Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract? https://t.co/y8ujFmhkfV
Theme: Reciprocity
-
Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of C
Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract? https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/q-how-is-your-concept-of-reciprocity-different-from-the-common-law-concept-of-contract-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 11:53:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267423959701696512
-
Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?
“Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”
—“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.
… The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“
—Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7
Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.
-
Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?
“Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”
—“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.
… The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“
—Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7
Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.
-
New Constitution Ends the Problem
1-OUTLAW false and ir-reciprocal speech, AND outlaws suppression of truthful and reciprocal speech. 2-REQUIRES all able bodied men bear arms 3-REQUIRES defense of the physical, normative, and informational commons.
-
New Constitution Ends the Problem
1-OUTLAW false and ir-reciprocal speech, AND outlaws suppression of truthful and reciprocal speech. 2-REQUIRES all able bodied men bear arms 3-REQUIRES defense of the physical, normative, and informational commons.
-
One Child Policy
Prohibiting redistribution to you, without exchange for your sterilization has nothing to do with the state – just restitution for your act of aggression. So It’s entirely to do with (a) violation of the natural law of reciprocity we call tort, as measured by that system of measurement we call property. (b) the imposition of costs on the rest of us in the polity for pollution of the genetic, normative, institutional informational, and aesthetic commons (c) and your failure of due diligence forcing us into hazard for your breeding without the ability to pay for raising your offspring, therefore forcing us to do so instead – theft. It’s just non-aggression. Don’t aggress. Don’t steal. Don’t impose costs on us. It’s a matter of property and law and has nothing to do with the state. Instead, we prohibit the state from conspiring with you in the conduct of your crimes against us. Now, conversely most people can’t have kids because the state is taxing the middle class out of high investment parenting in order to redistribute reproduction to low investment parenting in the genetically unrecoverable underclasses. Stop trying to conspire to steal. You too.
-
One Child Policy
Prohibiting redistribution to you, without exchange for your sterilization has nothing to do with the state – just restitution for your act of aggression. So It’s entirely to do with (a) violation of the natural law of reciprocity we call tort, as measured by that system of measurement we call property. (b) the imposition of costs on the rest of us in the polity for pollution of the genetic, normative, institutional informational, and aesthetic commons (c) and your failure of due diligence forcing us into hazard for your breeding without the ability to pay for raising your offspring, therefore forcing us to do so instead – theft. It’s just non-aggression. Don’t aggress. Don’t steal. Don’t impose costs on us. It’s a matter of property and law and has nothing to do with the state. Instead, we prohibit the state from conspiring with you in the conduct of your crimes against us. Now, conversely most people can’t have kids because the state is taxing the middle class out of high investment parenting in order to redistribute reproduction to low investment parenting in the genetically unrecoverable underclasses. Stop trying to conspire to steal. You too.
-
The Case for Fascism 😉
Nov 5, 2019, 9:10 AM
—“Do NOT let fear of communism drive you into fascism.”—Stefan Molyneux
If FASCISM is: Rule of Law, of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Sanctity of the Commons, The Intergenerational Family, Zero-Tolerance and Jury; Social, Economic,and Political Nationalism; State Credit, Investment, Returns on Industrial Capital; Pragmatic Autarky – that’s PERFECT GOV’T. One cannot morally argue against Rule of Law by Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity, where the court and jury provide a market for punishment(court) in competition with the market for rewards(the market proper), & where exists a prohibition against imposition by arbitrage. This “Fascism” prevents consumption of accumulated genetic, personal, shareheld, common, social, portable, fixed, territorial, and institutional capital advocated by immoral libertarians under free trade, open borders, and the sophism of non aggression w/o including ALL capital. So if “Fascism” means intolerance that means Rule of Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity, for individual, family, clan, tribe, and nation including familial, social, normative, traditional, institutional, genetic capital the aggressive, zero-tolerance, prosecution = Optimum Life. So yes, I want, all moral men want, “Fascism” if “Fascism” is Rule of Law of Reciprocity, Markets in Everything, intolerance for Monopoly of Abrahamic undermining by parasitisms of universalism, judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, and lying. And that includes prosecution of those who would cast that Fascism (Intolerance) as Immoral, Unethical, Undesirable, who by doing so conspires with our ancient enemies to Underming (Again) our great civilization, by granting license for fomentation of crimes against our people. So “I pray thee take heed” that you do not conspire, even in ignorance, regardless of your intentions, with ancient enemies, whose strategy is to incite monopoly, tyranny, irreciprocity, parasitism, ignorance, sophism, superstition, pseudoscience, and denial to destroy us AGAIN. Because THE LAW does not forgive ignorance of The Law, and when prosecution, restitution, punishment, and prevention are soon restored, those who conspire, in ignorance or not, intent or not, willingly or not, shall be punished – all the same. And what restitution for genocide? So you are either a Fascist for the Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity or you are the enemy of mankind, and you have confessed your guilt, and those of us who can, shall have no mercy in restitution, punishment, and prevention of imitators by making an example of you.
-
The Case for Fascism 😉
Nov 5, 2019, 9:10 AM
—“Do NOT let fear of communism drive you into fascism.”—Stefan Molyneux
If FASCISM is: Rule of Law, of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Sanctity of the Commons, The Intergenerational Family, Zero-Tolerance and Jury; Social, Economic,and Political Nationalism; State Credit, Investment, Returns on Industrial Capital; Pragmatic Autarky – that’s PERFECT GOV’T. One cannot morally argue against Rule of Law by Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity, where the court and jury provide a market for punishment(court) in competition with the market for rewards(the market proper), & where exists a prohibition against imposition by arbitrage. This “Fascism” prevents consumption of accumulated genetic, personal, shareheld, common, social, portable, fixed, territorial, and institutional capital advocated by immoral libertarians under free trade, open borders, and the sophism of non aggression w/o including ALL capital. So if “Fascism” means intolerance that means Rule of Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity, for individual, family, clan, tribe, and nation including familial, social, normative, traditional, institutional, genetic capital the aggressive, zero-tolerance, prosecution = Optimum Life. So yes, I want, all moral men want, “Fascism” if “Fascism” is Rule of Law of Reciprocity, Markets in Everything, intolerance for Monopoly of Abrahamic undermining by parasitisms of universalism, judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, and lying. And that includes prosecution of those who would cast that Fascism (Intolerance) as Immoral, Unethical, Undesirable, who by doing so conspires with our ancient enemies to Underming (Again) our great civilization, by granting license for fomentation of crimes against our people. So “I pray thee take heed” that you do not conspire, even in ignorance, regardless of your intentions, with ancient enemies, whose strategy is to incite monopoly, tyranny, irreciprocity, parasitism, ignorance, sophism, superstition, pseudoscience, and denial to destroy us AGAIN. Because THE LAW does not forgive ignorance of The Law, and when prosecution, restitution, punishment, and prevention are soon restored, those who conspire, in ignorance or not, intent or not, willingly or not, shall be punished – all the same. And what restitution for genocide? So you are either a Fascist for the Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity or you are the enemy of mankind, and you have confessed your guilt, and those of us who can, shall have no mercy in restitution, punishment, and prevention of imitators by making an example of you.