Nov 29, 2019, 2:00 PM
—And I don’t expect you to like Natural Law any more than the Semites liked Aristotle, the French and Germans liked Locke, Smith, and Hume, or the Church liked Darwin, Menger, and Nietzsche. No one likes having their crimes (parasitisms) suppressed. We do it anyway. The Returns are exceptional.—
(worth repeating)
Nov 29, 2019, 2:00 PM
—And I don’t expect you to like Natural Law any more than the Semites liked Aristotle, the French and Germans liked Locke, Smith, and Hume, or the Church liked Darwin, Menger, and Nietzsche. No one likes having their crimes (parasitisms) suppressed. We do it anyway. The Returns are exceptional.—
(worth repeating)
The Natural Law on Pornography https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-natural-law-on-pornography/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 20:54:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266835502117916672
Dec 10, 2019, 10:01 PM THE NATURAL LAW ON PORNOGRAPHY (from twitter)
—“Do you believe that banning all porn is ridiculous? If so, how come? What would the laws under the Propertarian constitution be regarding porn?”—@EnlightenedNPC
This is a deeper question than it appears – a hard topic for twitter. I’ll try:
a) we must keep it out of the commons, and the internet is a commons, so there must be some ‘gateway’ (opt in) in order to access it.
b) long term effects are far far worse in every regard than we imagined. And;
c) there is some very bad behavior at the lower end of the market. Under natural law if its out of the commons, it’s voluntary, then it’s not a subject for P-law. The rest is just either a product harm (tort), or baiting into hazard (tort), for the law’s Market to solve. I am fairly sure that the legal market would solve it rather quickly under p-law and we would be left with high production value work by studios on one end, and selfies on the other. That’s because baiting into hazard (enticing people in vulnerable positions into such behavior for money) would be prosecutable by anyone – not just the victim. It would be almost impossible to produce anything outside of a studio system with professionals, because it’s almost impossible to avoid baiting into hazard otherwise. And beyond that it’s a Political question (“We just don’t want it here”), or an empirical question (“Accumulate evidence and inability to voluntarily or institutionally regulate means we have to ban it.”). Personally (not the natural law) I have come to understand that while I’m intuitively libertarian, the experiment with porn has (a surprise to me) demonstrated that it’s a net negative, but that it is better to regulate a net negative than it is to turn it into a black market. I’d ban it in my neck of the woods. But my opinion doesn’t mean anything. it’s just a preference. My posts on Pornography are here: https://propertarianinstitute.com/?s=pornography
Dec 10, 2019, 10:01 PM THE NATURAL LAW ON PORNOGRAPHY (from twitter)
—“Do you believe that banning all porn is ridiculous? If so, how come? What would the laws under the Propertarian constitution be regarding porn?”—@EnlightenedNPC
This is a deeper question than it appears – a hard topic for twitter. I’ll try:
a) we must keep it out of the commons, and the internet is a commons, so there must be some ‘gateway’ (opt in) in order to access it.
b) long term effects are far far worse in every regard than we imagined. And;
c) there is some very bad behavior at the lower end of the market. Under natural law if its out of the commons, it’s voluntary, then it’s not a subject for P-law. The rest is just either a product harm (tort), or baiting into hazard (tort), for the law’s Market to solve. I am fairly sure that the legal market would solve it rather quickly under p-law and we would be left with high production value work by studios on one end, and selfies on the other. That’s because baiting into hazard (enticing people in vulnerable positions into such behavior for money) would be prosecutable by anyone – not just the victim. It would be almost impossible to produce anything outside of a studio system with professionals, because it’s almost impossible to avoid baiting into hazard otherwise. And beyond that it’s a Political question (“We just don’t want it here”), or an empirical question (“Accumulate evidence and inability to voluntarily or institutionally regulate means we have to ban it.”). Personally (not the natural law) I have come to understand that while I’m intuitively libertarian, the experiment with porn has (a surprise to me) demonstrated that it’s a net negative, but that it is better to regulate a net negative than it is to turn it into a black market. I’d ban it in my neck of the woods. But my opinion doesn’t mean anything. it’s just a preference. My posts on Pornography are here: https://propertarianinstitute.com/?s=pornography
What Price of The Conditions We Sacrificed? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/what-price-of-the-conditions-we-sacrificed/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 18:38:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266801115305332738
Dec 23, 2019, 8:18 PM Sovereignty demands Reciprocity, where demand for Reciprocity includes all demonstrated interests, whether bodily, family, physical, normative, traditional, informational, or the civic and political institutions that defend them. Westerners produce commons that other people cannot produce, and we do by NOT DOING evil: lying, misleading, cheating, stealing, free riding, corruption, as much as what we DO: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Heroism. So economists (all of whom are leftists) only measure individual consumer goods, not the production of commons: truth, honesty, integrity, contract, quality, civility, responsibility – which is what makes western civilization unique. What is the price of the norm of truth before face? What is the price of commons before self? What is the price of quiet public places, parks and forests without fear, lockless doors, the intergenerational nuclear family, and family income provided by only one spouse? … … our entrepreneurship, our technology, our medicine? That price is self-denial, the most important of which is soft eugenics: limiting reproduction to that which one can support while producing offspring likewise capable of support without parasitism upon others.
Dec 23, 2019, 8:18 PM Sovereignty demands Reciprocity, where demand for Reciprocity includes all demonstrated interests, whether bodily, family, physical, normative, traditional, informational, or the civic and political institutions that defend them. Westerners produce commons that other people cannot produce, and we do by NOT DOING evil: lying, misleading, cheating, stealing, free riding, corruption, as much as what we DO: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Heroism. So economists (all of whom are leftists) only measure individual consumer goods, not the production of commons: truth, honesty, integrity, contract, quality, civility, responsibility – which is what makes western civilization unique. What is the price of the norm of truth before face? What is the price of commons before self? What is the price of quiet public places, parks and forests without fear, lockless doors, the intergenerational nuclear family, and family income provided by only one spouse? … … our entrepreneurship, our technology, our medicine? That price is self-denial, the most important of which is soft eugenics: limiting reproduction to that which one can support while producing offspring likewise capable of support without parasitism upon others.
Being Anti-Abrahamic https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/being-anti-abrahamic/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 18:35:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266800331381280768
Being anti-abrahamic is like being anti-marxist, or anti islam. It’s not being anti-genetics. I’m not anti-anyone who pursues reciprocity. And even then, reciprocity is enforceable under the law by natural incentives. Sure, I want to live in a homogenous polity because it’s the optimum condition for people who love high trust commons, and love to benefit from them and contribute to them. We are hunters and our territory matters. On the other hand if you’ll fight for Truth, Excellence, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, with me then we are still relations.