Theme: Reciprocity

  • The Construction Of A Civil Order

    by John Dow I would define a ‘Civil Order’ as the result of successfully negotiated, reciprocal social construction. In order to successfully negotiate a condition of interpersonal reciprocity we must have incentive to: 1) reciprocally participate (suppression of parasitism), 2) trust that exchange shall be honoured (insurance) and; 3) commensurable means of reference and calculation (truthful speech and operational law). Mindfulness practiced correctly enables one to better conceive of the externalities of their behaviour and the actual and/or potential social rewards and punishments which accrue from these externalities. Thus, as Mindfulness generates greater rationality in the practitioner, it generates greater capacity to calculate reciprocity, therefore generating greater capacity to successfully negotiate reciprocity. (curt says: “perfection”. That is how it is done.)
  • THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CIVIL ORDER by Joel Davis I would define a ‘Civil Order’ a

    THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CIVIL ORDER

    by Joel Davis

    I would define a ‘Civil Order’ as the result of successfully negotiated, reciprocal social construction.

    In order to successfully negotiate a condition of interpersonal reciprocity we must have incentive to:

    1) reciprocally participate (suppression of parasitism),

    2) trust that exchange shall be honoured (insurance) and;

    3) commensurable means of reference and calculation (truthful speech and operational law).

    Mindfulness practiced correctly enables one to better conceive of the externalities of their behaviour and the actual and/or potential social rewards and punishments which accrue from these externalities.

    Thus, as Mindfulness generates greater rationality in the practitioner, it generates greater capacity to calculate reciprocity, therefore generating greater capacity to successfully negotiate reciprocity.

    (curt says: “perfection”. That is how it is done.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 12:19:00 UTC

  • Against Higgs On Anti Minarchism Whereas

    The common natural law of reciprocity, adjudicated by professional judges, constitutes a market for the resolution of differences using the incremental discovery of the application of the test of reciprocity. To argue for poly-anything law is not to argue for scientific (reciprocity) law, but to argue for FALSE AND scientifically (objectively) IMMORAL LAW. (Yes, really) WHEREAS No group, under rule of law, can compete in the market for polities, which themselves constitute a market for markets, without the production of commons. The question is only the method by which commons are chosen and produced, and the method by which parasitism(privatization) of, and free riding upon those commons is prevented. While majoritarian democracy constitutes a MONOPOLY production of commons, which is unnecessary and the source of our conflicts; And while it is not clear that democracy is a good method of decision making for the production of commons; and while it s certain that representative democracy is disaster in the production of commons, it is not true – whatsoever – that direct democracy limited by rule of law, where votes are proportional(economic) or equal(shareholder), would be any less effective, than monarchical (private ownership of the commons) government. In fact, it is very hard to make the case that monarchical decision making limited by rule of law, was not and would not be superior to democratic decision making – as long as the polities were small enough (city states) such that individual discretion (decision making) on the production of commons was physically possible (by direct and empirical experience.) FURTHERMORE No group, under rule of law, under markets for commons, can defend itself from competition for territory, and monopoly definition of property rights, and No group, under rule of law, can resolve conflicts without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy). No group, under rule of law, can produce commons without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy) THEREFORE This is why libertarianism cannot exist, and never will exist, and only NOMOCRACY can, ever, exist. WE HAD PERFECT GOVERNMENT: An independent judiciary under the common, natural law of reciprocity. A monarchy as judge of last resort (veto) A House of Territories (Nobility) Limiting the fashion of the middle class. A House of Business Owners (House of Commons) The Church (A house of labor and dependents) which should have been replaced with: A House of Common People (non-propertied and dependent peoples) An Independent (private) treasury. A separate set of institutions for education in virtues, mindfulness, normative skills (Church) and Academy A separate set of institutions for education in commercial skills (Apprenticeships, Guilds, “Colleges”.) By this method we created “Markets In Everything”. Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of goods, services, and information, Production of Commons, Production of Polities, and Production of Group Evolutionary Strategies. Libertarianism was a nonsense experiment in applying the eastern european borderland Ashkenazi (Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian) diasporic ethic as a universal ethic, but it is nothing but judaism version two, just as Postmodernism is nothing but Catholicism version two. And we know how diasporic peoples do: Jews and Gypsies. They are persecuted forever as hostile minorities at both ends of the normative scale. Neither Christianity nor Judaism are possible without the Martial aristocracy to rule. They are nothing but cults of rebellion whereby the middle and lower classes try to avoid the necessary costs of production the market for commons. There is a reason northern europeans and americans were high trust people and literally NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH ever was other than perhaps the spartans. MAN WAS NOT OPPRESSED HE WAS DOMESTICATED LIKE EVERY OTHER ANIMAL. Time to grow up, kiddies. Sovereignty is had or not by the ability to enforce it by arms. But liberty is had only by permission of the sovereign. And the sovereign have no incentive to grant it other than to borderlands – and there are no borderlands left that are habitable. Sovereignty or slavery. Choose. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • Against Higgs On Anti Minarchism Whereas

