How about (a) stop engaging in career criminality (b) don’t run (c) shut up (d) surrender and submit to handcuffing instead of resisting and then blaming officers for using force?
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 23:29:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266874451842433024
Reply addressees: @SteveRustad1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266852443482206208
How about (a) stop engaging in career criminality (b) don’t run (c) shut up (d) surrender and submit to handcuffing instead of resisting and then blaming officers for using force?
Reply addressees: @SteveRustad1
Not quite. We are aware of how these riots are organized and we understand that we are witnessing the inability of police, national guard, and military to control 4GW at home, just as they were abroad. The state is powerless. So it will be the common people who fight a civil war.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 23:26:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266873665767051265
Reply addressees: @FrankFigliuzzi1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266779278341025792
Not quite. We are aware of how these riots are organized and we understand that we are witnessing the inability of police, national guard, and military to control 4GW at home, just as they were abroad. The state is powerless. So it will be the common people who fight a civil war.
Reply addressees: @FrankFigliuzzi1
Nov 30, 2019, 10:47 AM The purpose of full-time education is to provide daycare so that women can enter the workforce so that taxes can be increased eliminating the entirety of their contribution to the economy, and so that the proceeds can be used to fund genetic replacement by reproductive redistribution, and those not replaced have devolved into selfish, jealous, infantilizes unable to govern themselves, family, or polity. That is the source of hyperconsumption.
Nov 30, 2019, 10:47 AM The purpose of full-time education is to provide daycare so that women can enter the workforce so that taxes can be increased eliminating the entirety of their contribution to the economy, and so that the proceeds can be used to fund genetic replacement by reproductive redistribution, and those not replaced have devolved into selfish, jealous, infantilizes unable to govern themselves, family, or polity. That is the source of hyperconsumption.
Dec 10, 2019, 12:48 PM From Twitter
—“A necessary prerequisite to any hot civil war is an economic collapse. As long as the average person can care for themselves and family, they have too much to lose to take up arms. Now if we have an economic collapse in your timeframe, then anything’s possible.”—
It’s interesting when people make claims without evidence. How did Mao do it? Your Errors: Because you don’t understand you assume others don’t. Because you don’t know how to “Mao” assumes others don’t. Because you don’t know how to CAUSE the collapse, you assume others don’t. Some of us are capable of profound things, and achieve them. Others are not – because they cannot imagine doing them. Why? Because they cannot imagine getting a core of others to follow them. Why? Because they have no strategy, no plan, and lack the knowledge to do so. Study Mao.
Dec 10, 2019, 12:48 PM From Twitter
—“A necessary prerequisite to any hot civil war is an economic collapse. As long as the average person can care for themselves and family, they have too much to lose to take up arms. Now if we have an economic collapse in your timeframe, then anything’s possible.”—
It’s interesting when people make claims without evidence. How did Mao do it? Your Errors: Because you don’t understand you assume others don’t. Because you don’t know how to “Mao” assumes others don’t. Because you don’t know how to CAUSE the collapse, you assume others don’t. Some of us are capable of profound things, and achieve them. Others are not – because they cannot imagine doing them. Why? Because they cannot imagine getting a core of others to follow them. Why? Because they have no strategy, no plan, and lack the knowledge to do so. Study Mao.
Dec 10, 2019, 10:01 PM THE NATURAL LAW ON PORNOGRAPHY (from twitter)
—“Do you believe that banning all porn is ridiculous? If so, how come? What would the laws under the Propertarian constitution be regarding porn?”—@EnlightenedNPC
This is a deeper question than it appears – a hard topic for twitter. I’ll try:
a) we must keep it out of the commons, and the internet is a commons, so there must be some ‘gateway’ (opt in) in order to access it.
b) long term effects are far far worse in every regard than we imagined. And;
c) there is some very bad behavior at the lower end of the market. Under natural law if its out of the commons, it’s voluntary, then it’s not a subject for P-law. The rest is just either a product harm (tort), or baiting into hazard (tort), for the law’s Market to solve. I am fairly sure that the legal market would solve it rather quickly under p-law and we would be left with high production value work by studios on one end, and selfies on the other. That’s because baiting into hazard (enticing people in vulnerable positions into such behavior for money) would be prosecutable by anyone – not just the victim. It would be almost impossible to produce anything outside of a studio system with professionals, because it’s almost impossible to avoid baiting into hazard otherwise. And beyond that it’s a Political question (“We just don’t want it here”), or an empirical question (“Accumulate evidence and inability to voluntarily or institutionally regulate means we have to ban it.”). Personally (not the natural law) I have come to understand that while I’m intuitively libertarian, the experiment with porn has (a surprise to me) demonstrated that it’s a net negative, but that it is better to regulate a net negative than it is to turn it into a black market. I’d ban it in my neck of the woods. But my opinion doesn’t mean anything. it’s just a preference. My posts on Pornography are here: https://propertarianinstitute.com/?s=pornography
Dec 10, 2019, 10:01 PM THE NATURAL LAW ON PORNOGRAPHY (from twitter)
—“Do you believe that banning all porn is ridiculous? If so, how come? What would the laws under the Propertarian constitution be regarding porn?”—@EnlightenedNPC
This is a deeper question than it appears – a hard topic for twitter. I’ll try:
a) we must keep it out of the commons, and the internet is a commons, so there must be some ‘gateway’ (opt in) in order to access it.
b) long term effects are far far worse in every regard than we imagined. And;
c) there is some very bad behavior at the lower end of the market. Under natural law if its out of the commons, it’s voluntary, then it’s not a subject for P-law. The rest is just either a product harm (tort), or baiting into hazard (tort), for the law’s Market to solve. I am fairly sure that the legal market would solve it rather quickly under p-law and we would be left with high production value work by studios on one end, and selfies on the other. That’s because baiting into hazard (enticing people in vulnerable positions into such behavior for money) would be prosecutable by anyone – not just the victim. It would be almost impossible to produce anything outside of a studio system with professionals, because it’s almost impossible to avoid baiting into hazard otherwise. And beyond that it’s a Political question (“We just don’t want it here”), or an empirical question (“Accumulate evidence and inability to voluntarily or institutionally regulate means we have to ban it.”). Personally (not the natural law) I have come to understand that while I’m intuitively libertarian, the experiment with porn has (a surprise to me) demonstrated that it’s a net negative, but that it is better to regulate a net negative than it is to turn it into a black market. I’d ban it in my neck of the woods. But my opinion doesn’t mean anything. it’s just a preference. My posts on Pornography are here: https://propertarianinstitute.com/?s=pornography