All Legislative and Administrative “law” is by definition illegal. At best we can call it a contract provision negotiated on our behalf.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 16:19:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699629272261124097
All Legislative and Administrative “law” is by definition illegal. At best we can call it a contract provision negotiated on our behalf.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 16:19:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699629272261124097
If you want to create a condition of liberty, then use the law to eliminate what creates demand for the state. Statism = Failure of Law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 16:12:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699627450859393024
All Legislative and Administrative “law” is by definition illegal. At best we can call it a contract provision negotiated on our behalf.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 11:28:00 UTC
If you want to create a condition of liberty, then use the law to eliminate what creates demand for the state. Statism = Failure of Law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 11:13:00 UTC
MEN: We have a political representation gap. We have an inequality of protection under the law gap. We have a reproductive rights gap.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 10:09:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690838864324329472
Reply addressees: @wef
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690832620528242688
IN REPLY TO:
@wef
Are you more biased than you think? https://t.co/ItBhCxp2y1 https://t.co/bBSWLQnngO
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690832620528242688
TOP 100 PRESIDENTS
(just a thought experiment)
So what if instead of the presidency, we added another house, and the top 100 individuals who got votes in the election got to form a parliament and select their own leader to act as president (prime minister)?
Then we return almost all power to the states, recalling the 14th amendment and all consequent legislation dependent upon it. leaving only 2/3 of the budget for the federal government(military and insurance) and returning the other 1/3 to the states (discretionary spending).
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 09:29:00 UTC
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?utm_hp_ref=yahoo&ir=YahooWHY ARE SOME MEN ABOVE THE LAW? ‘CAUSE IT’S HARD TO KNOW THE TERMS OF THE IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN ASYMMETRICALLY INFORMED PARTIES.
(i.e. women want us to make the world safe for their impulses.)
Hmmmm….. Not sure I agree. Surprisingly for me also.
There is an enormous asymmetry of knowledge and experience between a man of the world at 40, and a naive (ignorant) college girl.
I do not read Martha’s post any differently than the same young woman attempting to drive an exotic super car, and damaging it, and herself in the consequent accident. She assumed too much of herself in both circumstances. She should have had less confidence and more skepticism, and made more inquiries, and engaged incremental training of herself.
The ethical question is not whether she disapprove of the experience. But why she was so ignorant, and why he was wiling to have sex with her, and why she expected him to have sex on her (naive) terms?
From his perspective (and any man who has a lot of female attention), ‘rough sex’ is pretty commonplace – and often desirable, and often rewarded. (Thanks to the internet era, we have data now, so it’s not a matter of subjective opinion. It is what it is. Women prefer the inner gorilla to the outer gentleman, and more intelligent people tend to be worse at sex. )
So it begs the question: why do we teach equality and subjective prediction of normative behavior, rather than asymmetry?
As far as I can tell the postwar era was an intellectual, cultural, political, and economic, catastrophe – an experiment with a new postmodern mysticism.
Effete (naive) subjective projections of norms to the contrary.
Why do we lie? Why have we created a century of lies?
Men are super-predators that have spent at least ten thousand years in self pacification through war, ritual, religion, politics, economics, law, sport, norms, the family, farming, mutual cooperation, and daily fighting. Why do we tell ourselves and others that man does anything other than act in his rational self interest given the options at his disposal?
Women have had too little time to redevelop institutions and wisdom of controlling their impulses now that they are free of the hearth, home, and paternal and maternal protections.
The law accounts for this by punishing people of similar experiences, and being skeptical of asymmetric experiences. As such **avoid asymmetric experiences** in all walks of life. Risks are fun but costly in all walks of life. A woman has a genetic bias to experiment with alphas but her youthful ignorance does not know how to manage them.
We do not make the world better by making it safe for idiots to act in ignorance and impulsiveness. We make it better when we educate and avoid risks we do not understand the consequences of.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 05:30:00 UTC
Sorry. The oath of allegiance needs updating. Take it, Live it. Leave, or die.
—I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.—
this doesn’t make you say what you most need to: I shall not steal.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 10:27:00 UTC
ON WOMEN VOTERS
(from elsewhere)
Only thing I tend to suggest is that women need a separate house of government limited to short term decisions, and men to focus on the long term.
This creates a market between the genders just as marriage and mating create a market between the genders.
The problem with our government is that it was a market between men of different classes each who represented families and extended families and manors. It was an extension of the family.
We violated the family by giving women power over the destruction of the family in favor of short term wants.
No one is really at fault here. We just didn’t know and as westerners we were utopian in the first place, and secondly, we were wealthy from the new era of atlantic trade, and expanding colonies.
Wealth makes us less risk averse. We needed to be more cautious.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 07:05:00 UTC
Articúlo original de Curt Doolittle:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/20/law-exists-but-must-be-found-government-cannot-construct-it/Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U. [N]osotros podemos producir un mercados para bienes que no son consumibles así com podemos producir un mercado para bienes privados consumibles. pero esa ley y esos bienes son dos cosas distintas. Pero no hay razón alguna, que sabiendo cómo construir las leyes del derecho consuetudinario, el gobierno sea capaz de producir leyes nuevas. No puede. La ley es descubierta y como consecuencia, contratos e intercambios se llevan a cabo.