Source: Original Site Post

(FB 1550006778 Timestamp) Jarrod Woodard Make an argument or admit you can’t. THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON. Against Mises Against Rothbard Against Hoppe https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/15/the-anti-rothbardian-libertarian-canon/ THE ANTI-UPB EXTENSION OF THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR (UPB) Against Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior. Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, merchatilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family except for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information.

So yes, there is no material difference between UBP and NAP except the excuse for its construction and the inclusion of the word ‘lying’ in addition to fraud. The ethics of the pale. The ethics of the ghetto The ethics of the bazaar The ethics of those who cannot hold territory. It is still the ethics of poverty. === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.” 1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called “hazardors.” Jacob. 2. In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488. 3. In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281. 4. Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614. ==== UPB BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PREMISES: We both exist. The senses have the capacity for accuracy. Language has the capacity for meaning. Correction requires universal preferences. An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood. Truth is better than falsehood. Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes. Individuals are responsible for their actions. I present to you the twelve principles that compose the framework of Universally preferable behavior — or, if you want to, a secular theory of morality. If you want to find out whether a moral principle is true, all you have to do is apply them to the moral principle and you’ll know right away: REALITY IS OBJECTIVE AND CONSISTENT. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. Using them, you can verify that the most obvious moral principles are, in fact, obviously true: INITIATING AGGRESSION (USE OF FORCE) IS WRONG. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Fraud is wrong. Lying is wrong.