—“People who, in observing a crime in progress, scold civilians for using force to stop it, say “just call the cops, don’t shoot them”. But, at what point of destruction would you still hold that passive view? Would you say just call the fire department if you saw someone about to start a huge brush fire in California or Greece?”— Steve Pender Every man a craftsman, a sheriff, a judge, a warrior.
Form: Argument
-
EVERY MAN A SHERIFF —“People who, in observing a crime in progress, scold civi
EVERY MAN A SHERIFF
—“People who, in observing a crime in progress, scold civilians for using force to stop it, say “just call the cops, don’t shoot them”. But, at what point of destruction would you still hold that passive view? Would you say just call the fire department if you saw someone about to start a huge brush fire in California or Greece?”— Steve Pender
Every man a craftsman, a sheriff, a judge, a warrior.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 15:36:00 UTC
-
Do Natural Rights Exist? No. but We Can Create Them
1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest. 2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty). 3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity. 4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer). 5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.
-
Do Natural Rights Exist? No. but We Can Create Them
1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest. 2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty). 3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity. 4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer). 5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND TH
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND THEORIES
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe.
An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction.
So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency.
Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality.
As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites.
And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description.
I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth.
So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 17:52:43 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREAT
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM
1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest.
2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty).
3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity.
4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer).
5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 14:50:32 UTC
-
DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM 1 – There exists a natural l
DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM
1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest.
2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty).
3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity.
4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer).
5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:50:00 UTC
-
SEPARATE: THERE IS ISN’T ANY ‘US’ ANY LONGER There is no “us”, because we demons
SEPARATE: THERE IS ISN’T ANY ‘US’ ANY LONGER
There is no “us”, because we demonstrate want and need for different commons. A government provides no other function than the production of commons. A democracy constitutes a monopoly on the production of commons. Ergo, the only possible solution to a demand for different commons is separation.
Revote, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.
Democracy is a means of selecting priorities in the production of commons between those of common interests, wants, and needs.
A market is a means of selecting preferences in the production of the private and common among those with different interests wants and needs.
A market for physical, normative, and institutional commons requires separate governments, where differences between groups are ameliorated by trade policy.
Democracy over a heterogenous population is just monopoly tyranny.
We can once again afford to separate, and speciate. And democracy is merely a false religion that prohibits our individual and group fulfillment.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-25 12:27:00 UTC
-
Stand Your Ground Moves in The Right Direction
(a) man (rightly) criticizes woman in car for parking in handicapped spot. (b) other man (wrongly) comes from behind and shoves him to the ground. Correct behavior? (c) do not park in handicapped. (d) do not shove people to the ground for criticizing your behavior. Difference? (e) some of us have higher agency (self control, and insulation from impulse) (f) some of us have lower agency (self control and insulation from impulse) Anyone who is not ignorant of the the daily video releases on blacks beating whites for amusement and hatred will have a normal reaction to these consequences. Our different interpretations tell us nothing other than whether we have agency or lack it. This is why liberals (feminine) are incompatible with conservatives (masculine) – because our perception of the world, and our judgement of behavior differs meaningfully given our genetic differneces.
-
Stand Your Ground Moves in The Right Direction
(a) man (rightly) criticizes woman in car for parking in handicapped spot. (b) other man (wrongly) comes from behind and shoves him to the ground. Correct behavior? (c) do not park in handicapped. (d) do not shove people to the ground for criticizing your behavior. Difference? (e) some of us have higher agency (self control, and insulation from impulse) (f) some of us have lower agency (self control and insulation from impulse) Anyone who is not ignorant of the the daily video releases on blacks beating whites for amusement and hatred will have a normal reaction to these consequences. Our different interpretations tell us nothing other than whether we have agency or lack it. This is why liberals (feminine) are incompatible with conservatives (masculine) – because our perception of the world, and our judgement of behavior differs meaningfully given our genetic differneces.