Theme: Reciprocity

  • (dark humor) —“If we install P-Law, and truthful speech in public, Can I still

    (dark humor)

    —“If we install P-Law, and truthful speech in public, Can I still troll leftists?”– @MartianHoplite

    —“If you can find any left.”–CD


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 21:25:00 UTC

  • “Lying, fraud, libel, slander, misrepresentation, misleading, suggestion, loadin

    —“Lying, fraud, libel, slander, misrepresentation, misleading, suggestion, loading, framing, obscuring, baiting into hazard, advocacy of, conspiracy of, involuntary transfer, is illegal. All speech is promissory, testimony, and is warrantied, and you’re liable for its consequences.”—Even simpler version


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 20:27:00 UTC

  • HOW WILL P-LAW ON TRUTHFUL AND RECIPROCAL PUBLIC SPEECH AFFECT ME, AND OUR LIVES

    HOW WILL P-LAW ON TRUTHFUL AND RECIPROCAL PUBLIC SPEECH AFFECT ME, AND OUR LIVES?

    We’re decreasing tolerance for, and extending the liability for, the truthfulness and reciprocity we already enforce in contracts, selling, marketing and advertising, to all speech in public to the public, on matters of the public, making it impossible for anyone, including you, marketers, professors, intellectuals, media, and politicians, say anything they can’t testify to in court, because it is testifiable, and reciprocal. Meaning you must limit your public speech in public, to the public in matters public, especially for persona, economic or political gains, to what you can demonstrate you know enough to testify to, and that you can demonstrate you are not advocating, encouraging, or causing, the imposition of costs upon others without their fully informed, voluntary exchange. The only objection you can have is if you want engage in false and or irreciprocal speech. This means we will restore libel, slander, harmful gossip (undermining), psychologizing and moralizing (undermining instead of explaining the rational incentives of the people involved), suggestion(implying but not stating), obscurantism (hiding the truth), all left attempts at using the government to take rather than exchange between us, and all left attempts at lying about humans, our psychological, social, economic, and political orders. In other words, it will restore our informational commons to only that which one warrants is not false and not hurtful or harmful, or you will pay the price as if you did so in court. This means you can say whatever you want as long as it’s a constructive, a compromise exchange, helpful, and true. It means you cant say anything that’s destructive, encouraging conspiracy, harmful, and false. Yes the government, the media, advertising, marketing, public intellectuals, professors and teachers can no longer say comforting false things, and that your protection as a consumer made every single person in a company responsible for telling the truth and doing the reciprocal, ethical, moral thing, or they are open to prosecution. Yes it means that there will be a flurry of court cases as we build up a body of law for the many new conditions the law must cover, but this is what we do all the time, and we are very, very good at it. And it is very hard to be found guilty if you have in fact been careful with your words. And of course, no one cares about petty individual slip ups. We all make them. It is however different when it’s in the media, or from a public intellectual or politician attempting to inform the public or frame public discourse.. I suspect a rapid decline in news and a rapid shift in what remains, and that twitter and Facebook will have very serious problems if they are publishers, and as such will shift to platforms. And very quickly we will go back to a much less politicized, much more peaceful, much more prosocial civilization.”


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 19:03:00 UTC

  • “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 they don’t want to because they’re addicted to their false narratives? …. I suppose that sort of addiction could be filed under don’t or can’t understand – little agency.”—Alain Dwight

    —“No, I just mean that people who little or no familiarity with P read or hear that we want to punish lie and automatically conclude we want a monopoly of truth just like so many totalitarian movements before. I know I’d think the same if that was all I knew about P.”—Martin Štěpán


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 18:28:00 UTC

  • WHY THE LEFT CAN’T MEME —“Why are the left so bad at memes? They are so good a

    WHY THE LEFT CAN’T MEME
    —“Why are the left so bad at memes? They are so good at other forms of GRRSM.”—Patrick Darcy

