Feb 3, 2020, 4:17 PM
GSRRM = Under Natural Law is Witness Intimidation Threatening me with social penalty if I speak the truth (witness) is witness intimidation. We need shorthand for every concept. And those shorthands need to be directly tied to centuries held western male beliefs. —Greg Hamilton
(important) (core)
—“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty
GREAT QUESTION Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law. First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts. Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must. P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above. Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another. Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability. There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does. As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country). So quite the opposite. The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers. I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me. And that is all that is required.
(important) (core)
—“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty
GREAT QUESTION Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law. First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts. Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must. P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above. Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another. Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability. There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does. As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country). So quite the opposite. The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers. I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me. And that is all that is required.
by Bill Joslin The first question of ethics and politics is: “Why shouldn’t I kill you and take your stuff?” The answer to which gives birth to moral foundations. Of course, “Because I’m too costly to kill when weighed against the benefit of my stuff” represents one of the answers. The other answer being this: “Because, if we cooperate, I’m worth way more alive than the limited benefits of the stuff I have now.” To wit – any and all qualities that we consider “virtuous” can be measured. Virtue exists as the signaling and behaviour that demonstrates your ability to be trusted when one is vulnerable to you (i.e. answers the question of “why would I drop my defenses against you in order to cooperate). …now here the rub. Our current culture hasn’t solved for this contingent question: “Why shouldn’t I just lie to you and take your stuff, only the amount of stuff you don’t notice I took?” Me’thinks this question will be answered soon.
by Bill Joslin The first question of ethics and politics is: “Why shouldn’t I kill you and take your stuff?” The answer to which gives birth to moral foundations. Of course, “Because I’m too costly to kill when weighed against the benefit of my stuff” represents one of the answers. The other answer being this: “Because, if we cooperate, I’m worth way more alive than the limited benefits of the stuff I have now.” To wit – any and all qualities that we consider “virtuous” can be measured. Virtue exists as the signaling and behaviour that demonstrates your ability to be trusted when one is vulnerable to you (i.e. answers the question of “why would I drop my defenses against you in order to cooperate). …now here the rub. Our current culture hasn’t solved for this contingent question: “Why shouldn’t I just lie to you and take your stuff, only the amount of stuff you don’t notice I took?” Me’thinks this question will be answered soon.
Feb 5, 2020, 11:05 AM
Feb 5, 2020, 11:05 AM
Feb 7, 2020, 7:52 AM Diversity + Proximity = Conflict
—“There is not a single example throughout human history that you can point to to prove that formula wrong over any extended period of time. It’s been tried, it always fails.” —JC Trott
—“Multiculturalism is a euphemism for multiracialism. Multiculturalism doesn’t work and will never work. Countries have been organized on the basis of race since the dawn of civilization. A nation is a group of people living in a region who share a common race, language, and religion. Most of the world’s countries are ethnostates: Japan, China, Israel, multiple black countries in Africa, and multiple Arab Muslim countries in the ME. Only in white countries is “diversity” or “multiculturalism” being pushed, and that is because non-whites want to enjoy the safety and prosperity of white society. But they will necessarily destroy it if they come en masse. Therefore, whites are in the unique position of having to forcibly stop third-world invaders and remove those already here. If they do not, their white societies will be lost. And Jewish people are leading the propaganda campaign against whites from doing so, both by demonizing those who already advocate this as “racists” and by stupefying those who haven’t awakened with their “diversity is our strength” brainwashing. People aren’t flooding into Vietnam, El Salvador, Somalia, or Egypt en masse from other parts of the world. They are only doing this into the West (white countries). “—John Morrison
Feb 7, 2020, 7:52 AM Diversity + Proximity = Conflict
—“There is not a single example throughout human history that you can point to to prove that formula wrong over any extended period of time. It’s been tried, it always fails.” —JC Trott
—“Multiculturalism is a euphemism for multiracialism. Multiculturalism doesn’t work and will never work. Countries have been organized on the basis of race since the dawn of civilization. A nation is a group of people living in a region who share a common race, language, and religion. Most of the world’s countries are ethnostates: Japan, China, Israel, multiple black countries in Africa, and multiple Arab Muslim countries in the ME. Only in white countries is “diversity” or “multiculturalism” being pushed, and that is because non-whites want to enjoy the safety and prosperity of white society. But they will necessarily destroy it if they come en masse. Therefore, whites are in the unique position of having to forcibly stop third-world invaders and remove those already here. If they do not, their white societies will be lost. And Jewish people are leading the propaganda campaign against whites from doing so, both by demonizing those who already advocate this as “racists” and by stupefying those who haven’t awakened with their “diversity is our strength” brainwashing. People aren’t flooding into Vietnam, El Salvador, Somalia, or Egypt en masse from other parts of the world. They are only doing this into the West (white countries). “—John Morrison
Feb 7, 2020, 10:07 AM
—“Universal suffrage will eventually cause universal suffering.”—Clifton Knox
(Democracy is the slow road to communism. -hoppe)
–“I am in favor of earned cumulative meritocratic suffrage based on demonstrated generational loyalty (military, political, social, legal, intellectual/scientific, economic, artistic)), investment in the commons, level of leadership, Territorial acquisition and settlement, establishment, leadership and defense of core instituons etc. Patriotic American families with deep roots and demonstrated excellence over the generations in building up our country and nation will have accumulated the most voting rights (no more one man one vote). (Houses are a better solution) Recent immigrants whose ancestors have contributed nothing or even taken from the country by drawing down welfare or voting irreciprocally will have no franchise rights. Each generation is accounted for. This system restores power to the WASP families that founded and built America and disempowers our enemies and rivals for power. It is also just.”—Scott De Warren