Theme: Reciprocity

SECOND RESPONSE TO​ TURD FLINGING MONKEY

(good material for countering critics)

—“@Curt Doolittle You’ve simply proven my point. Under your system, everyone would sue everyone for any criticism, and this would have a far reaching silencing effect, which would make civil discourse impossible out of fear, and lead to violence as the natural consequence. You say “fewer public opinions of higher quality”, but in reality it would simply lead to the mass silencing on opinions which are not approved by the ruling class of judges who determine what is and isn’t approved.

You accuse me of straw-manning while proving my point. Obviously under your system you would sue me and it would be left to judge to sort out. Maybe they side with you, maybe they side with me, but either way it rests on the personal beliefs, biases, and interpretations of judges with no input from the people. This is rule by judges, but you don’t see it that way in the same way that Communists would reject the idea that their system leads to a Dictatorship. They would scoff at the idea that they support Dictators, even though that would inevitably happen (and has happened) whenever their system is implemented.”—

So how would judges and JURIES make decisions on the truthfulness, due diligence, and harm of a statement – and why would that be DISCRETIONARY rather than DECIDABLE?

In other words, since P consists of a methodology for such due diligence under law, such that you know, and the court knows, and the jury knows, you performed sufficient due diligence to satisfy demand for decidability before making a claim – then whether the claim is later found true or false is immaterial.

And if found against you, retraction and equal promotion would be required – plus court costs.

In this case you did not criticize wether that method of due diligence would provide decidability versus discretion. You assumed P is an ideology or philosophy rather than a methodology where one part of that methodology which consists of those steps of due diligence.

And you did not criticize whether that methodology will in fact provide decidability rather than discretion that you accuse me of fostering.

The answer is, that you are lazy, didn’t do your due diligence, and sought attention and signaling and perhaps income by criticizing that which you did not understand is a formal (in the grammatical sense ) logic.

And like every excuse maker in history you are trying to preserve your source of attention, signaling, self image, and possible income, by externalizing costs onto others – in my case defense of my work, it’s brand, and the potential to offer a viable solution to conquest by the sophisms of the left.

Now, were ths law in place, you would no doubt simply have done your due diligence and PAID THE COST YOURSELF, rather than making a dishonest statement in public and forcing me to bear the cost of defending it.

Or you could have, at the very least, engaged in reciprocity, produced a list of questions, and either published those questions or asked me to answer them for you.

Instead you made an assertion without the effort and knowledge of doing so and forced me to bear a cost. In other words, you’re a thief.

P asks you to perform due diligence before polluting the informational commons with falsehoods. P consists of a methodology that you can use and the court can use to test whether you performed due diligence.

P doesn’t ask us to know the truth. it asks us to perform due diligence against making false and harmful statements that pollute the information commons.

The jury is exceptionally good at testing whether one did due diligence, and whether that due diligence is reasonable.

Now, could keynesian economics survive? I don’t think so. Could postmodern academy survive? I don’t think so. But conservatism and anglo libertarianism can because they consists of nothing other than what I am proposing: rule of law with full accounting of display word and deed.

Stifling discourse isn’t the point. Stifling the stupid, ignorant, lazy, dishonest, and malfeasant is the point.

You would adapt your behavior. your returns on laziness in exchange for attention, signals, and possible income would be lower, and therefore the cost to the informational commons for the damage you do to it would be lower.

The problem with our law is the increase in discretion under activist pressure because there is no formal logic to the law that limits its abuse.

Now there is.

No more lies. No more fraudulent returns. Not in commerce, not in finance, not in economics and politics – and not in shit-talking virtue signaling, attention seeking nonsense from the peanut gallery.

Pay your way to enlightenment. Don’t make others pay to educate you in defense of the commons you seek to pollute.

–follow up–

(and it kind of pains me to point out that rule of law, which is the method that separates the west from ALL OTHER PEOPLES and is the single most influential reason for our success in the ancient and modern worlds, is how we live and how we always have lived other than under communism, socialism, and discretionary fascism. Rule of law is the goal of all peoples. It is GOVERNMENT in the via positiva that is discretionary. It is RULE in the via negativa by LAW that is not discretionary. WHile there is value in discretion in the allocation of punishments there is very little value in discretion of truth or falsehood. And despite what you (naively) might think, the courts are absurdly good at what they do. Despite the fact that we have ‘shitty’ laws. Particularly shitty laws defending men from women and the state.)