Theme: Reciprocity

  • WHY DEFINE NATURAL RIGHTS? Just as entropy must be articulated as physics, chemi

    WHY DEFINE NATURAL RIGHTS?

    Just as entropy must be articulated as physics, chemistry, biology, etc, Natural Law must be articulated as natural rights for the simple reason that it’s not… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=496032674326961&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 16:07:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189574486661718023

  • “You mean that people think we’re proposing authority instead of reciprocity as

    —“You mean that people think we’re proposing authority instead of reciprocity as the only alternative to exerting authority? …. Is it that people don’t or can’t understand – or is it that… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=496029634327265&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 16:02:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189573364945424384

  • NO, P-LAW IS NOT ‘SUPERIOR’ TO CHRISTIAN FAITH P-Law is not ‘superior’ to Christ

    NO, P-LAW IS NOT ‘SUPERIOR’ TO CHRISTIAN FAITH

    P-Law is not ‘superior’ to Christian Faith – we have no say over such things. P-Law is compatible with Christian ethics and morality, and… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=496027664327462&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 15:59:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189572573782261761

  • I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM While I understand the sentiment, and unders

    I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM

    While I understand the sentiment, and understand the need to restore masculinity, I don’t MGTOW – I only do truth, reciprocity, compatibilism, markets,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=496026940994201&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 15:58:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189572343607255040

  • “settlement is sub-optimal”—@JackHwite Refusal of settlement on mutually benef

    —“settlement is sub-optimal”—@JackHwite

    Refusal of settlement on mutually beneficial terms only increases moral license to escalate. 😉

    (I think stuff thru) 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 14:12:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189545598225207296

  • “Infringe” in P-law = “Imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of ot

    “Infringe” in P-law = “Imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, whether demonstration by action or inaction, in seizure of opportunity, articulated as Property-in-Toto as enumerated herein.” There is nowhere to go. Even misrepresenting it’s a crime.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 14:01:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189542904768786434

    Reply addressees: @ironpatriot2016

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189517212664713218


    IN REPLY TO:

    @viralstrikeai

    @curtdoolittle The left has issues with context and reading simple words like “infringed” we have the same issues.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189517212664713218

  • Refusal of settlement on mutually beneficial terms only increases moral license

    Refusal of settlement on mutually beneficial terms only increases moral license to escalate. 😉

    (I think stuff thru) 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 13:58:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189542090180628482

    Reply addressees: @JackHwite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189539221570310145


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189539221570310145

  • “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?”

    —“…

    … 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.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:29:00 UTC

  • DON’T HATE, WE DON’T NEED TO We don’t need to ‘hate’ anyone, we simply need the

    DON’T HATE, WE DON’T NEED TO

    We don’t need to ‘hate’ anyone, we simply need the “rule of law of reciprocity”, and must insist on truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in public matters, as well as voluntary association and disassociation.

    The left are the haters and can’t succeed without lying and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities.

    With the “Winning Right”, the rule of law of RECIPROCITY, insistence on truth, voluntary association and disassociation, the losing left would group together in localities where they can create their own local laws and norms suited to their wants and needs. What’s great about that? They couldn’t infect the rest of us with their ideological hell.

    Thanks to: John Mark and Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:27:00 UTC

  • 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.

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:27:00 UTC