Curt Doolittle updated his status.
THE PERFECT RULE IS RULE OF LAW – BUT THE PERFECT GOVERNMENT IS CONDITIONAL UPON CIRCUMSTANCES
We have identified a series of governments from autocratic (war/deprivation), to classical (production/merit), to liberal (periods of wealth/redistribution), and yet to define a means of transferring between them any better than that of the Romans.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 00:29:19 UTC
THE PERFECT RULE IS RULE OF LAW – BUT THE PERFECT GOVERNMENT IS CONDITIONAL UPON CIRCUMSTANCES
We have identified a series of governments from autocratic (war/deprivation), to classical (production/merit), to liberal (periods of wealth/redistribution), and yet to define a means of transferring between them any better than that of the Romans.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-06 20:29:00 UTC
https://www.theroot.com/trump-creates-denaturalization-task-force-to-pursue-d-1827372139https://www.theroot.com/trump-creates-denaturalization-task-force-to-pursue-d-1827372139
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-06 05:20:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-06 05:20:00 UTC
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.
In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.
That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.
As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.
As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.
Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 17:04:00 UTC
—“Curt does your book include a new constitution, or is that a separate project? (With recent political events, leftists intensifying harassment, etc, I’m thinking we might need one sooner rather than later.)”—John Mark Last summer I had to break the book apart because it was too big. And so I have two books, one shorter that is targeted to reforming libertarianism, and one much much longer targeted to revolution and constitution. The first and shorter book is more technical, and the longer book more explanatory. The other reason being that I had to burn a long time on the Grammars and I felt that I could now get the shorter book out ‘shortly’ and then take the technical component and move it into the larger book. This means that the two books have similar technical content, but the larger book ignores ‘temporal’ issues (liberty, freedom, libertarianism), and contains entirely the new law. What I *can* say is that I have definitely gotten to the point where I can explain everything to a freshman college student. Which I never thought would happen. Whether the book is as understandable as I can manage in a class environment I’m not sure. And there is a certain virtue to timing. The Overton window for revolution has to be open to get maximum effect. Although we are certainly getting there as I expected… The clock ticks, the world turns, the window opens, anger burns.
—“Curt does your book include a new constitution, or is that a separate project? (With recent political events, leftists intensifying harassment, etc, I’m thinking we might need one sooner rather than later.)”—John Mark Last summer I had to break the book apart because it was too big. And so I have two books, one shorter that is targeted to reforming libertarianism, and one much much longer targeted to revolution and constitution. The first and shorter book is more technical, and the longer book more explanatory. The other reason being that I had to burn a long time on the Grammars and I felt that I could now get the shorter book out ‘shortly’ and then take the technical component and move it into the larger book. This means that the two books have similar technical content, but the larger book ignores ‘temporal’ issues (liberty, freedom, libertarianism), and contains entirely the new law. What I *can* say is that I have definitely gotten to the point where I can explain everything to a freshman college student. Which I never thought would happen. Whether the book is as understandable as I can manage in a class environment I’m not sure. And there is a certain virtue to timing. The Overton window for revolution has to be open to get maximum effect. Although we are certainly getting there as I expected… The clock ticks, the world turns, the window opens, anger burns.
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/21/14990732/kennedy-retire-supreme-court-scalia-gorsuch?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=sprout&utm_content=1530202225https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/21/14990732/kennedy-retire-supreme-court-scalia-gorsuch?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=sprout&utm_content=1530202225SEE?
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 22:46:00 UTC
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/21/14990732/kennedy-retire-supreme-court-scalia-gorsuch?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=sprout&utm_content=1530202225SEE?
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/21/14990732/kennedy-retire-supreme-court-scalia-gorsuch?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=sprout&utm_content=1530202225
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 22:46:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“Curt does your book include a new constitution, or is that a separate project? (With recent political events, leftists intensifying harassment, etc, I’m thinking we might need one sooner rather than later.)”—John Mark
Last summer I had to break the book apart because it was too big. And so I have two books, one shorter that is targeted to reforming libertarianism, and one much much longer targeted to revolution and constitution.
The first and shorter book is more technical, and the longer book more explanatory.
The other reason being that I had to burn a long time on the Grammars and I felt that I could now get the shorter book out ‘shortly’ and then take the technical component and move it into the larger book.
This means that the two books have similar technical content, but the larger book ignores ‘temporal’ issues (liberty, freedom, libertarianism), and contains entirely the new law.
What I *can* say is that I have definitely gotten to the point where I can explain everything to a freshman college student. Which I never thought would happen. Whether the book is as understandable as I can manage in a class environment I’m not sure.
And there is a certain virtue to timing. The Overton window for revolution has to be open to get maximum effect. Although we are certainly getting there as I expected…
The clock ticks,
the world turns,
the window opens,
anger burns.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 13:56:23 UTC