    The common natural law of reciprocity, adjudicated by professional judges, constitutes a market for the resolution of differences using the incremental discovery of the application of the test of reciprocity. To argue for poly-anything law is not to argue for scientific (reciprocity) law, but to argue for FALSE AND scientifically (objectively) IMMORAL LAW. (Yes, really) WHEREAS No group, under rule of law, can compete in the market for polities, which themselves constitute a market for markets, without the production of commons. The question is only the method by which commons are chosen and produced, and the method by which parasitism(privatization) of, and free riding upon those commons is prevented. While majoritarian democracy constitutes a MONOPOLY production of commons, which is unnecessary and the source of our conflicts; And while it is not clear that democracy is a good method of decision making for the production of commons; and while it s certain that representative democracy is disaster in the production of commons, it is not true – whatsoever – that direct democracy limited by rule of law, where votes are proportional(economic) or equal(shareholder), would be any less effective, than monarchical (private ownership of the commons) government. In fact, it is very hard to make the case that monarchical decision making limited by rule of law, was not and would not be superior to democratic decision making – as long as the polities were small enough (city states) such that individual discretion (decision making) on the production of commons was physically possible (by direct and empirical experience.) FURTHERMORE No group, under rule of law, under markets for commons, can defend itself from competition for territory, and monopoly definition of property rights, and No group, under rule of law, can resolve conflicts without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy). No group, under rule of law, can produce commons without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy) THEREFORE This is why libertarianism cannot exist, and never will exist, and only NOMOCRACY can, ever, exist. WE HAD PERFECT GOVERNMENT: An independent judiciary under the common, natural law of reciprocity. A monarchy as judge of last resort (veto) A House of Territories (Nobility) Limiting the fashion of the middle class. A House of Business Owners (House of Commons) The Church (A house of labor and dependents) which should have been replaced with: A House of Common People (non-propertied and dependent peoples) An Independent (private) treasury. A separate set of institutions for education in virtues, mindfulness, normative skills (Church) and Academy A separate set of institutions for education in commercial skills (Apprenticeships, Guilds, “Colleges”.) By this method we created “Markets In Everything”. Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of goods, services, and information, Production of Commons, Production of Polities, and Production of Group Evolutionary Strategies. Libertarianism was a nonsense experiment in applying the eastern european borderland Ashkenazi (Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian) diasporic ethic as a universal ethic, but it is nothing but judaism version two, just as Postmodernism is nothing but Catholicism version two. And we know how diasporic peoples do: Jews and Gypsies. They are persecuted forever as hostile minorities at both ends of the normative scale. Neither Christianity nor Judaism are possible without the Martial aristocracy to rule. They are nothing but cults of rebellion whereby the middle and lower classes try to avoid the necessary costs of production the market for commons. There is a reason northern europeans and americans were high trust people and literally NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH ever was other than perhaps the spartans. MAN WAS NOT OPPRESSED HE WAS DOMESTICATED LIKE EVERY OTHER ANIMAL. Time to grow up, kiddies. Sovereignty is had or not by the ability to enforce it by arms. But liberty is had only by permission of the sovereign. And the sovereign have no incentive to grant it other than to borderlands – and there are no borderlands left that are habitable. Sovereignty or slavery. Choose. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • AGAINST HIGGS ON ANTI MINARCHISM WHEREAS The common natural law of reciprocity,

