(worth repeating)
—“Millenials and Gen Z are mad that we have no community, society, fair ratio of marriageable women, reason to invest at all. Most of us would trade what we have now for communism, anarchy or any number of flawed systems. Philosophically speaking, fight club or the joker are more compelling than most or the abstract appeals pitched at us in the past 50 years. Except for P. Nothing else really defines or offers appealing alternatives with actionable solutions.”— GL Sevier
I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each https://t.co/RpcQIZi7lb
—“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler
Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people have always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers
—“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler
Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people have always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers
Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract? https://t.co/y8ujFmhkfV
“Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”
—“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.
… The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“
—Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7
Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.
“Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”
—“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.
… The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“
—Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7
Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.
Any Country Can Be Great https://t.co/Dlb5boqrJ3
(from elsewhere) Yep. Any country can be great if it first creates a good disciplined nationalist military that then produce a judiciary, that then produces a government, that then produces a market, that then funds commons. People think it’s the other way around. it isn’t. Its military on down. One step at a time.
(from elsewhere) Yep. Any country can be great if it first creates a good disciplined nationalist military that then produce a judiciary, that then produces a government, that then produces a market, that then funds commons. People think it’s the other way around. it isn’t. Its military on down. One step at a time.