    Because a meme uses humor to convey truth – reciprocities. They cannot speak the truth. They can only complain, and ridicule – parasitisms.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 01:35:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188992617721352192

  • WHY THE LEFT CAN’T MEME —“Why are the left so bad at memes? They are so good a

    WHY THE LEFT CAN’T MEME

    —“Why are the left so bad at memes? They are so good at other forms of GRRSM.”—Patrick Darcy

    Because a meme uses humor to convey truth – reciprocities. They cannot speak the truth. They can only complain, and ridicule – parasitisms.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 21:34:00 UTC

  • You have the ability to reproduce as long as in doing so you do not violate reci

    You have the ability to reproduce as long as in doing so you do not violate reciprocity with those whom you share and depend upon the commons. So you cannot have a Right to anything not obtained in exchange. You can only have the ability. And claiming it as a Right = fraud = lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 16:50:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188860573724884994

    Reply addressees: @natrolleon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188860079283621890


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @natrolleon … privilege. Those privileges are not ‘rights’ under the law of reciprocity, only contract terms with the polity.
    Now, to answer your question, you have the ability to act including lie, cheat, steal, harm, kill, and reproduce. So while you have this ability you have no right.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188860079283621890


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @natrolleon … privilege. Those privileges are not ‘rights’ under the law of reciprocity, only contract terms with the polity.
    Now, to answer your question, you have the ability to act including lie, cheat, steal, harm, kill, and reproduce. So while you have this ability you have no right.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188860079283621890

  • privilege. Those privileges are not ‘rights’ under the law of reciprocity, only

    … privilege. Those privileges are not ‘rights’ under the law of reciprocity, only contract terms with the polity.
    Now, to answer your question, you have the ability to act including lie, cheat, steal, harm, kill, and reproduce. So while you have this ability you have no right.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 16:48:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188860079283621890

    Reply addressees: @natrolleon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188859641796714496


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @natrolleon .. such that one need not possess domain knowledge to determine what we may not do because it violates reciprocity. We can create via positiva privileges if we so desire, and the right to sue for claims to that privilege as well. But we only have right to suit over that …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188859641796714496


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @natrolleon .. such that one need not possess domain knowledge to determine what we may not do because it violates reciprocity. We can create via positiva privileges if we so desire, and the right to sue for claims to that privilege as well. But we only have right to suit over that …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188859641796714496

  • such that one need not possess domain knowledge to determine what we may not do

    .. such that one need not possess domain knowledge to determine what we may not do because it violates reciprocity. We can create via positiva privileges if we so desire, and the right to sue for claims to that privilege as well. But we only have right to suit over that …


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 16:46:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188859641796714496

    Reply addressees: @natrolleon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188858866781638656


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @natrolleon No natural rights exist. Natural law exists as a means of decidability. Under natural law we can CREATE via-negativa rights to suit before the court, as the insurer of reciprocity between those who have created that commons. We can articulate ‘natural rights’ within courts …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188858866781638656


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @natrolleon No natural rights exist. Natural law exists as a means of decidability. Under natural law we can CREATE via-negativa rights to suit before the court, as the insurer of reciprocity between those who have created that commons. We can articulate ‘natural rights’ within courts …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188858866781638656

  • No natural rights exist. Natural law exists as a means of decidability. Under na

    No natural rights exist. Natural law exists as a means of decidability. Under natural law we can CREATE via-negativa rights to suit before the court, as the insurer of reciprocity between those who have created that commons. We can articulate ‘natural rights’ within courts …


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 16:43:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188858866781638656

    Reply addressees: @natrolleon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188858280543752194


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @natrolleon In other words, if you want the benefit of the commons, then you may not impose costs upon those who produce and depend on those commons, where the institution of property is itself a commons produced by reciprocal exchange of defense of that commons.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188858280543752194


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @natrolleon In other words, if you want the benefit of the commons, then you may not impose costs upon those who produce and depend on those commons, where the institution of property is itself a commons produced by reciprocal exchange of defense of that commons.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188858280543752194