    AGAINST HIGGS ON ANTI MINARCHISM

    WHEREAS

    The common natural law of reciprocity, adjudicated by professional judges, constitutes a market for the resolution of differences using the incremental discovery of the application of the test of reciprocity. To argue for poly-anything law is not to argue for scientific (reciprocity) law, but to argue for FALSE AND scientifically (objectively) IMMORAL LAW. (Yes, really)

    WHEREAS

    No group, under rule of law, can compete in the market for polities, which themselves constitute a market for markets, without the production of commons. The question is only the method by which commons are chosen and produced, and the method by which parasitism(privatization) of, and free riding upon those commons is prevented. While majoritarian democracy constitutes a MONOPOLY production of commons, which is unnecessary and the source of our conflicts; And while it is not clear that democracy is a good method of decision making for the production of commons; and while it s certain that representative democracy is disaster in the production of commons, it is not true – whatsoever – that direct democracy limited by rule of law, where votes are proportional(economic) or equal(shareholder), would be any less effective, than monarchical (private ownership of the commons) government. In fact, it is very hard to make the case that monarchical decision making limited by rule of law, was not and would not be superior to democratic decision making – as long as the polities were small enough (city states) such that individual discretion (decision making) on the production of commons was physically possible (by direct and empirical experience.)

    FURTHERMORE

    No group, under rule of law, under markets for commons, can defend itself from competition for territory, and monopoly definition of property rights, and

    No group, under rule of law, can resolve conflicts without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy).

    No group, under rule of law, can produce commons without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy)

    THEREFORE

    This is why libertarianism cannot exist, and never will exist, and only NOMOCRACY can, ever, exist.

    WE HAD PERFECT GOVERNMENT:

    An independent judiciary under the common, natural law of reciprocity.

    A monarchy as judge of last resort (veto)

    A House of Territories (Nobility) Limiting the fashion of the middle class.

    A House of Business Owners (House of Commons)

    The Church (A house of labor and dependents) which should have been replaced with:

    A House of Common People (non-propertied and dependent peoples)

    An Independent (private) treasury.

    A separate set of institutions for education in virtues, mindfulness, normative skills (Church) and Academy

    A separate set of institutions for education in commercial skills (Apprenticeships, Guilds, “Colleges”.)

    By this method we created “Markets In Everything”. Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of goods, services, and information, Production of Commons, Production of Polities, and Production of Group Evolutionary Strategies.

    Libertarianism was a nonsense experiment in applying the eastern european borderland Ashkenazi (Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian) diasporic ethic as a universal ethic, but it is nothing but judaism version two, just as Postmodernism is nothing but Catholicism version two. And we know how diasporic peoples do: Jews and Gypsies. They are persecuted forever as hostile minorities at both ends of the normative scale.

    Neither Christianity nor Judaism are possible without the Martial aristocracy to rule. They are nothing but cults of rebellion whereby the middle and lower classes try to avoid the necessary costs of production the market for commons.

    There is a reason northern europeans and americans were high trust people and literally NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH ever was other than perhaps the spartans.

    MAN WAS NOT OPPRESSED HE WAS DOMESTICATED LIKE EVERY OTHER ANIMAL.

    Time to grow up, kiddies. Sovereignty is had or not by the ability to enforce it by arms. But liberty is had only by permission of the sovereign. And the sovereign have no incentive to grant it other than to borderlands – and there are no borderlands left that are habitable.

    Sovereignty or slavery.

