Mar 04, 2017 11:15am OATH (n.) Old English að “oath, judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise,” from Proto-Germanic *aithaz (source also of Old Norse eiðr, Swedish ed, Old Saxon, Old Frisian eth, Middle Dutch eet, Dutch eed, German eid, Gothic aiþs “oath”), from PIE *oi-to- “an oath” (source also of Old Irish oeth “oath”). Common to Celtic and Germanic, possibly a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure. SALIC LAW (/ˈsælᵻk/ or /ˈseɪlᵻk/; Latin: Lex Salica), or Salian Law, was the ancient Salian Frankish civil law code compiled around AD 500 by the first Frankish King, Clovis. Recorded in Latin and in what Dutch linguists describe as one of the earliest known records of Old Dutch. it would remain the basis of Frankish law throughout the early Medieval period, influencing future European legal syste… See More COMMON LAW (n.) mid-14c., “the customary and unwritten laws of England as embodied in commentaries and old cases” (see common (adj.)), as opposed to statute law. Phrase common law marriage is attested from 1909. TESTIFY (v.) late 14c., “give legal testimony, affirm the truth of, bear witness to;” of things, c. 1400, “serve as evidence of,” from Anglo-French testifier, from Latin testificari “bear witness, show, demonstrate,” also “call to witness,” from testis “a witness” (see testament) + root of facere “to make” (see factitious). Biblical sense of “openly profess one’s faith and devotion” is attested from 1520s. Related: Testified; testifying; testification.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
I Justify Markets – In Everything.
I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy. Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input). I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence. But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).
-
I Justify Markets – In Everything.
I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy. Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input). I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence. But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).
-
The People Who Lie and Defraud
The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.
-
The People Who Lie and Defraud
The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.
-
Ending Cultural Marxism and the Industrialization of Lying is Easy.
We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation.
-
Ending Cultural Marxism and the Industrialization of Lying is Easy.
We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation.
-
Knowing What You’re Talking About.
We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it) The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations. Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals. While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law. Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place. WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy. Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony). From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined. But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit. The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’ So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it. It’s not complicated.