Source: Original Site Post

  • DEFINE “POWER” The ability to alter the probability of outcomes by force, remune

    DEFINE “POWER”
    The ability to alter the probability of outcomes by force, remuneration, promise of inclusion-exclusion, or combination thereof, in competition with others able to do the same.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:34:37 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424725273197721

  • The difference is in whether you view the police doing your job for you, or you

    The difference is in whether you view the police doing your job for you, or you view the police doing a job you wouldn’t do, and don’t want them to.

    “Commons.”


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:34:17 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424723961373802

  • Normal people are not capable of calculus, economics, programming, law, or forma

    Normal people are not capable of calculus, economics, programming, law, or formal logic. They are merely the BENEFICIARIES of it when used by those of us who can.

    Understanding is not necessary for benefit. Availability of the courts to punish and market to reward, eliminate the need for the majority to understand.

    We must restore our courts to the suppression of falsehood rather than the defense of the suppression truth, and the offensive use of falsehood against our people by abrahamic prose in its sophistic, pseudoscientific, and supernatural forms.

    (repost)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:33:31 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424720892278212

  • “Good tort law punishes frivolous lawsuits sufficiently to keep them to a manage

    —“Good tort law punishes frivolous lawsuits sufficiently to keep them to a manageable level. If you want to sue somebody for not warranting their speech you are going to have to warranty the speech you use to accuse them in your lawsuit. … Reciprocity in all things.”—Noah J Revoy


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:33:12 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424719696889043

  • THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH —“One of the counter currents

    THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    —“One of the counter currents arguments was that in a Proprietarian system of law. privacy would be wrecked, because everyone would be suing each other for insufficient warranty of speech. So you would constantly have to justify that your speech was as good as it could have been according to your knowledge at the time. It does seem like a high bar no?”— Michael Churchill

    The bar is science, politics, economics, law, education, religion – in other words we avoid it anyway when speaking to one another. the SCOPE is advocacy of HARM.

    What would you want to sue intellectuals, public officials, news media, political activists for when making public speech?

    Both sides of the discourse want the other to stop. My argument is that once they stop they can only negotiate trades, and truthfully so.

    Which as far as I know solves the problem of politics: extension of market demand to all speech.

    In real life people adapt to laws that promote cooperation because its in their interests.

    Law that is enforceable under tort creates good people without state monitoring, interference, or monopoly out of individual and group self interest.

    Tort law is the via negativa market that mirrors the exchange via positiva market. we need both remunerative and restitutionary markets.

    Asymmetries permit abuses. and neutrality remains possible at all times.

    How this affronts privacy when public speech is by definition public not private, is beyond me.

    My understanding is that humans with interest in public affairs will seek education sufficient for truthful discourse, and that the education system will adapt to provide it.

    P-Law does not ask you to produce public speech and be right, only TRUTHFUL AND MORAL by practicing due dilligence sufficient for the demands, claims, or criticisms you are making.

    P teaches us that t is fairly easy to perform such due diligence if we are taught it like grammar and ethics as we were in the past.

    The socialists removed these from education in order to undermine our civlization – by design. We can not only restore these skills to the common people out of their own self defense, but state them in scientific terms and operational logic rather, than religious, traditional, normative and moral .. and in doing so restoring truth, sacredness of the commons, and good citizens ship to our people.

    I think things trough. 😉

    It’s my job. 😉

    -curt


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424718754657778

  • PUBLIC SPEECH IS TO THE PUBLIC NOT IN PUBLIC –“Is it a correct summation that p

    PUBLIC SPEECH IS TO THE PUBLIC NOT IN PUBLIC

    –“Is it a correct summation that public speech is not a speech in public but a speech to the public? Because that’s what I’ve been telling people.”—Martin Štěpán


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:41 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424717649595144

  • “You can lead a libertarian to content but you can’t make it based”– Via Thomas

    –“You can lead a libertarian to content but you can’t make it based”– Via Thomas Norgate.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:32 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424717034055059

  • “And yet the greatest art and music and philosophy in history all came from a ch

    —“And yet the greatest art and music and philosophy in history all came from a christian faith based european culture”—

    Or did it come from a european germanic culture where the church was parasitic and extractive bureaucracy and could afford to spend on propaganda?

    Because it’s pretty hard to argue that until the renaissance in italy and the greco-roman restoration, that europe slowly restored it’s ability to produce arts – partly to compete with the restoration of classical civilization.

    Correlation vs causation. Again. I do cause and systems, you do correlation and cherrypicking (Abrahamism). 😉

    You can’t win this. The evidence is overwhelming – abrahamism produced nothing but dark ages and poverty and the destruction of the great civilizations of the ancient world, and it took us until the 19th century to recover from it and we’re still in the process of extracting ourselves from it. Except now folks like YOU also use marxism postmodernism and feminism instead of judaism, christianity and islam.

    I do math, science, technology, economics, law and history and full accounting 😉 You do lies and cherrypicking. 😉

    The masculine world of competition and adaptation vs the feminine world of non-competition and stagnation.

    We survived judaism, christianity, islam and their lies.

    But we are under assault by abrahamism version two. marxism postmodernism and feminism instead of judaism, christianity and islam.

    There is nothing good in Christianity that was not there before it. The evils of Christianity were not in western thought.

    What is good there is european. It is not christian.

    So develop a new european christian church free of abrahamic deceit, free of worshipping a god of civilizational destruction and dysgenia.

    There is only one god for all people: their ancestors – because they are the only entities to exist to whom they owe debt. There is only one planet upon which we depend, and one universe for us to reach out and grasp for our taking.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:20 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424716235638410

  • IT TAKES TWO YEARS by John Mark —“It’s laughable that somebody thinks they can j

    IT TAKES TWO YEARS
    by John Mark

    —“It’s laughable that somebody thinks they can just roll up, watch my vid & maybe read a few posts on the website, watch an interview or 2 with Curt, and then dive into a critique. This is why most of these “critiques” make elementary errors & strawman/misrepresent. They don’t really understand what they’re critiquing. … Heck, I followed Curt for close to 2yrs, reading daily, before opening my mouth. And I’m still hyper-aware of trying to make sure I don’t say something incorrect & still learn new things & angles of understanding frequently.
    …. When they’re getting property-in-toto wrong you know they haven’t spent much time.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424715264061589

  • MALES GSRRM – BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. by Bill Joslin Males GSRRM but for diff

    MALES GSRRM – BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.
    by Bill Joslin

    Males GSRRM but for different reasons. All day long I work with guys that are verbally jabbing each other. It twofold – risk management (keep your shit together, do it right – this is the content) coupled with ‘if you fuck up, you’ll be the butt if jokes for the rest of the day or until someone else fucks up – humour is the context. Humour is the context because it encourages honesty).

    The two together equates to “if you f-up it’s okay tell us we’ll fix it, but also, it’s not okay to f-up)

    It’s risk management opposed to truth suppression, disapproval instead of argument, dominance and power plays.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:31:55 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424714616200800