Oct 17, 2019, 9:50 AM You’re missing the point that only the west could invent science (testimony) because only the west practiced the combination of militia, truth, reciprocity, heroism, excellence, markets, and aristocracy (meritocracy). Now that we have given the world our science and technology and law and finance like we gave the world empiricism, like we gave the world logic and reason and roman law, like we gave the world horse, bronze, and wheel, and like the old world gave us writing, bronze, and agriculture. And like we gave the world eugenics. Now, we will see how the chinese do vs the europeans. If the british choose to restore the british empire rather than fall to the french conquest of europe, and the russian re-conquest of eastern europe, then china will have a competitor. But this presumes we will not have a revolution on the scale of the past, or the scale of the chinese, and reverse the primitivization of western civilization by the second abrahamic conquest and the defection of our women. Did you see what I did there? You can have the technological products of our people, but you can’t have our ‘technology’ because it’s genetic and cultural. We only have to preserve that technology to win.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
I Don”t Do Hate and Don”t Need To
I Don”t Do Hate and Don”t Need To https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/i-dont-do-hate-and-dont-need-to-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:45:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265685683320041474
-
I Don”t Do Hate and Don”t Need To
Oct 19, 2019, 7:12 PM I don’t, we don’t, need to ‘hate’ anyone under rule of law of reciprocity, truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in matters public, and voluntary association and disassociation by any means at all. The left can’t succeed without lying for ir-reciprocity, and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities, and are left with merely grouping together in localities where they can create local law and norm suited to their wants – they can’t infect the rest of society, polity, nation, and civilization. They’re in both physical, economic, political, and ideological ghettos we call ‘cities’.
-
I Don”t Do Hate and Don”t Need To
Oct 19, 2019, 7:12 PM I don’t, we don’t, need to ‘hate’ anyone under rule of law of reciprocity, truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in matters public, and voluntary association and disassociation by any means at all. The left can’t succeed without lying for ir-reciprocity, and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities, and are left with merely grouping together in localities where they can create local law and norm suited to their wants – they can’t infect the rest of society, polity, nation, and civilization. They’re in both physical, economic, political, and ideological ghettos we call ‘cities’.
-
“Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of
“Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/q-how-is-your-concept-of-reciprocity-different-from-the-common-law-concept-of-contract/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:43:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265685137246892032
-
“Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?”
Oct 21, 2019, 5:21 PM
—“… … 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. Edit
-
“Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?”
Oct 21, 2019, 5:21 PM
—“… … 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. Edit
-
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Be
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/what-traditional-means-what-to-say-instead-and-how-to-restore-reciprocity-between-genders/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:41:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265684483094704130
-
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.
Oct 22, 2019, 12:26 PM Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.
-
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.
Oct 22, 2019, 12:26 PM Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.