Jan 31, 2020, 8:13 AM
—“Why are leftists so keen to brand you as a racist or supremacist?”— (interviewer to Charles Murray)
Well, why to murderers, thieves, frauds, free riders, parasites, the conspiratorial, corrupt, converters, invaders, justify their thefts? It’s a dumb question. Always ask who is stealing what and that tells you the answer.
Feb 1, 2020, 5:40 PM
—“Governments don’t have money, citizens do. Will the state fund [whatever] through mandatory force derived taxes or will state funding be purely voluntary on the part of interested citizens (non mandatory tithing).”—
Hmmm… that’s not entirely true. Just as a thought experiment, assume a government over a territory that is fully autarkic and has no need of foreign currency or trade. This government can issue a currency (each unit a tradable share in the economy), demand it as legal tender for all debts private and public, and it can equidistribute X amount of this currency to every citizen every day, week, month, quarter, year or whatever directly to a bank account. It can then collect some percentage of that in taxes and repeat the process. This is what governments already do. They just put the banks in the middle requiring us to borrow it and giving the banks interest, thereby having the banks inflate 9x times the amount. We are not fully autarkic so the process limits the state’s powers of monetary distribution. Modern monetary theory won’t work, but this will, it will just require collecting and measuring better information than we do now
Feb 2, 2020, 7:00 PM
—“Time to TAKE AWAY your fucking guns”—(((Gamhard McCoy)))
It’s time to take away your citizenship, benefits, rights to property, free speech, and add 30% taxation above and beyond. Which one of those options do you think is more likely? 😉 Gonna happen this year. End Birthright Citizenship. End Migration Citizenship. Roll immigration back to pre 65 act. End all H1B, and all Non-European academic visitation. Require economic means of ongoing support Revoke citizenship to 65 Immigration Act Revoke citizenship for any and all individuals and their familes who have voted for, promoted, written raised money, written legislation for, violation of the constitution. Exit of miltiary, state, federal employment, and political positions of those people and their families. Monopolize military, state, federal employment, and political positions by pre-65. Forcible repatriation of all post 90′ immigrants. All will happen this year or next. Why? And it isn’t even hard.
Feb 2, 2020, 7:00 PM
—“Time to TAKE AWAY your fucking guns”—(((Gamhard McCoy)))
It’s time to take away your citizenship, benefits, rights to property, free speech, and add 30% taxation above and beyond. Which one of those options do you think is more likely? 😉 Gonna happen this year. End Birthright Citizenship. End Migration Citizenship. Roll immigration back to pre 65 act. End all H1B, and all Non-European academic visitation. Require economic means of ongoing support Revoke citizenship to 65 Immigration Act Revoke citizenship for any and all individuals and their familes who have voted for, promoted, written raised money, written legislation for, violation of the constitution. Exit of miltiary, state, federal employment, and political positions of those people and their families. Monopolize military, state, federal employment, and political positions by pre-65. Forcible repatriation of all post 90′ immigrants. All will happen this year or next. Why? And it isn’t even hard.
Where Can I Learn Propertarianism (natural Law) https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/where-can-i-learn-propertarianism-natural-law/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 20:16:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264651591300395009
Feb 3, 2020, 10:13 AM
—“Where may I learn the Rudiments of Propertarian Ideology?Close to half of Native America is tired of the Left Wing dropping Crumbs from Their table to starve Us into submission and then use Us as pawns in Their Self hating,racist political games,We are getting tired of Them turning Us into Victims so that They can come running to the rescue and play Hero at Our expense.We need something better than Their left wing, paternalistic Racism.”—
A little context first. It’s a methodology. we use that methodology to create a universally commensurable, value neutral, language across all disciplines. This unites the physical and human sciences. We use that language to make it very hard to lie, cheat, fraud, or bait into hazard. We take that language and method and write law. That law is strictly constructed and closed to interpretation by courts. We wrote a constitution using that law that reflects the western civilizational strategy and tradition. This restores the constitutions original intent as a document of natural law that persists the western group strategy. We then write the western group strategy in those value neutral universally commensurable terms, so that our people finally know what makes them unique and special, and what made us successful. The only ‘ideology’ is whether you want to persist the western tradition of evolutionary excellence or not. On propertarianism dot com there is a link in the middle of the main menu. You can work your way through reading that. It is a lot of content. It touches every single discipline. It will overwhelm you. The constitution is also there in its current public and incomplete form. You can read a bit of all that, follow us here and learn by asking questions or just following along. (Although you have to tolerate many points of view) If you’re able you can join the SN (sheepdog nomocracy group) that is a sort of working classroom. Or you can take the foundations course at the institute and wait while I slowly release content. Those are the options.
Feb 3, 2020, 10:13 AM
—“Where may I learn the Rudiments of Propertarian Ideology?Close to half of Native America is tired of the Left Wing dropping Crumbs from Their table to starve Us into submission and then use Us as pawns in Their Self hating,racist political games,We are getting tired of Them turning Us into Victims so that They can come running to the rescue and play Hero at Our expense.We need something better than Their left wing, paternalistic Racism.”—
A little context first. It’s a methodology. we use that methodology to create a universally commensurable, value neutral, language across all disciplines. This unites the physical and human sciences. We use that language to make it very hard to lie, cheat, fraud, or bait into hazard. We take that language and method and write law. That law is strictly constructed and closed to interpretation by courts. We wrote a constitution using that law that reflects the western civilizational strategy and tradition. This restores the constitutions original intent as a document of natural law that persists the western group strategy. We then write the western group strategy in those value neutral universally commensurable terms, so that our people finally know what makes them unique and special, and what made us successful. The only ‘ideology’ is whether you want to persist the western tradition of evolutionary excellence or not. On propertarianism dot com there is a link in the middle of the main menu. You can work your way through reading that. It is a lot of content. It touches every single discipline. It will overwhelm you. The constitution is also there in its current public and incomplete form. You can read a bit of all that, follow us here and learn by asking questions or just following along. (Although you have to tolerate many points of view) If you’re able you can join the SN (sheepdog nomocracy group) that is a sort of working classroom. Or you can take the foundations course at the institute and wait while I slowly release content. Those are the options.
—“How is my plot of land not my property? I can let you plow my fields and even plant your seed within, but ultimately I own this plot of land and have the ultimate say on what grows here. Perhaps I need more understanding of what a right is. Should I not have the right to uproot any weeds forcibly planted in my fields? “—AunMarie Grooms
Analogy not equality. You can’t own a human, even a fetus or child without others insuring you can. I’m not arguing in favor of this. I’m just stating the facts.
—“Study admiralty/merchant law”—Justin Coone
—“Please explain further, as this is not computing. I don’t need anyone else’s authority nor insurance over a fetus no one else may know even exist. Personally, I would not murder any offspring of mine, pending it was not what I consider an act of war (rape) and therefore the result of said act of war an enemy combatant.”—AunMarie Grooms
^No but the minute you involve someone else in the abortion you are not acting on your own. For example, why do we resist assisted suicide? Because it involves another party in a decision closed to restitution (reversal).
—“Interesting. Thank you for the clarity. So as long as you know how much juniper berries it takes to cause a miscarriage or can brew yourself a herbal tea when you wish to take the elders walk, and you are not having to enlist anyone else’s help, you have ownership of yours and your offsprings life.”—AunMarie Grooms
“I have ownership of my offspring’s life” Do you? When does that ownership end? When they can survive on their ow ie take ownership of their life? Infants will die very quickly without care so do we assume that Mothers (in your scenario it appears Fathers don’t have any Ownership of their offspring) are free to kill their infants? It’s the same argument, ‘My offspring is inconveniencing me (or maybe it’s simply whimsical decision with no reasoning whatsoever) and since it’s mine I can kill it if I like.’
