All I’m saying is that a monarch is superior to any other ‘decider of last resort’ because of natural long-term incentives, and natural pressure to retain position – and that a monarchy, as ‘kin’, within a nation-state, eliminates usurpation by invasion.
Form: Argument
-
Why a Monarch Is Superior
All I’m saying is that a monarch is superior to any other ‘decider of last resort’ because of natural long-term incentives, and natural pressure to retain position – and that a monarchy, as ‘kin’, within a nation-state, eliminates usurpation by invasion.
-
I’m Just Measuring Changes in Capital
—“You are the one insisting on specific terms and frameworks. -Lol. Are there measures of insulation and protection? Yes. Are they self sufficient and unrelated to everything else? No. See, you have a box you’re comfortable playing in, but reality extends way beyond its walls.”—
I’m just MEASURING CHANGES IN CAPITAL. It’s not an opinion. It’s just what exists. There is nothing undecidable by change in capital, any more than change in property, and as such, we see all peoples, all states, in all history operating by this test of reciprocity. So again, the only reason to DISAGREE is to steal. Humans always and everywhere retaliate at high cost, against theft. I’m just explaining the world. If you don’t like it that isn’t material to me. I don’t do ‘good’ I do ‘true’. So the test is not abstractions its cases. If you pick any case i will walk through it and you’ll see you’re engaged in theft and justifying it. Well, then I’ll equally justify your prosecution. That’s what I do: law. So it doesn’t matter what people think is good or agree is good what matters is that when in dispute science (law) provides decidability. Art is decidable as is nearly everything. There is no difference between science and law. We just like lying and cheating … a lot. —“Laws in science are merely pragmatic dependabilities and measurements which are artificially created and imposed by humans. Law in government is always a matter of subjective expression that requires interpretation. Laws only exist because of subjective humans.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt A scientific law is a description (langauge) of constant relations extant in the universe at (so far) increasing degrees of precision (and parsimony). There is nothing subjective about ohms law. nothing. There is nothing subjective about Reciprocity. Nature consists of constant relations. We can describe those constant relations. Math is the language of positional relations, logic of set relations, and operations of humanly possible subjectively testable actions. Law consists in the test of the MOST constant relations possible. So a) man creates descriptions of physical laws (applications of entropy), and b) man creates descriptions of natural laws (applications of reciprocity), c) judges discover those applications, and d) man issues command, legislation, and regulation, that are rarely if ever ‘law’.
-
The Natural Law on Pornography
Dec 10, 2019, 10:01 PM THE NATURAL LAW ON PORNOGRAPHY (from twitter)
—“Do you believe that banning all porn is ridiculous? If so, how come? What would the laws under the Propertarian constitution be regarding porn?”—@EnlightenedNPC
This is a deeper question than it appears – a hard topic for twitter. I’ll try:
a) we must keep it out of the commons, and the internet is a commons, so there must be some ‘gateway’ (opt in) in order to access it.
b) long term effects are far far worse in every regard than we imagined. And;
c) there is some very bad behavior at the lower end of the market. Under natural law if its out of the commons, it’s voluntary, then it’s not a subject for P-law. The rest is just either a product harm (tort), or baiting into hazard (tort), for the law’s Market to solve. I am fairly sure that the legal market would solve it rather quickly under p-law and we would be left with high production value work by studios on one end, and selfies on the other. That’s because baiting into hazard (enticing people in vulnerable positions into such behavior for money) would be prosecutable by anyone – not just the victim. It would be almost impossible to produce anything outside of a studio system with professionals, because it’s almost impossible to avoid baiting into hazard otherwise. And beyond that it’s a Political question (“We just don’t want it here”), or an empirical question (“Accumulate evidence and inability to voluntarily or institutionally regulate means we have to ban it.”). Personally (not the natural law) I have come to understand that while I’m intuitively libertarian, the experiment with porn has (a surprise to me) demonstrated that it’s a net negative, but that it is better to regulate a net negative than it is to turn it into a black market. I’d ban it in my neck of the woods. But my opinion doesn’t mean anything. it’s just a preference. My posts on Pornography are here: https://propertarianinstitute.com/?s=pornography
-
The Natural Law on Pornography
Dec 10, 2019, 10:01 PM THE NATURAL LAW ON PORNOGRAPHY (from twitter)
—“Do you believe that banning all porn is ridiculous? If so, how come? What would the laws under the Propertarian constitution be regarding porn?”—@EnlightenedNPC
This is a deeper question than it appears – a hard topic for twitter. I’ll try:
a) we must keep it out of the commons, and the internet is a commons, so there must be some ‘gateway’ (opt in) in order to access it.
