1 – There are limits to interpersonal action – that is the meaning of ‘ethical’.
2 – There are limits to social action – that’s the meaning of ‘moral’.
3 – There are limits to political action – that is the meaning of ‘sacred’.
1 – There are circumstances that are ethically constrained and circumstances that are not.
2 – Circumstances that are morally constrained and circumstances that are not.
3 – Circumstances that are sacred and constrained, and circumstances that are not.
Festivals, Rituals, Churches, and Courts are sacred because the function of these venues is to deprive us of individualism such that we bond in equality outside of the competitive markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and political power.
These venues are not markets. We have markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and political power. We agree to peaceably compete in those markets only because we agree to preserve the sacred, the moral, and the ethical outside of them.
Instead these venues are for demonstration of self sacrifice for the development of trust among super predators that cohabitate in close proximity.
To politicize festival and ritual is to violate the ethical, moral, and sacred and to create division in that medium the sole purpose of which is to unite us.
If you destroy our means of sacredness, morality, and ethics, then you destroy our ability to trust one another. It is precisely the function of ethical, moral, and sacred conditions that allow us to develop the trust that is necessary for personal, social, and political mindfulness, and the consequences of our trust or lack of it.
The left has worked diligently to undermine the ethical (truth), the moral (family and responsibility), and the sacred (limits to selfishness). The only step after violating the sacred is civil war.
The fact that anyone would violate sacredness and politicize a festival (Ritual) is simply evidence that we are already in a cold civil war.
And we are very close to a hot civil war that will tear it all to pieces.
Form: Argument
-
BOYCOTT the #NFL. No tickets, No pay per views. Cancel Cable Subscriptions. Boyc
BOYCOTT the #NFL. No tickets, No pay per views. Cancel Cable Subscriptions. Boycott all companies with logo’d marketing. Boycott all goods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-25 18:33:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/912384549577019392
-
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids out
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids outside marriage or a marriage-like contract. The problem with rothbards idea of the parent-child relationship is that he fails to subscribe the parent to any kind of responsibility for the existence of the child and therefor sees the child more as some alien figure that the parent may wish to have company with, a relationship that can be terminated at any time as if it were similar to any other. In fact, the parents must have ultimate responsibilities for the existence of the child and therefore also for its well being until such a time where is has assumed its full set of rights (adulthood). Hence, there must be an implicit parent-child contract that takes into consideration reasonable expectations and duties in raising and generally taking care for the child. This contract must be based in reality, including historic, biological, social, and scientific, and must reject modern lies (reality denying) and pseudo-scientific conceptions. In practice, this means that a child must be raised in a stable mother-farther household where appropriate resources are given to both the general welfare of the household, and specifically to the child themselves. Economically, the most efficient and correct way of achieving this is through division of labour between a stay-at-home caretaker (mother) and industrious worker (father). Marriage and marriage-like contracts ensure this happens and traditionally are very difficult to annul, carrying significant penalties and reparations for breech or withdrawal of contract. In the case of those who do have a child outside such a contract, then they must be assumed to have entered into one on birth of the child, and breech of contract/duty must be able to be resolved in court by the other parent or on behalf of the child. -
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids out
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids outside marriage or a marriage-like contract. The problem with rothbards idea of the parent-child relationship is that he fails to subscribe the parent to any kind of responsibility for the existence of the child and therefor sees the child more as some alien figure that the parent may wish to have company with, a relationship that can be terminated at any time as if it were similar to any other. In fact, the parents must have ultimate responsibilities for the existence of the child and therefore also for its well being until such a time where is has assumed its full set of rights (adulthood). Hence, there must be an implicit parent-child contract that takes into consideration reasonable expectations and duties in raising and generally taking care for the child. This contract must be based in reality, including historic, biological, social, and scientific, and must reject modern lies (reality denying) and pseudo-scientific conceptions. In practice, this means that a child must be raised in a stable mother-farther household where appropriate resources are given to both the general welfare of the household, and specifically to the child themselves. Economically, the most efficient and correct way of achieving this is through division of labour between a stay-at-home caretaker (mother) and industrious worker (father). Marriage and marriage-like contracts ensure this happens and traditionally are very difficult to annul, carrying significant penalties and reparations for breech or withdrawal of contract. In the case of those who do have a child outside such a contract, then they must be assumed to have entered into one on birth of the child, and breech of contract/duty must be able to be resolved in court by the other parent or on behalf of the child. -
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically.
Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands.
When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation.
This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake.
Never has an empire been so fragile.
Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect.
The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change?
I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible.
Trivial even.
Deterministic.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 11:38:00 UTC
-
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically. Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands. When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation. This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake. Never has an empire been so fragile. Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change? I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible. Trivial even. Deterministic. -
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua
Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically. Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands. When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation. This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake. Never has an empire been so fragile. Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change? I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible. Trivial even. Deterministic. -
by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding
by Eli Harman
You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding by the rules. Optionally: by helping to enforce the rules. I don’t think this last part is optional, although your help can be indirect (pay your taxes) rather than direct (militia service.)
Libertarians who say the rules just are, whether god-given, inalienable, natural, morally imperative, self-evident, or what have you, are just lying in order to try and obtain their protection at a discount.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 19:38:00 UTC
-
by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding
by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding by the rules. Optionally: by helping to enforce the rules. I don’t think this last part is optional, although your help can be indirect (pay your taxes) rather than direct (militia service.) Libertarians who say the rules just are, whether god-given, inalienable, natural, morally imperative, self-evident, or what have you, are just lying in order to try and obtain their protection at a discount. -
by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding
by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding by the rules. Optionally: by helping to enforce the rules. I don’t think this last part is optional, although your help can be indirect (pay your taxes) rather than direct (militia service.) Libertarians who say the rules just are, whether god-given, inalienable, natural, morally imperative, self-evident, or what have you, are just lying in order to try and obtain their protection at a discount.