RT @curtdoolittle: @ZiskieBrian1 The objective was never integration it was our destruction. And as restitution they must pay.
Dearly.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
RT @curtdoolittle: @ZiskieBrian1 The objective was never integration it was our
-
RT @curtdoolittle: @ZiskieBrian1 The objective was never integration it was our
RT @curtdoolittle: @ZiskieBrian1 The objective was never integration it was our destruction. And as restitution they must pay.
Dearly.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-17 03:36:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273097179935248386
-
The objective was never integration it was our destruction. And as restitution t
The objective was never integration it was our destruction. And as restitution they must pay.
Dearly.
Reply addressees: @ZiskieBrian1 -
The objective was never integration it was our destruction. And as restitution t
The objective was never integration it was our destruction. And as restitution they must pay.
Dearly.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-17 03:17:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273092273044160512
Reply addressees: @ZiskieBrian1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273090009231503360
-
Under the Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity the State cannot make law n
Under the Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity the State cannot make law nor the court. They can create contracts (legislation and regulation), and courts can produce findings under that law, but if it does not survive the tests of sovereignty and reciprocity it is not law.
Reply addressees: @realJamesPepper -
Under the Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity the State cannot make law n
Under the Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity the State cannot make law nor the court. They can create contracts (legislation and regulation), and courts can produce findings under that law, but if it does not survive the tests of sovereignty and reciprocity it is not law.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-16 23:07:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273029357116809218
Reply addressees: @realJamesPepper
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273028222372974592
-
PENDER GOLD: ECONOMIC VS THOUGHT VELOCITY —We made truth a norm, not a premium
PENDER GOLD: ECONOMIC VS THOUGHT VELOCITY
—We made truth a norm, not a premium, which puts us on the side of the universe and natural law, not individually wasting time rediscovering it. Internally reduced mental friction from true knowledge increases “thought velocity”, just as important as trade velocity from social high trust.”—Steve Pender
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-16 19:02:00 UTC
-
Immorality can be boiled down, yes to non-imposition of costs on demonstrated in
Immorality can be boiled down, yes to non-imposition of costs on demonstrated intersets, where interests include a very broad spectrum. What is moral then, is whatever is not immoral. And what’s positively moral is that which contributes to those interests rather than imposes costs upon them. In other words, law and morality are identical, and wherever they are not, one or the other is false.
—“Love this disambiguation in terms of costs and demonstrated interests. If law and morality are identical then so many things will be simplified. No outrage industry because of perceived immorality. No virtue signaling (you either within the law, or outside the law). No legal sophistry. No hordes of lawyers who interpret the law as it suits the highest bidder.”—James Dmitro Makienko
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-16 15:31:00 UTC
-
Can he explain (a) finish the sentence:non-aggression against what? (b) Do you d
Can he explain (a) finish the sentence:non-aggression against what? (b) Do you determine what’s moral, ethical or does the market? (c) How does the market determine what’s moral and ethical? (d) Why does every Stefan debate fail? Obvious false premise of his argumentation ethics.
Reply addressees: @DeplorableDJDJ @jamesfoxhiggins @Sexy_Cave_Beast @StefanMolyneux @JohnMarkSays @WorMartiN @Jay_D007 -
Can he explain (a) finish the sentence:non-aggression against what? (b) Do you d
Can he explain (a) finish the sentence:non-aggression against what? (b) Do you determine what’s moral, ethical or does the market? (c) How does the market determine what’s moral and ethical? (d) Why does every Stefan debate fail? Obvious false premise of his argumentation ethics.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-15 15:33:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272552816092078082
Reply addressees: @DeplorableDJDJ @jamesfoxhiggins @Sexy_Cave_Beast @StefanMolyneux @JohnMarkSays @WorMartiN @Jay_D007
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272551600192729088