Jan 26, 2020, 4:11 PM
—“It is extremely challenging and I’m not entirely sure I will ever completely get it, but I’ve already seen a profound change in my perspective. My hope has been restored. My commitment to doing what needs to be done to secure a better future for my children and their children is stronger than ever. Thank you.”—Nathan Wiens
Hugs brother. The more of us that take the journey, the more of us there are to bring about a Renaissance.
Jan 26, 2020, 4:25 PM
—“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—
Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity. it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it. “can you warranty my life? No only I can.” “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.” “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.” Edit
Jan 26, 2020, 4:25 PM
—“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—
Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity. it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it. “can you warranty my life? No only I can.” “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.” “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.” Edit
Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.
Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.
Jan 27, 2020, 5:54 AM BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER NATURAL LAW Inalienability means you can’t give up certain rights even ifyou want to, because by doing so you give up obligations to others. This means that the cowardly, weak, unable, and those lacking agency can defect and destroy ‘natural rights under natural law’. —“John Mark discusses lying to the public in his videos. but web search manipulation and subconscious/subliminal programming is much more vague. deceiving ppl by encouraging people to put themselves in harms way is discussed, like for example the message to give up your 2A rights, but what if that encouragement is subtle and subliminal? are you familiar with how it works in advertising?”—Brian Avran It’s called (a) false promise (b) baiting into hazard. And there is a reason why the tribe specializes in comedy, script writing, gossiping, and undermining, INSTEAD of offering a competitive solution. Edit
Jan 27, 2020, 5:54 AM BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER NATURAL LAW Inalienability means you can’t give up certain rights even ifyou want to, because by doing so you give up obligations to others. This means that the cowardly, weak, unable, and those lacking agency can defect and destroy ‘natural rights under natural law’. —“John Mark discusses lying to the public in his videos. but web search manipulation and subconscious/subliminal programming is much more vague. deceiving ppl by encouraging people to put themselves in harms way is discussed, like for example the message to give up your 2A rights, but what if that encouragement is subtle and subliminal? are you familiar with how it works in advertising?”—Brian Avran It’s called (a) false promise (b) baiting into hazard. And there is a reason why the tribe specializes in comedy, script writing, gossiping, and undermining, INSTEAD of offering a competitive solution. Edit
Jan 27, 2020, 5:55 AM by Mathew Smith Hand wringing conservatives are Crypto-liberals, all of them. They all want someone to do the heavy lifting for them, and they won’t be satisfied until they’re instantly gratified. I would have been there in a heartbeat if I had the means, so I did the next best thing, sharing John’s videos in groups that may not have heard of him before. I plant seeds where opportunities arise (“Oh, you hate Politician X? Wouldn’t it be nice if they could be sued for lying?” <~~this is a great hook btw) and I’ve dedicated a couple livestreams going over the basics of P. I do what I can, although I’m not the most eloquent speaker. Bringing complaints without offering a solution is just a waste of everyone’s time.Keep up the good work, sir. (CD: Hugs Brother)
Jan 27, 2020, 5:55 AM by Mathew Smith Hand wringing conservatives are Crypto-liberals, all of them. They all want someone to do the heavy lifting for them, and they won’t be satisfied until they’re instantly gratified. I would have been there in a heartbeat if I had the means, so I did the next best thing, sharing John’s videos in groups that may not have heard of him before. I plant seeds where opportunities arise (“Oh, you hate Politician X? Wouldn’t it be nice if they could be sued for lying?” <~~this is a great hook btw) and I’ve dedicated a couple livestreams going over the basics of P. I do what I can, although I’m not the most eloquent speaker. Bringing complaints without offering a solution is just a waste of everyone’s time.Keep up the good work, sir. (CD: Hugs Brother)
Jan 27, 2020, 6:07 AM
—“I struggle with Agency… Someone who goes to the gym regularly because they want to be buff and ripped would be said to be exercising agency. An alignment of desire and rational action / persistence. However, is a gambler exercising agency when they gamble on the daily? Or is agency simply contentiousness bearing fruit against a declared aim?”– Gary Knight
In simple terms:
—“contentiousness bearing fruit against a declared aim?”–
Yes. Although, in most cases, gambling regularly is a form of self medication, it is true that people win, and you can’t play if you don’t win. And it’s simply an expensive means of entertainment. And whether entertainment or medication can lead to addiction, which is the very opposite of agency. Agency is the sum total of that which leads you to independent action in fulfillment of your ambitions – overcoming (‘overman’) the physical, emotional, intellectual, interpersonal, social, economic, political, military, and knowledge, impediments to a desired end. Will to power is an inspiration. Agency is its demonstration. Omniscience and Omnipotence are it’s ends. The transcendence of man into the gods we imagine.