    Choose.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-04 12:53:00 UTC

  • Natural Law: Prosecution of the criminal, unethical, and immoral, in display, wo

    Natural Law: Prosecution of the criminal, unethical, and immoral, in display, word, and deed. It’s that simple.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-29 14:21:00 UTC

  • 1) There is only one natural law: reciprocity. 2) Any religion that claims any o

    1) There is only one natural law: reciprocity.

    2) Any religion that claims any other law is both a violation of natural law, and therefore a deception, fraud, theft, and harm to mankind.

    3) No religion that relies on law other than natural law is not then a religion but a political system seeking to displace the current system by fraud, indifferent from seeking to displace the system of natural law by violence.

    4) Any attempt to advocate, apply, or institutionalize any law other than Natural Law is an act of war.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-23 18:15:00 UTC

  • By Al Freeman The NAP comes with a false assumption of reciprocity, and its adhe

    By Al Freeman

    The NAP comes with a false assumption of reciprocity, and its adherents are feverish to the point of cultism.

    It is like a grown up version of the child’s “golden rule”, and like that child’s version, will get you in trouble fast.

    The rule can never be: “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

    It has to be: “Do unto others as they have agreed to do to you, and in the absence of an agreement, all bets are off.”

    Or in the words of the great General Mattis: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-22 17:05:00 UTC

  • Your argumentative technique (the methods you rely upon in argument), the capita

    Your argumentative technique (the methods you rely upon in argument), the capital and property allocations you rely upon, and the degree of reciprocity you rely upon, are not *opinions* any more than *morality* is an opinion, or any more than *gravity* is an opinion. These are simply facts.

    Thats what you dont understand: your abrahamic lying is over. After 2400 years we have finally destroyed abrahamic lying. We have made speech and argument into a SCIENCE from which your lies cannot escape.

    Either you speak truthfully or you speak in deception.

    That’s all there is to it.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-20 09:48:00 UTC

  • There Are No Ideal Governments, Only One Ideal Rule.

    IDEAL METHODS OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE SIMPLY TECHNOLOGIES TO APPLY IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. (you probably want to read this) Ideal RULE exists: rule of natural law, and markets in everything providing perfect decidability in matters of conflict. Ideal *Government*- meaning the production of commons, must adapt as does any organization to market (conflict, peace, prosperity) demands.

    —“Nazism, fascism are merely conservative and nationalistic versions of socialism. Nobody is under the illusion individuals own anything under nazism/fascism. Even men’s body’s become the property of the state. The world anti fascist war was fought from 1939-45 precisely because the sober knew the danger”— A Friend Correct. It was an era of warfare against communism. The difference was that while napoleon had invented total war of nationalism, the marxists and bolsheviks had created a total war of the underclass by way of rebellion, a pseudoscientific religion to replace mysticism, using the promise of heaven in this life rather than the next. Fascism responded yet again with nationalism expanded to economic and cultural warfare in return, where napoleon had responded with military fascism in the roman model. Hitler’s ‘genius’ was to combine mussolini’s nationalism with an aesthetic religion to match or exceed that of the communist underclasses, thereby uniting classes against communism’s cult. Neither model is economically feasible, but both are simply methods of conducting warfare by the use of propaganda made possible by rail, telegraph, radio, and cinema. The pulpit could be everywhere. But we can learn from rome as usual: fascism (generalship) in times of war, and markets (rule of law) in times of peace. And that a government must adapt to circumstance, whether warfare (fascism), peace (classical liberalism), or surplus (social democracy). And that such adaptation is merely scientific necessity rather than pondering the folly of philosophical ideals. In other words: Technology(Real) not philosophy(ideal). You are, I think, as a moral man, confusing the ideal ‘good’ (classical liberalism in times of peace) with the necessary (fascism in times of war), with social democracy (redistribution of windfalls) and that governments must flex between the three models as necessary given their circumstances. And better yet, that flexibility allows for the destruction of rents accumulated under each model. As far as I know the science of government is closed. All anyone can do is lie cheat and steal if they advocate otherwise. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine