My take is that the common law of torts, the articulation of natural law from the common law of tortes, is empirical, evidentiary, and demonstrably superior to all other works of fiction. There is much good fiction. I prefer fiction that says it is fiction, not fiction that lies, and says its truth.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 13:13:00 UTC
—“CTHULHU SWIMS LEFT”—
Natural Law Breaks The Curse
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 12:35:00 UTC
***Love thyself, love thy kin, then thy neighbor, then mankind.
Because it is through this love we redistribute and bear the costs of persistence, and through constraint of our own against the parasitism upon others that we bear the costs of transcendence.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 12:05:00 UTC
RATIONAL SELF INTEREST
by Joel Davis
Assuming self-interest is rational, by punishing all non-reciprocating choices via law, acting in group interest becomes rational.
I don’t care if you reciprocate by rational self-interest or as a result of high prosociality, as long as you reciprocate.
Assuming the maximization of group fitness has higher potential yields to individual fitness than any other factor, and assuming the maximization of individual fitness is desired, this is rational self-interest.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 06:01:00 UTC
Let’s get this straight. The only reason to talk to you and not kill, enslave, or punish you, is if we engage in conversation limited to perfect reciprocity: meaning transparent, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of information, free of imposition of costs by externality.
That means if you engage in ridicule, accusation, avoidance, obscurantism, in order to impose or justify an imposition of costs upon me or others, it is preferable prey upon you honestly, truthfully, by means of violence than it is preferable to be preyed upon you by means of stupidity, ignorance, bias, or deceit.
Why? First question of ethics: why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? (and kill your sons, and rape and enslave your wives and daughters).
We are past the point of negotiating with the left.
You are dead.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 15:36:00 UTC
Series:
1) Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
2) Silver Rule: Do not unto others are you would not have done unto you.
3) Bronze Rule: Do unto others as they have done unto you.
(there is an iron rule out there somewhere on the edge of intuition that I dont’ have time to mine at the moment.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 09:42:00 UTC
THE VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW – AND ITS COSTS
(important)
What is my favorite feature of natural law?
I can tell you what is false. I can tell you what is insufficient make a truth claim. I can tell you what is the most true of the propositions available. But I cannot tell you what is good. Anything that is not false, not insufficient, and the most true proposition available is a candidate good. The determination of a preference is something up to the individual, or the group, or the polity, or the nation, or the civilization to decide by some method of decidability or other. But the determination of a good is ascertained by the measurements of the prior and consequential states of capital, and the transactions that constitute the change in state. If more capital-in-toto exists, then objectively one achieved a good. If less, one did not. And while the measurement of such changes in capital is somewhat challenging, it is not, by any means, impossible – just undesirable by those who do not seek good in truth, but preference regardless of it.
Because for the stoic and the ascetic, a condition of freedom to work as I desire, within a condition of liberty for others to organize work, within a condition of sovereignty for others to rule, such that the rest may organize, and labor, is all I desire. I wish the fruits of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom made possible by natural law. I do not wish to act parasitically upon others. As such I understand that I must regulate my consumption to that which I can obtain without imposition of costs upon others.
I prefer the fine arts, fine architecture, fine antiques, exotic cars, good company, beautiful women, money and especially power. But I do not prefer them at the expense of contemplation and production of ideas for which I earn trivial if any compensation. I leave that for others with other preferences.
the difference is, that I have proven myself capable of any of those achievements. Having done so, I find them hollow compared to coffee shops, writing, and thinking.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 15:15:00 UTC
THE CHALLENGE OF THE CHURCH
So the difficulty facing the church is this: we can see gods writing in the universe: the laws of nature, and in the actions of man: Natural Law. If church doctrine is incompatible with Natural Law then it is false – the frailty of men of God, interpreting the words of god as best they could. But there is not much to correct. The church developed natural law itself. There is nothing in the words of Jesus Christ, or the Common Law of Europa that is incompatible with Natural Law. There is however, a great deal of Jewish, Babylonian, and Egyptian writing in the bible that is incompatible with natural law. Much of the Tanakh and nearly all of Jewish Law – even that reformed by Mendelssohn is incompatible with Natural Law – it is poly-ethical – and we have seen Jews punished by history for it. And very little of the Koran – so much so that it might be the work of an anti-Christ. For it prevents man from ascent through mandatory ignorance. And we have seen the result in the death of every civilization touched by it. Communism is the worse religion as it is predicated on violations of natural law, and a series of great lies, where most ancient religions are merely ‘imprecise’ because of the limits of ancient knowledge and of ancient languages. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism are prisoners of the limits of primitive human thought and language more than they are incompatible with Natural Law. At present the false pope is not practicing Christianity, nor is he seeking to restore the other half of the church: the aristocracy; nor is he practicing Natural Law, but Communism. He is a False Pope. He is too weak to be an anti-christ. But he is a false pope. So this is why I have little faith in the future of the church. They are trying to make money through donations not to teach the Word and Meaning of God. And as we have seen with the communists, the jews, and the muslims – civilizations pay heavily for failing to teach and learn the meaning of the words of God.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-04 08:42:00 UTC
people universally require protection of natural law in order to participate in the market for association, cooperation, reproduction.
But they have not demonstrated the Agency necessary for responsibility for capital. Others have responsibility for capital but not the capital of others. Others have responsiblity for the capital of others, but not the capital of territorires or tribes.
How can we determine one’s ability without demonstration of it? we can’t. that’s what the academy does with education, muslims do with religion, and the chinese did with bureaucracy. the students master soething, but is it evidence of mastery in reality? no.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 17:25:00 UTC
UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR FOR ARISTOCRATIC NEGOTIATIONS
“I cooperate with you on behalf of myself, my family and my kin for profit. I cooperate reciprocally to preserve the opportunity for profit, and lower the total cost of making profits through cooperation. But I cooperate with you, your family, and your kin, if and only if it is more rewarding than not cooperating with you, your family and your kin. And my investment in our cooperation, and my contribution to the common good, is in not preying upon you, killing you and your sons, taking your territory, your property, your things, raping and enslaving your wives and daughters, and that of all of your kin. So let us not imagine ourselves as equals. We merely carry on the pretense of equality in order to obtain cooperation at the lowest cost. And let us not suggest that we possess any debt to one another. We do not. For as long as I have the ability to take from you against your will, it is simply a calculation of profit and loss. And if you should attempt to suggest there is a false debt, then you are no longer cooperating but engaging in fraud, and I will, and mine will, prefer not to cooperate, but to prey upon you. If for no other reason than to ensure by example, that no others attempt to create such a fraud, and increase my costs and therefore reduce my returns on cooperation.”
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 15:38:00 UTC