b) long term effects are far far worse in every regard than we imagined. And;
c) there is some very bad behavior at the lower end of the market. Under natural law if its out of the commons, it’s voluntary, then it’s not a subject for P-law. The rest is just either a product harm (tort), or baiting into hazard (tort), for the law’s Market to solve. I am fairly sure that the legal market would solve it rather quickly under p-law and we would be left with high production value work by studios on one end, and selfies on the other. That’s because baiting into hazard (enticing people in vulnerable positions into such behavior for money) would be prosecutable by anyone – not just the victim. It would be almost impossible to produce anything outside of a studio system with professionals, because it’s almost impossible to avoid baiting into hazard otherwise. And beyond that it’s a Political question (“We just don’t want it here”), or an empirical question (“Accumulate evidence and inability to voluntarily or institutionally regulate means we have to ban it.”). Personally (not the natural law) I have come to understand that while I’m intuitively libertarian, the experiment with porn has (a surprise to me) demonstrated that it’s a net negative, but that it is better to regulate a net negative than it is to turn it into a black market. I’d ban it in my neck of the woods. But my opinion doesn’t mean anything. it’s just a preference. My posts on Pornography are here: https://propertarianinstitute.com/?s=pornography
-
Jan 17, 2020, 9:43 AM Under P-Law claiming you were or your ancestors were oppre
Jan 17, 2020, 9:43 AM
Under P-Law claiming you were or your ancestors were oppressed if (a) domesticated, (b) forcibly integrated into civilization, rule of law, truthful speech, nuclear family, self-sufficiency, the sacredness of the commons, duty, piety (c) fulfilling an economic necessity, is a crime.
-
Jan 17, 2020, 9:43 AM Under P-Law claiming you were or your ancestors were oppre
Jan 17, 2020, 9:43 AM
Under P-Law claiming you were or your ancestors were oppressed if (a) domesticated, (b) forcibly integrated into civilization, rule of law, truthful speech, nuclear family, self-sufficiency, the sacredness of the commons, duty, piety (c) fulfilling an economic necessity, is a crime.
-
The Right to Self Determination Is the Right to Persistence
Jan 24, 2020, 12:56 PM All people have both the right to self-determination, if only because no others have the right to deprive them of it. The only restitution available to those whose self-determination is thwarted is a return in kind. Therefore the only solutions to conflicts of self-determination are either separation or war. And in war, it is possible for either side to lose, and in losing, lose the possibility of self-determination. (To have a ‘right’ means ‘to be in the right’ under the natural law of reciprocity. Or it can mean that one has the right of demand of the court or state for the resolution of differences. One cannot ‘have’ a right.)
-
The Right to Self Determination Is the Right to Persistence
Jan 24, 2020, 12:56 PM All people have both the right to self-determination, if only because no others have the right to deprive them of it. The only restitution available to those whose self-determination is thwarted is a return in kind. Therefore the only solutions to conflicts of self-determination are either separation or war. And in war, it is possible for either side to lose, and in losing, lose the possibility of self-determination. (To have a ‘right’ means ‘to be in the right’ under the natural law of reciprocity. Or it can mean that one has the right of demand of the court or state for the resolution of differences. One cannot ‘have’ a right.)
-
Our Genome is our property.
Jan 29, 2020, 4:12 PM Our Genome is our property. Yes. Why? Because we and our ancestors demonstrated interest in it. And we defend it. Therefore it is. Now, you know, we’re happy to get rid of the bottom, as a sacrifice for improving the genomes of others. But that doesn’t mean you can consume our commons.