Theme: Reciprocity

  • Why is this complicated? Seriously. Disapproval, Shaming, Ridiculing in response

    Why is this complicated? Seriously.

    Disapproval, Shaming, Ridiculing in response to an attempted theft or fraud vs. Disapproval Shaming, Ridiculing in response to covering an attempted theft or fraud.

    Now, for some reason, it’s floating around, as DSR is a universal vs a particular: in other words, shaming people for a crime rather than for not letting them commit a crime.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-08 14:51:00 UTC

  • Rump Opens the Door to Natural Law Jurisprudence:

    “TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHRIGHT MANOEUVRE By Zachary Miller, Esq. The drafter of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was Jacob Howard, a Senator from Michigan. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard said this of his intent regarding that amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “THE AMENDMENT Which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” Of course, the currently dominant Scalian originalist legal philosophy does not extend to the contemplation of the intent of the drafter of an amendment; it stops short at the plain language of the document. Trump’s maneuver here is to ask the Supreme Court to go beyond originalism and inquire into Senator Howard’s intent when he drafted the amendment. And if successful, the result will be nothing less than the explicit enshrinement by the United States Supreme Court of the great and ancient natural law into American Constitutional Jurisprudence.” – Zachary Miller (via Brandon Hayes )

  • Rump Opens the Door to Natural Law Jurisprudence:

    “TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHRIGHT MANOEUVRE By Zachary Miller, Esq. The drafter of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was Jacob Howard, a Senator from Michigan. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard said this of his intent regarding that amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “THE AMENDMENT Which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” Of course, the currently dominant Scalian originalist legal philosophy does not extend to the contemplation of the intent of the drafter of an amendment; it stops short at the plain language of the document. Trump’s maneuver here is to ask the Supreme Court to go beyond originalism and inquire into Senator Howard’s intent when he drafted the amendment. And if successful, the result will be nothing less than the explicit enshrinement by the United States Supreme Court of the great and ancient natural law into American Constitutional Jurisprudence.” – Zachary Miller (via Brandon Hayes )

  • Well, all debts that aren’t enforcible are perceived. that’s what morality consi

    –Well, all debts that aren’t enforcible are perceived. that’s what morality consists in.– CD

    –“I hear you though , debt placement is the difference you are going for?

    So when you pray you’re placing the debt on your own shoulders, cast a spell you are accounting for it.

    And also the difference is one was made legal by the church and one was made illegal by the church…..also most spellshapers have science (wonder is science), while prayershapers carry the burden of proof(wonder is Tao)”— James Lyons Sr. I

    (CD: well done)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-05 10:40:00 UTC

  • Absolutism

    —“Absolutism asserts a preference as a good and then justifies that preference with facts (fits the world around the individual). Scientific Law of Tort models the social world. With this knowledge, the polity asserts its good in the name of the state, and the individuals assert their will to power within those limits for fear of punishment.”—Nick Rosenthal

    (genius)

  • Absolutism

    —“Absolutism asserts a preference as a good and then justifies that preference with facts (fits the world around the individual). Scientific Law of Tort models the social world. With this knowledge, the polity asserts its good in the name of the state, and the individuals assert their will to power within those limits for fear of punishment.”—Nick Rosenthal

    (genius)

  • You are clearly our enemy, and have declared yourself so. As such we will not sh

    You are clearly our enemy, and have declared yourself so. As such we will not share with you. We may trade with you – if you have anything to trade. If you are an enemy, and we cannot trade with you, then there is only one choice remaining: war. And we revel in it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 17:07:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059130137210470401

  • Most of all free riding, parasitism, theft, fraud, as attempts to cover thefts s

    Most of all free riding, parasitism, theft, fraud, as attempts to cover thefts should be shamed, punished, and punished so severely that it is not repeated. I mean, that’s what the law is for. Criminalizing parasites on both the private and commons. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 16:14:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059116699411271682

    Reply addressees: @PRO__UNLIMITED @PopChassid

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059102835198038017


    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/1059102835198038017

  • No no no. It’s that I make, we make, a full accounting of costs. And we suppress

    No no no. It’s that I make, we make, a full accounting of costs. And we suppress free riding, parasitism, fraud, duplicity, and dysgenia. LIke I said. You are thieves and we defend capital. Hyperconsumption, vs Anti Parasitism.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 16:13:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059116358506557442

    Reply addressees: @PRO__UNLIMITED @PopChassid

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059102835198038017


    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/1059102835198038017

  • “Absolutism asserts a preference as a good and then justifies that preference wi

    —“Absolutism asserts a preference as a good and then justifies that preference with facts (fits the world around the individual). Scientific Law of Tort models the social world. With this knowledge, the polity asserts its good in the name of the state, and the individuals assert their will to power within those limits for fear of punishment.”—Nick Rosenthal

    (genius)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 13:14:00 UTC