THE CORRECT ANSWER Just as we can know negative freedoms but not positive freedoms we can know negative morality but not positive morality. Why? Because negative morality is a universal: “reciprocity over time within the limits of proportionality” or its inverse “irreciprocity” is as impossible to counter as “all choice is rational given the knowledge and incentives of the actor at a time”, and “people always pursue self rational interest within the limits of their knowledge and incentives” All of these are necessary truths and perspectives on the same scientific and logical necessity. However, what constitutes morality (reciprocity) given any set of resources, economy, traditions, norms, at any point in time between any particular individuals or groups, may vary – although by predictable properties such as technological development, economic development and organization, the resulting social political and military organization. So this logic is constant across all people across all time, because it is a necessity of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws: Negative: Silver Rule: Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them Positive: Bronze Rule: Do unto others only as they would have done unto them. Positive: Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Negative Freedom: that which we can reciprocally not do to each other (prohibition on imposing costs upon others.) Positive Freedom: that which we can irreciprocally do to each other (freedom to impose costs upon others). Negative: Immorality refers to irreciprocity in display word and deed. Positive: Morality refers to “reciprocity in display word and deed over time and within the limits of proportionality” Negative: humans never act irrationally against their self-interests given their knowledge in time. Positive: humans always demonstrate rational self-interest over time, given their knowledge at the time. ERGO: Yes, it is rational, and moral, for governments to impose ANY standard of measure that is NOT FALSE OR IRRECIPROCAL. Most moral constraints limit some form of personal consumption of the commons or require some form of personal investment in the commons, where the commons consist of physical assets, institutional processes and procedures, and traditional, normative rules of behavior that facilitate cooperation.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
RT @LukeWeinhagen: The necessity of a ruler of last resort bring us full circle
RT @LukeWeinhagen: The necessity of a ruler of last resort bring us full circle back to the necessity of morality.
The arbiter of reciproc…
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-10 21:19:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348378900712333312
-
( That’s about as parsimonious as I can manage in a tweet.) Reciprocity in displ
(
That’s about as parsimonious as I can manage in a tweet.)
Reciprocity in display word and deed, reciprocity in word (truth), and demonstrated interests (enumerations) just can’t be put in this few characters. 😉
)
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-10 17:51:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348326505148018689
Reply addressees: @attyzachmiller
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348325894797074432
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@attyzachmiller “European Ancestral Natural Law: Exchange of Insurance of Self Determination by Sovereignty in demonstrated interests, Reciprocity in word and deed, and Duty to perform, resulting in enumerated Rights(+), Obligations(-), Insurance(defense), and Inalienabilities(inescapability).”
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1348325894797074432
-
“European Ancestral Natural Law: Exchange of Insurance of Self Determination by
“European Ancestral Natural Law: Exchange of Insurance of Self Determination by Sovereignty in demonstrated interests, Reciprocity in word and deed, and Duty to perform, resulting in enumerated Rights(+), Obligations(-), Insurance(defense), and Inalienabilities(inescapability).”
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-10 17:48:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348325894797074432
Reply addressees: @attyzachmiller
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1348312022266621952
-
INVERSION: In P-Law we don’t need to enumerate rights as in the bill of rights,
INVERSION:
In P-Law we don’t need to enumerate rights as in the bill of rights, because we enumerate demonstrated interests, the requirement for reciprocity of display word and deed in those interests, and so instead, enumerate methods of DEFENSE of those demonstrated interests.
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-09 18:29:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347973912831913986
-
Then reciprocity demands ending antifa/blm and all democratic advocacy of violen
Then reciprocity demands ending antifa/blm and all democratic advocacy of violence including violence by institutional means.
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-09 18:01:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347966754455224321
Reply addressees: @textualdeviance @businessinsider
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347963575038476289
-
@WhiteShariaNowPlease @WhiteShariaNowPlease 1. “Novel ideology”. There is little
@WhiteShariaNowPlease
1. “Novel ideology”. There is little difference between my work, the founders constitution, and Scalia’s originalist and textualist restoration, other than my work overwhelmingly completes the conversion of constitutional law into a formal science (logic); explains how western civilization is the least divergent from the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of the universe, and how that minimum divergence maximizes adaptation, which is the reason for the disproportionate success of europeans in the bronze, iron, steel, and technological ages.2. “White Sharia” and “…that simply doesn’t happen”. You failed to understand or I failed to convey the idea. There is no reason natural law (as I’ve strictly constructed it) cannot serve as an equally secularly ‘sacred and inviolable’ law. It’s just a secular and scientific rather than supernatural body of law.
3. “…focused exclusively on the Woman Question…” and “…no choice but to raise a fresh generation of baby-machines who haven’t tasted the freedom of voting / working etc.” and “…the bad optics of racialism…”
That’s pretty logically inconsistent: (a) exhaustive power would be necessary to virtually enslave three generations of women (b) you’re claiming that racial or at least voluntary association is more impossible that such enslavment of women, that this is the only question rather than the method of obtaining power, and organizing the polity, and that your solution is the exclusive model for doing so. That’s pretty dim now isn’t it?
4. “…it’s logically unassailable …” It’s logically assailable and I just logically assailed it, and it collapse under that assault as rather ridiculous.
5. “… your policy …” My policy is (a) issue our demands for political preference and political speech to be legally protected class (b) organize rebellion (c) incremental separation (d) legal reforms that restore our civilization and prevent its further abuses, (e) economic, financial, educational, reforms that restore the laboring, working, middle classes and the family to the primacy of policy.
Of course you could read it all here:
https://propertarianinstitute.com/the-book/revolution/introduction-to-the-declaration-of-reformation/Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-09 17:58:32 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105527057515727602
-
LEGAL QUESTIONS Under the Natural Law (P-Law) there are no difficult legal quest
LEGAL QUESTIONS
Under the Natural Law (P-Law) there are no difficult legal questions. There are only difficult political choices for the people and the legislature.
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-09 04:01:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347755267421835266
-
PRIVACY The natural law limits your behavior IN THE COMMONS it does not limit yo
PRIVACY
The natural law limits your behavior IN THE COMMONS it does not limit your behavior at home unless by externality it extends into the commons. The government has a responsibility to defend the commons from imposition.
Sex, drugs, etc don’t matter unless in the commons.
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-09 04:00:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347755038895206401
-
No. You can’t reduce it. It’s reciprocal insurance of self determination by self
No. You can’t reduce it. It’s reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means – and everything that descends from that. It’s western civilization.
Source date (UTC): 2021-01-09 00:29:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347701951526555648
Reply addressees: @Weaponi27523841 @NoahRevoy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347693486649303042