https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/09/the-choice-episode-0003-qa-catholicism-christianity-trifunctionalism-and-natural-law/THE CHOICE – EPISODE 0003 – Q&A: CATHOLICISM, CHRISTIANITY, TRIFUNCTIONALISM, AND NATURAL LAW.
(important)
https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/09/the-choice-episode-0003-qa-catholicism-christianity-trifunctionalism-and-natural-law/Updated Apr 9, 2020, 2:24 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 14:24:00 UTC
White law is slightly different:
“Cooperation requires reciprocity. Cooperation is preferable. But it is only preferable until it is not. When it is not then conquest and eradication are preferable to cooperation. “
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 16:53:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1247205689489063938
White law is slightly different:
“Cooperation requires reciprocity. Cooperation is preferable. But it is only preferable until it is not. When it is not then conquest and eradication are preferable to cooperation. “
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 12:52:00 UTC
EXAMPLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR VIOLATING P-LAW OF SPEECH
—“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—
That’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend.
1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public.
2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated.
3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry.
Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail.
Silly people are just silly.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 16:19:00 UTC
Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not.
Learn the law. You will be better for it.
Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.”
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 15:29:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246822205083791361
Reply addressees: @MillikanTamzin @DudeMaximus
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246816467791872001
I don’t care what you believe. I care only whether you display speak and act with reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, including speaking the truth warrantied by due diligence against ignorance error bias and deceit.
You don’t. I’m accusing you of false testimony.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 15:04:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246815869084274689
Reply addressees: @MillikanTamzin @DudeMaximus
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246815300126945280
WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM: “THE LAW”
“The Natural Law of European Peoples”: A fully commensurable system of measurement across all disciplines that tests for reciprocity in display, word (truth) and deed (action); the extension of the logic of the physical sciences (realism, naturalism, equilibration) to the psychological(individual) and social(group) sciences using economic terms (acquisition, cooperation, reciprocity); thereby completing the scientific method (falsification of all dimensions possible human cognition); and thereby completing the Aristotelian program; and thereby providing the explanation for the success of western civilization under that program: sovereignty, reciprocity, and truth – and the markets that result from their universal enforcement, and the evolutionary velocity (adaptation, innovation) that results from those markets.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 14:30:00 UTC
REVERSE ACCUSATIONS OF GSRRM
GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.
—“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin
Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not.
Learn the law. You will be better for it.
Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.”
So:
(a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market).
(b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence.
Learn the law. End error. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 11:34:00 UTC
Propertarianism = Western civlization in scientific terms.
A universal militia, Rule of Law by Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Adjudicated by Jury, Producing markets in every aspect of life, producing the most adaptive and innovative civilization in human history.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 18:44:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246509075522863110
Reply addressees: @af_clips @realThomBieler @NickJFuentes @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246457859161886720
A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE
By @[572499615:2048:Daniel Roland Anderson]
If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle.
If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying.
So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.Updated Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:46:00 UTC