitive bias favor of creating additional hazards but escaping accountability for them, can be sated in the course of one’s duties. Without the law to take away the benefit-of the doubt, we cannot ‘train’ their cult to behave as high trust individuals in a high trust society – in great numbers.

    I dunno. I am pretty fond of reformed jews and I don’t see much of a difference between them and our classical liberal bourgeoisie except for our western predilection for (masculine) contribution to the ACCUMULATIVE commons and the jewish (female) predilection for contribution to the CONSUMPTIVE commons.

    All people can be domesticated by sufficient law constructed to take advantage of incentives to prosecute parasitic behavior.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 15:29:00 UTC

  • There is a very big difference between Jewish positive law (wisdom) and european

    There is a very big difference between Jewish positive law (wisdom) and european negative law (logical and empirical). Natural Law=Science.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 17:02:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830462075667378177

  • There is a very big difference between Jewish positive law (wisdom) and european

    There is a very big difference between Jewish positive law (wisdom) and european negative law (logical and empirical). Natural Law=Science.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 12:02:00 UTC

  • I think it’s a normal progression from libertarianism to propertarianism – we ju

    I think it’s a normal progression from libertarianism to propertarianism – we just gotta get over our youthful idealism. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 18:04:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830115142457315333

    Reply addressees: @DJ_NOW

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830073077845286912


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830073077845286912

  • (didn’t think I’d write that kinda’ thing, huh? Truth is what it is. It’s what w

    (didn’t think I’d write that kinda’ thing, huh? Truth is what it is. It’s what we do with the truth that demonstrates whether we are moral or immoral men. A man with no knowledge of immorality cannot claim he is a moral man – he lacks the choice. It is by acknoweldgeing the costs of moral actions that we demonstrate we are moral men rather than mere animals.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 13:51:00 UTC

  • With the elimination of the duel, libel, slander, insult, and the right-to-fight

    With the elimination of the duel, libel, slander, insult, and the right-to-fight, we’ve cheapened the cost of being an ass.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-09 12:26:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829667779011866624

    Reply addressees: @ChateauEmissary

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829460118433517568


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829460118433517568