—“P is achievable nomocracy.”—Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 14:14:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100036342677938177
—“P is achievable nomocracy.”—Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 14:14:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100036342677938177
—“P is achievable nomocracy.”—Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 09:14:00 UTC
there is no system of government better than rule of law. There is no gurrantee of rule of law other than a militia of always armed and trained men, insuring it. PERIOD.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 14:59:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099685313159593984
Reply addressees: @rohansharan @mmay3r
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099675463474180097
IN REPLY TO:
@rohansharan
@mmay3r @curtdoolittle Propertarianism offers justice when sense of imposition of costs is presented.
Toxicity from the left can abuse the system of law.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099675463474180097
RULE(LAW) VS GOVERNMENT (COMMONS)
—“Is it ancap? I searched it it looked like some minarchy stuff.”–Mick Seppala
It’s strictly constructed rule of law by test of reciprocity – major difference is you can’t ‘lie’ in political speech – which is the hard problem of converting from free speech to free truthful speech. And … You ‘roll your own’ government with it. I recommend various forms of government for various people. but only one rule of law. P is not ideology, philosophy, or religion. It is LAW.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 08:22:00 UTC
SUPREME COURT, 9 TO 0, BANS POLICE FROM ASSET FORFEITURE.
But up to 1/3 of police funding is from seizing assets.
It doesn’t go far enough. It prohibits the egregious violations of the past. But it needs to prohibit it entirely. Either pay from the general fund or forget it.
With police departments funded from seizures, fines, and tickets we have nothing but licensed corruption by organizations rather than individuals.
I prefer the shakedowns I got in ukraine and russia thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-22 14:15:00 UTC
Won’t work. Nothing new to be said that hasn’t been. People need negative political power (courts).
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 16:11:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098616260877795331
Reply addressees: @I_Vae_Victis_I @NewRightAmerica @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098612748093657088
IN REPLY TO:
@I_Vae_Victis_I
It would be a fascinating YT discussion w/@NewRightAmerica and @curtdoolittle regarding Douglas’, E. Pound’s, et al. Social Credit within/or related to the Commons. How about hosting this, @JFGariepy?
I would definitely add some relevant superchats.
https://t.co/mAJ1f6Nkht ✨
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098612748093657088
(10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:34:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098606898939641863
Reply addressees: @mauritian_strug @DataDistribute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
(9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:31:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098606040059396096
Reply addressees: @mauritian_strug @DataDistribute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
(7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. )
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:26:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098604828668899328
Reply addressees: @mauritian_strug @DataDistribute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480
…. So the issue then is defining xianity such that every scumbag scam artist on the planet doesn’t make up nonsense and call it ‘christian’ to skate the law just as ((())) has been done in this century under marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism to destroy us.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 17:50:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098278855574544384
Reply addressees: @SomeAccountMan @HHBenedictXVII
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098277059862896640
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098277059862896640