Theme: Reciprocity

  • Error. Moral=Reciprocal. reposting

    Error. Moral=Reciprocal.
    reposting


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-02 18:47:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870713445804642304

    Reply addressees: @danielcraigb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870674834635862017


    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/870674834635862017

  • Natural Law on Gender

    NATURAL LAW ON GENDER Whereas There exist but two genders. Male and Female. These genders are compatible. Both genders provide necessary reciprocity to one another in the production of family and offspring.  Both genders develop traits for each gender, and each gender divides the labor of transcendence with different traits, but with greater or lesser intensity of either. Individuals are born with determining genitalia and genetics. Individuals are born with in utero successes and in utero failures. Individuals mature with developmental successes and developmental failures. Individuals develop psychological successes and failures, primarily due to insufficient training by socialization, shocks or trauma that disrupt the psychological training. Whereas Defects of birth that cannot be changed or that individuals desire to preserve, must be either tolerated or not. Defects of development must be tolerated or not. But defects of training of one’s psychology need not be tolerated. And the export of the costs of one’s defects in utero, development, or training may not be imposed by any means onto the body of the people for whom the transcendence of man by the transcendence of their family is of necessity, and the accommodation and tolerance of failures in that transcendence a cost they may choose to bear or not. As such homosexuality may not be punished, nor accommodated. And all other deviations of gender need not be tolerated if they are perceivable in the commons. And deviations that threaten the young or less able, need be cured or the individual terminated. Therefore The Natural Law recognizes only two genders male and female, defects of birth, defects of training, and defects of choice. And therefore no imposition shall be forced upon those with defects other than that of birth defect, fraud of weights and measures,  or imposition of costs upon the commons. Therefore All public word, deed, and display shall conform to one’s gender such that none impose his defects upon others in the commons. And none shall impose upon private word, deed and display, unless it imposes costs upon those external to the voluntary exchange of word, deed, and display.CounselKnowledge of a thing’s existence is not the same as sense of its existence. It is only sense and cost of existence that the Law prohibits.

  • Natural Law on Gender

    NATURAL LAW ON GENDER Whereas There exist but two genders. Male and Female. These genders are compatible. Both genders provide necessary reciprocity to one another in the production of family and offspring.  Both genders develop traits for each gender, and each gender divides the labor of transcendence with different traits, but with greater or lesser intensity of either. Individuals are born with determining genitalia and genetics. Individuals are born with in utero successes and in utero failures. Individuals mature with developmental successes and developmental failures. Individuals develop psychological successes and failures, primarily due to insufficient training by socialization, shocks or trauma that disrupt the psychological training. Whereas Defects of birth that cannot be changed or that individuals desire to preserve, must be either tolerated or not. Defects of development must be tolerated or not. But defects of training of one’s psychology need not be tolerated. And the export of the costs of one’s defects in utero, development, or training may not be imposed by any means onto the body of the people for whom the transcendence of man by the transcendence of their family is of necessity, and the accommodation and tolerance of failures in that transcendence a cost they may choose to bear or not. As such homosexuality may not be punished, nor accommodated. And all other deviations of gender need not be tolerated if they are perceivable in the commons. And deviations that threaten the young or less able, need be cured or the individual terminated. Therefore The Natural Law recognizes only two genders male and female, defects of birth, defects of training, and defects of choice. And therefore no imposition shall be forced upon those with defects other than that of birth defect, fraud of weights and measures,  or imposition of costs upon the commons. Therefore All public word, deed, and display shall conform to one’s gender such that none impose his defects upon others in the commons. And none shall impose upon private word, deed and display, unless it imposes costs upon those external to the voluntary exchange of word, deed, and display.CounselKnowledge of a thing’s existence is not the same as sense of its existence. It is only sense and cost of existence that the Law prohibits.

  • Why Can’t The Us Just Obliterate The Likes Of China And Russia?

    Because we are Europeans. We are the world’s Aristocracy. We invented aristocracy. We are also, unfortunately, Christians. Meaning we play ‘extremely forgiving tit for tat’. And so we don’t do that. We civilize people instead. It’s just more profitable.

    Look. when the Great Khan was to decimate China, his advisors told him how much money he could make by taxing them rather than just robbing and killing them.

    If you’re a westerner, with the only high trust civilization on earth, making customers is simply more profitable than killing them. 3500 years ago the Indo Europeans and conquered pretty much everything from the atlantic to the source of the Yellow River, and from the arctic circle to Egypt, with the Iranians dominating the warm climates and the europeans dominating the cooler climates.

    It’s just profitable to rule.

    It’s also really hard to profit from rule when almost everyone on earth is dead and the people who are left want to kill you.

    The real question is why the west and the russians don’t get together and kill everyone else and just enjoy the rest of history together.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-the-US-just-obliterate-the-likes-of-China-and-Russia

  • THE NATURAL LAW REGARDING TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS, AND PATENTS Abstract, or so ca

    THE NATURAL LAW REGARDING TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS, AND PATENTS

    Abstract, or so called, “Intellectual Property”.

    There are three forms of ‘abstract property’ if we speak operationally:

    1) Trademarks. A trademark serves as a weight and measure preventing fraud, as well as seizing and unearned opportunity, by fraudulent representation. The test of trademark is quite simple. If in three seconds a randomly selected group of jurors can confuse the two, it is a trademark violation. Otherwise not. This is simply empirical. Trademarks are necessary for the prevention of fraud, and violation of the requirement for productive fully informed warrantied exchange. (BTW: lots of research on this subject from different disciplines.)

    2) Copyrights. A copyright serves as a means of preventing the unearned profits from the works of others, and the taxes earned from it to pay for enforcement. Copyright both violates natural law by providing subsidy rather than just preventing unearned gains (violation of reciprocity for productivity), and by externality violates natural law, through the creation of moral hazard, and the financing of literature that violates natural law. For this reason, the Copyright can and should be replaced by trademark, which will not prevent copying for personal use, but will prevent unreciprocated earnings. Ergo, the current Creative Commons license serves as a trademark that must be licensed in order to perform reciprocity. As a side benefit, when combined with the requirement for testimonial truth in the commons (market), this will defund the entertainment industry, the advertising industry, the publishing industry, the privatization of research performed via public funds.

    3) Patents. Assuming a patent is applied for and issued as a means of producing goods that cannot be produced by market means otherwise, an exclusive license to recoup investments and produce multiples of returns is a useful means by which the population can encourage research and development using off-book financing. However, production in the normal course of business, and research and development are very different things. Therefore patents should only be granted in exchange for shares in the product producing returns for the population. And patents should be granted only for those goods that have some such public function. And a patent cannot be used to deny a product or service or information from the market, nor to control the prices of products and services and information on the market.

    In other words, a trademark functions as a weight and measure. A copyright as a trademark. and a few patents as contracts with the common people for assisting in the research and development of those goods, services, and information, that cannot be produced because of great expense and low chances of success.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 19:39:00 UTC

  • PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural La

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW

    The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)

    Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE:

    Fully understanding this one law may also require:

    1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.

    2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest.

    3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.

    4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.

    If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).

    This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 19:16:00 UTC

  • WHY I AM A CHRISTIAN, AND AN ARYAN (ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN) I am a Christian b

    WHY I AM A CHRISTIAN, AND AN ARYAN (ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN)

    I am a Christian because, as I understand it, to ‘be a Christian’ requires:

    (a) That the law of “God” meaning the Universe, is Natural Law, and that I am bound to both obey and force others to obey this law.

    (b) That the philosopher Jesus advised us – albeit in primitive language – to extend kinship love to non kin because it was the optimum prisoner’s dilemma strategy, and led to greater prosperity. Particularly in the west where markets and meritocracy were imposed as an inexpensive means of profitable rule by the Aristocracy. And even more so when combined with the exclusively western tolerance for climbing the dominance hierarchy via truth telling, even at status-cost to all involved. (heroism).

    (c) That we retain a dying, archaic, but psychologically necessary institution called the Church with gorgeous architecture, that served as a House of Feminine Familial Commons that divided labor with the Aristocracy’s House of Masculine Material Commons, but that, along with the church’s academy, has been (((occupied))) by those intent on destroying the West this time even more so than in the ancient world,

    (d) That we have retained a bunch of unnecessary archaic mumbo-jumbo invented for the inexpensive subjugation ignorant and stupid people, but that I can look past that to our ancestral past, and in those aristocratic myths and traditions find superior lessons for the more sophisticated people of today than those taught to the lowly in the past – before the rediscovery and reconquest of the west by the literature of the Aristocracy.

    (e) And that I made a promise to my god that I would do something about this catastrophe and save my people from a second conquest by more insidious forms of Abrahamism than the first. And that I have pursued this promise when quite young and have pursued it at great personal cost in each phase of my life.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 18:44:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU PLEASE DEFINE NATURAL LAW? In short, it’s ‘reciprocity’

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/01/12/definitionnatural-law/CURT: CAN YOU PLEASE DEFINE NATURAL LAW?

    In short, it’s ‘reciprocity’.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 09:44:00 UTC

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW AND COMPETITION IS WAR BY FRAUD RATHER THAN VIOLENCE. Reli

    THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW AND COMPETITION IS WAR BY FRAUD RATHER THAN VIOLENCE.

    Religion, when stated as positive law, consists of via-positiva commands and demands, and provides a means of subjugation, or division prior to conquest.

    Religion, when stated as Wisdom Literature, seeks only to provide advice you may or may not choose to take, solace you may choose to take when in need, and reason for celebration with your kin, tribe, and nation.

    Reason, when stated as a negative law, consists of via-negativa limits, provides a means of creating markets.

    Science, as measurement, provides a test of the truth of statements of reason, wisdom literature, and religion.

    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 any 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): 2017-05-30 09:37:00 UTC

  • What Is The Relationship Between Liberty And Capitalism?

    Sovereignty in fact exists or it does not. One has sufficient force in himself or his reciprocally insured allies to prevent his subjugation or not.

    Liberty is given by permission of the Sovereign, and refers to those who are self sufficient but whose rights can be imposed upon. Although liberty originally referred to the right of a people to preserve local law and custom in their own matters, and is therefore a political grant from the sovereigns, we tend to conflate it with Freedom.

    Freedom is given by permission of someone or some people capable of depriving you of it, and refers to those who might have been candidates for slavery, but have earned their freedom by some means, or at least, not lost it by other means. The common libertarian advocacy of a cuneiform term, says literally ‘return to the mother’, which means that one’s required service to the ruler for the term has been fulfilled.

    Capitalism refers to the use of contract, money, prices, and accounts, the elimination of rents on territorial resources, by its allocation to individuals, along with the distribution to individuals of discretion on the use of one’s physical energy, time, and possessions obtained by voluntary exchange. In other words, the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade using incentives made possible by individual calculation of the most beneficial options available to him. What is usually lost in this discourse is that the individualization of property prohibits local rents, allowing the centralization of rents that we consider taxation, and that this centralization of rents is one of the primary causes of the reduction of opportunity and transaction costs that makes a voluntarily organized economy possible at the expense of those who would live parasitically of the local collection of rents. In other words, capitalism converts subservience to ‘mafia’ at various local scales which impede production, to subservience to a single central ‘mafia’ in exchange for eliminating those rents that impeded production.

    Liberty AND Capitalism

    1. Therefore the relationship between capitalism and liberty is, precisely, that the sovereign will not interfere in the voluntary organization of production other than to create it in the first place, resolve conflicts as they arise by demand for reciprocity of obligation and rights in the contracts between parties, and to prevent the externalization of costs to the commons or the privatization of commons in the course of private transactions.
    2. However the problem of the degree of taxation (commission), the maximum calculation of which is the favorite hobby of economists, is not answered by this question. Nor is the use of those taxes (commissions), to produce commons within or without of the private economy.
    3. Therefore we colloquially use the term ‘capitalism’, to refer to the policy bias in favor of minimum taxation, competition, and interference in the market, and we use social democracy or the more pejorative ‘socialism’ to refer to the policy bias in favor of maximum taxation, egalitarianism, and interference in the market for the production of goods, services and information. The central conflcit being that the state does not insure the risk of capital and its losses but takes income regardless of that risk and those losses. And on the other hand, the combination of scale, wealth (capital), and credit, is such a more powerful competitive advantage that those with mere labor can compete with or even seek to participate in.
    4. Therefore liberty and capitalism can only exist when political questions are decidable because costs and returns are calculable, because coincidences of want are marginal, and consequences are perceivable. (Yeah, I know but once you read that a few times you’ll get it, and its important.)

    The net of this is that unless you possess sovereignty the best you can possess is liberty, and both liberty and property exist only as matters of degree in the balance between the impossibility of pure capitalism except between powerful states, and the impossibility of pure communism except within the family. And instead the useful point of demarcation between more capitalism less capitalism and least capitalism, depending upon whether we are in a mode of territorial or economic expansion requiring private risk(capitalism), a mode of relative calm requiring the production of commons (mixed economy), or at war (nationalized and centralized economy).

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-liberty-and-capitalism