Ok. So imagine this. Every city dwelling family and most suburban families have a ‘country house’, even if it’s just a garden shed, or a cottage, and a couple of acres of land.
How does that change the way of life?
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:40:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020680015606960128
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Ok. So imagine this. Every city dwelling family and most suburban families have a ‘country house’, even if it’s just a garden shed, or a cottage, and a couple of acres of land.
How does that change the way of life?
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:40:41 UTC
Ok. So imagine this. Every city dwelling family and most suburban families have a ‘country house’, even if it’s just a garden shed, or a cottage, and a couple of acres of land.
How does that change the way of life?
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 10:40:00 UTC
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. 😉
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. 😉
(pastoralism/diasporia/parasitism vs territorialism/production) The difference between my anglo sovereigntarianism and ashkenazi libertarianism(libertinism) is that the militia and the judiciary rule under the natural law of reciprocity, property in toto, universal standing, and universal application – with a monarchy as a judge of last resort (headman). And that one constructs the market for the construction of commons (government) in whatever way is necessary for competitive persistence(survival, and flourishing) of the polity (militia). This means monarchy, republic, direct democracy, as conditions (war, growth, windfalls) warrant. This organization both adapts to all circumstances and suppresses all parasitism of all forms – providing competitive survivability; whereas ashkenazi libertarianism (libertinism) does not suppress parasitism. It licenses it. And ensures the competitive death or conquest of the polity. There is a reason the ashkenazi civilization is diasporic and dependent: inability to produce high trust territorial commons due to the high costs of opportunities, costs, duty and sacrifice required.
(pastoralism/diasporia/parasitism vs territorialism/production) The difference between my anglo sovereigntarianism and ashkenazi libertarianism(libertinism) is that the militia and the judiciary rule under the natural law of reciprocity, property in toto, universal standing, and universal application – with a monarchy as a judge of last resort (headman). And that one constructs the market for the construction of commons (government) in whatever way is necessary for competitive persistence(survival, and flourishing) of the polity (militia). This means monarchy, republic, direct democracy, as conditions (war, growth, windfalls) warrant. This organization both adapts to all circumstances and suppresses all parasitism of all forms – providing competitive survivability; whereas ashkenazi libertarianism (libertinism) does not suppress parasitism. It licenses it. And ensures the competitive death or conquest of the polity. There is a reason the ashkenazi civilization is diasporic and dependent: inability to produce high trust territorial commons due to the high costs of opportunities, costs, duty and sacrifice required.
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
IT’S SIMPLE: LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, RECIPROCITY
The Constitution defines how the government (production of commons) is organized.
The bill of rights defines the law that may not be discovered, legislation and regulation that may not be passed.
The constitution does try to implement natural law (life, liberty, property), but it does not state such concretely in the bill of rights, nor does it state the law of reciprocity despite the fact that reciprocity is the basis for germanic common law back into pre-history.
We could quite easily reorganize the constitution life(existence), liberty(action), property(thing), and reciprocity (volition), and then tie every one of the articles and amendments back to these (reciprocity and three dimensions of its demonstration).
This set of three rights (existence, action, possession) and the single law of reciprocity are very simple criteria by which any constitution can be strictly constructed.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-18 23:37:06 UTC
The Constitution defines how the government (production of commons) is organized. The bill of rights defines the law that may not be discovered, legislation and regulation that may not be passed. The constitution does try to implement natural law (life, liberty, property), but it does not state such concretely in the bill of rights, nor does it state the law of reciprocity despite the fact that reciprocity is the basis for germanic common law back into pre-history. We could quite easily reorganize the constitution life(existence), liberty(action), property(thing), and reciprocity (volition), and then tie every one of the articles and amendments back to these (reciprocity and three dimensions of its demonstration). This set of three rights (existence, action, possession) and the single law of reciprocity are very simple criteria by which any constitution can be strictly constructed.
The Constitution defines how the government (production of commons) is organized. The bill of rights defines the law that may not be discovered, legislation and regulation that may not be passed. The constitution does try to implement natural law (life, liberty, property), but it does not state such concretely in the bill of rights, nor does it state the law of reciprocity despite the fact that reciprocity is the basis for germanic common law back into pre-history. We could quite easily reorganize the constitution life(existence), liberty(action), property(thing), and reciprocity (volition), and then tie every one of the articles and amendments back to these (reciprocity and three dimensions of its demonstration). This set of three rights (existence, action, possession) and the single law of reciprocity are very simple criteria by which any constitution can be strictly constructed.