THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false, non-parasitic) political speech. In fact, it was the state that ended our market for truthful speech. Why? … Isn’t science an ongoing discovery process? doesn’t it function as a market for information, with career ending punishments for violators? Don’t we protect against fraud and deceit in the market for goods and services – and provide special protections that PROHIBIT us from defending the market for information against fraud and deceit? Didn’t we, for millennia, protect against libel(written) and slander(spoken), and don’t we grant special privileges that prevent us from using the course to protect ourselves from libel and slander – especially in large scale media? In other words, doesn’t the state PROHIBIT us from self defense against falsehoods? Why is it that we cannot in private advocate for conspiracy (theft), yet in public can advocate for conspiracy (theft) as long as the majority of conspirators approve of the theft? Why is it that we used to be able to protect the environment,and the commons via the judiciary, but the state removed our juridical defense? Why is it that the state removed our juridical defense against members of the bureaucracy, the government, the academy, and the media? Are you going to try to advocate that reciprocity (natural law) is not, in cooperation, the equivalence of truth (decidability)? Or are you saying specifically that people should be able to violate reciprocity and violate truth in order to use large numbers to impose thefts using the violence of the government, in order to obtain by non-reciprocity and deceit, that which they might obtain by voluntary exchange, thereby depriving those who have one thing from obtaining another thing in exchange? Just because you can’t figure out how to create law of information regarding political speech (forcible coercion) such that it holds to the same standards as market speech (goods, services, and information) doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact. it was done for millennia. The question is why did the state take it away, and why can we not restore it?
Theme: Reciprocity
-
Of Course We Can Demand Reciprocity
THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false, non-parasitic) political speech. In fact, it was the state that ended our market for truthful speech. Why? … Isn’t science an ongoing discovery process? doesn’t it function as a market for information, with career ending punishments for violators? Don’t we protect against fraud and deceit in the market for goods and services – and provide special protections that PROHIBIT us from defending the market for information against fraud and deceit? Didn’t we, for millennia, protect against libel(written) and slander(spoken), and don’t we grant special privileges that prevent us from using the course to protect ourselves from libel and slander – especially in large scale media? In other words, doesn’t the state PROHIBIT us from self defense against falsehoods? Why is it that we cannot in private advocate for conspiracy (theft), yet in public can advocate for conspiracy (theft) as long as the majority of conspirators approve of the theft? Why is it that we used to be able to protect the environment,and the commons via the judiciary, but the state removed our juridical defense? Why is it that the state removed our juridical defense against members of the bureaucracy, the government, the academy, and the media? Are you going to try to advocate that reciprocity (natural law) is not, in cooperation, the equivalence of truth (decidability)? Or are you saying specifically that people should be able to violate reciprocity and violate truth in order to use large numbers to impose thefts using the violence of the government, in order to obtain by non-reciprocity and deceit, that which they might obtain by voluntary exchange, thereby depriving those who have one thing from obtaining another thing in exchange? Just because you can’t figure out how to create law of information regarding political speech (forcible coercion) such that it holds to the same standards as market speech (goods, services, and information) doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact. it was done for millennia. The question is why did the state take it away, and why can we not restore it?
-
Why can’t local, regional, and national courts adjudicate by reciprocity as well
Why can’t local, regional, and national courts adjudicate by reciprocity as well?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:53:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697925205172224
Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209
IN REPLY TO:
@Its_Lynnocent
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209
-
Don’t international courts already adjudicate by reciprocity? (yes)
Don’t international courts already adjudicate by reciprocity? (yes)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:53:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697833677017089
Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209
IN REPLY TO:
@Its_Lynnocent
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209
-
Is there any reason we cannot warranty due diligence of full accounting of recip
Is there any reason we cannot warranty due diligence of full accounting of reciprocity? (no)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:52:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697710104432641
Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209
IN REPLY TO:
@Its_Lynnocent
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209
-
Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just sayi
Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just saying there is no rule of law, and lying has replaced violence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 18:37:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853678791637561344
Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416
IN REPLY TO:
@Its_Lynnocent
@curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Who is going to decide who is using true or false speech? The right? The left? Bad idea mate.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416
-
There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error,
There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism + deceit.
Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just saying there is no rule of law, and lying has replaced violence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:38:00 UTC
-
WE? WHO ARE ‘WE’? We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform
WE? WHO ARE ‘WE’?
We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon those who act as parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:10:00 UTC
-
No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostraciz
No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostracize(remove), or kill those who do not limit their actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs either directly or by externality against that which others have obtained an interest by the same means. People will not happily cooperate, they will cooperate because it is profitable for those who enforce such cooperation to enforce it, and profitable for people who are the victims of involuntarily imposed costs, and unprofitable for those who even attempt to impose costs. In other words: rule of law, under natural law, the scope of property being demonstrated by acts reciprocity.
Now, go ahead and try to refute that, and I’ll eat you for lunch like pringles with beer.
I don’t do pseudoscience, or pseudorationalism, or idealism, or supernaturalism. I do science.
Now try it. Go a head. Lets see if you can hold your own without lying, prevaricating, or straw manning. ;)
btw: I never said the state is a market. I said the state is an error of corporatism. But that commons are necessary for the competitive existence and persistency of a polity capable of producing liberty. So, how can one produce commons while preserving rule of law, while preventing the rise of discretionary rule (a state)? I can answer that question. You cannot. You cannot because you allowed the problem to be framed as impossible – and developing excuses to pretend it wasn’t necessary, rather than solving the problem, or simply admitting you could not – as rothbard could not – solve the problem.
Read more
Reply
I don’t use a state. I use nothing but private property and rule of law, under natural law.
How will you create the commons of property rights if commons are ‘invalid’?
Well, someone would have to sue the mises institute for fraud, damages, etc. Which I assume would occur. But there is no ‘state’ to take action in the absence of private suit against those who distribute falsehoods.
Reply
Funny. I though my ”whole thing’ was to eliminate jewish marxism, jewish libertinism, jewish neo-conservativsm, anglo french and german pseudorationalism and pseudoscience, and restore empirical (truthful) government and a market between the classes using multiple houses of representatives chosen by lot.
But then with a name like (((Rose))) I suppose you are just another liar doing what liars do – whether lying by intent, whether culturally indoctrinated into lying, or whether genetic predisposition to lying. 😉 (bait)
Here is how to translate Rose: “I want a way to steal. I want to steal private production (jewish socialism), I want to steal commons production (jewish l ibertarianism) or I want to steal political production (jewish neoconservatism).
Conservatives just want to stop you from stealing. Anglo Libertarianism just want to stop you from stealing even a little – even including stealing by their own.
–“We”–
We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you. IN which case we will happily exterminate people like you who continue to advocate methods of parasitism. ;)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:09:00 UTC
-
One need not require truth, only prohibit falsehood, incompleteness, and irrecip
One need not require truth, only prohibit falsehood, incompleteness, and irreciprocity – something courts do every day.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:02:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853609659332276225
Reply addressees: @JayMan471 @primalpoly
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853575968040026112
IN REPLY TO:
@JayMan471
@curtdoolittle @gmiller This is impossible to implement.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853575968040026112