—“Please understand that personally I am pro-life. However, there are logical arguments to be had here contrary from my own personal feelings. The weed analogy makes perfect since to someone who actually tends to gardens. It’s an …See More”—AunMarie Grooms
Fetuses don’t manifest in Wombs by happenstance\forces outside of a Woman’s control (barring rape). ‘I allowed a gardener to tend my garden and now I have a weed. I’m going to remove the weed as is my right because I own the garden’ – this is your analogy? “Is the agreement that she will manage the garden in his absence?” Don’t ask me how to make your ridiculous analogy work, I’ve rejected it from the start because it makes no sense. It serves as a diversion\argument suppression tactic whether by design or accident.”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Yes, the woman, from what I understand, has complete and utter control over what she does with her womb.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“So she is responsible for the life growing inside it and bares the responsibility for ending it. Deliberately ending a viable Human life without consent would be called…?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Whose consent? The unborn child cannot consent neither to life nor death. However; it could be viewed as a parasite. (Which I understand is a new post modern explanation/excuse).”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Could consenting to risking Pregnancy be legally considered consent to a 9 month contract\obligation to seeing a pregnancy to term? I can agree with Men having a similar 12-18 year (financial or otherwise) obligation to a viable Life. Is there not a negative psychological impact to the Commons by allowing Women to kill viable Human lives which wouldn’t exist with their consent?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Seems more than fair to me.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Is it an issue that a fetus doesn’t have the ability to ‘exchange rights’ with the Mother? I wouldn’t have thought so since infants\toddlers don’t have that ability either and I don’t see any Pro-Choice people saying it’s morally acceptable for a Mother to kill them…”–Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Until recently, with the VA laws and abortion up to delivery and after. “Make the baby comfortable and let the parents decide”. Historically speaking men had the right to life and death not only of their children but also their wives and livestock. Women would kill them selves and their children to prevent them from becoming slaves should their husbands lose the war.”—AunMarie Grooms
Correct. by having sex (enjoyment) you took responsibility (manufactured, produced) for a fetus and it had no choice. Thats simply a fact. What we choose to do about it. Abort, externalize costs, create an unwanted and unloved child, and create broken dysfunctional families is the trade off. So to say we prefer abortion, to infanticide, to producing unhealthy people, to But to say it’s not an act of murder is simply false. It’s murder. We have capital punishment and it was always a good thing to have. We have warfare and it’s always a good thing to have. So, it’s not like we don’t justify intentional murder. We do. This is one of those cases where we do. The solution of course is self control by both parties. Or, failing self control, protection.
—“So by your calculations, Legal Abortion transfers the least amount of cost to the Commons vs other options? I’d be very interested to know if\how you estimated the ultimate cost (ie primarily psychological and perhaps also the Selection\Epi-genetic effects on Personality of the group) of allowing the murder of otherwise viable life of our In-Group/Kin? Is it a case of, it would be a minority of under-class or borderline underclass Women who get abortions so the gene pool would still ultimately be selecting against such behaviour?”—Grant Cameron
I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that IS the argument that’s being used. The data is increasingly convincing though. But it’s at the low end (reduction in crime), and is offset by the decline in middle and top end (reduction in aggregate Iq)
—“Sorry I like P, but baby murder is baby murder. Don’t care what system we are under or how you justify it.”—Jesse Daughtry
—“I agree. But like the argument above sometimes murder is a necessary evil. You don’t like baby murder. Some people think that capital punishment in general is equally as evil. Where is P going to land with this?”—AunMarie Grooms
P lands with “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”
—“How is my plot of land not my property? I can let you plow my fields and even plant your seed within, but ultimately I own this plot of land and have the ultimate say on what grows here. Perhaps I need more understanding of what a right is. Should I not have the right to uproot any weeds forcibly planted in my fields? “—AunMarie Grooms
Analogy not equality. You can’t own a human, even a fetus or child without others insuring you can. I’m not arguing in favor of this. I’m just stating the facts.
—“Study admiralty/merchant law”—Justin Coone
—“Please explain further, as this is not computing. I don’t need anyone else’s authority nor insurance over a fetus no one else may know even exist. Personally, I would not murder any offspring of mine, pending it was not what I consider an act of war (rape) and therefore the result of said act of war an enemy combatant.”—AunMarie Grooms
^No but the minute you involve someone else in the abortion you are not acting on your own. For example, why do we resist assisted suicide? Because it involves another party in a decision closed to restitution (reversal).
—“Interesting. Thank you for the clarity. So as long as you know how much juniper berries it takes to cause a miscarriage or can brew yourself a herbal tea when you wish to take the elders walk, and you are not having to enlist anyone else’s help, you have ownership of yours and your offsprings life.”—AunMarie Grooms
“I have ownership of my offspring’s life” Do you? When does that ownership end? When they can survive on their ow ie take ownership of their life? Infants will die very quickly without care so do we assume that Mothers (in your scenario it appears Fathers don’t have any Ownership of their offspring) are free to kill their infants? It’s the same argument, ‘My offspring is inconveniencing me (or maybe it’s simply whimsical decision with no reasoning whatsoever) and since it’s mine I can kill it if I like.’
—“Please understand that personally I am pro-life. However, there are logical arguments to be had here contrary from my own personal feelings. The weed analogy makes perfect since to someone who actually tends to gardens. It’s an …See More”—AunMarie Grooms
Fetuses don’t manifest in Wombs by happenstance\forces outside of a Woman’s control (barring rape). ‘I allowed a gardener to tend my garden and now I have a weed. I’m going to remove the weed as is my right because I own the garden’ – this is your analogy? “Is the agreement that she will manage the garden in his absence?” Don’t ask me how to make your ridiculous analogy work, I’ve rejected it from the start because it makes no sense. It serves as a diversion\argument suppression tactic whether by design or accident.”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Yes, the woman, from what I understand, has complete and utter control over what she does with her womb.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“So she is responsible for the life growing inside it and bares the responsibility for ending it. Deliberately ending a viable Human life without consent would be called…?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Whose consent? The unborn child cannot consent neither to life nor death. However; it could be viewed as a parasite. (Which I understand is a new post modern explanation/excuse).”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Could consenting to risking Pregnancy be legally considered consent to a 9 month contract\obligation to seeing a pregnancy to term? I can agree with Men having a similar 12-18 year (financial or otherwise) obligation to a viable Life. Is there not a negative psychological impact to the Commons by allowing Women to kill viable Human lives which wouldn’t exist with their consent?”—Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Seems more than fair to me.”—AunMarie Grooms
—“Is it an issue that a fetus doesn’t have the ability to ‘exchange rights’ with the Mother? I wouldn’t have thought so since infants\toddlers don’t have that ability either and I don’t see any Pro-Choice people saying it’s morally acceptable for a Mother to kill them…”–Grant Cameron McPhee
—“Until recently, with the VA laws and abortion up to delivery and after. “Make the baby comfortable and let the parents decide”. Historically speaking men had the right to life and death not only of their children but also their wives and livestock. Women would kill them selves and their children to prevent them from becoming slaves should their husbands lose the war.”—AunMarie Grooms
Correct. by having sex (enjoyment) you took responsibility (manufactured, produced) for a fetus and it had no choice. Thats simply a fact. What we choose to do about it. Abort, externalize costs, create an unwanted and unloved child, and create broken dysfunctional families is the trade off. So to say we prefer abortion, to infanticide, to producing unhealthy people, to But to say it’s not an act of murder is simply false. It’s murder. We have capital punishment and it was always a good thing to have. We have warfare and it’s always a good thing to have. So, it’s not like we don’t justify intentional murder. We do. This is one of those cases where we do. The solution of course is self control by both parties. Or, failing self control, protection.
—“So by your calculations, Legal Abortion transfers the least amount of cost to the Commons vs other options? I’d be very interested to know if\how you estimated the ultimate cost (ie primarily psychological and perhaps also the Selection\Epi-genetic effects on Personality of the group) of allowing the murder of otherwise viable life of our In-Group/Kin? Is it a case of, it would be a minority of under-class or borderline underclass Women who get abortions so the gene pool would still ultimately be selecting against such behaviour?”—Grant Cameron
I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that IS the argument that’s being used. The data is increasingly convincing though. But it’s at the low end (reduction in crime), and is offset by the decline in middle and top end (reduction in aggregate Iq)
—“Sorry I like P, but baby murder is baby murder. Don’t care what system we are under or how you justify it.”—Jesse Daughtry
—“I agree. But like the argument above sometimes murder is a necessary evil. You don’t like baby murder. Some people think that capital punishment in general is equally as evil. Where is P going to land with this?”—AunMarie Grooms
P lands with “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”
—“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH
Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciprocal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils.