THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY
***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 14:00:00 UTC
NICELY STATED
—“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 23:45:00 UTC
Legally none. Normatively, it functioned as a prohibition on interference in the reproductive economy we call the family, and a reciprocal warranty of the same.
It was better the old way by every empirical measure.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-marriage-and-incorporation
Legally none. Normatively, it functioned as a prohibition on interference in the reproductive economy we call the family, and a reciprocal warranty of the same.
It was better the old way by every empirical measure.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-marriage-and-incorporation
QUESTION OF THE DAY: SELF DEFENSE
What are the Definition, Scope, and Limits of Self Defense Under the Natural Law of Sovereign Men: Perfect Reciprocity?
( I’ve tried a few experiments and the quality of the responses has been far and away above my expectations so for those who feel capable of constructing statements of natural law, this is the next example I’d like to try.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-10 10:12:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION
NATURAL LAW
Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech).
SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION)
Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.
THE RESTORATION
1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about.
2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others.
3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully.
4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons.
5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence
So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state?
We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market.
My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism).
The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f
Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 09:42:00 UTC
—“If the silver rule (definition of “the bad” via defining “not good”), creates a clearing for people to seek and define any possible good (a market for the good) then we could classify the desirable behavior in this market as virtues. Now signaling has a value. We cant reduce virtue to signaling only. But rather to decoupling signaling as a basis for moral judgements (decidability), and coupling it to the idea of manufacturing “the good”… thinking in terms of Adam Smith’s argument for “being lovely”. Being held in high esteem (loveliness) by those we respect, which we’d call reputation, incentivizes us to produce “the good”. This is why I don’t like signaling to take a back seat to consequentialism or to discount it as a juvenile sentiment – Because it’s important: it serves us in decidability.”— Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 11:05:00 UTC
That’s just a lie, or profound stupidity. Reciprocity survives all tests. Yet makes no positive claims, only prohibitive. Period.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 10:36:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836887824016293891
Reply addressees: @LueYee
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836829536398499841
IN REPLY TO:
@lueyee
A construct of #positivelaw is not at all an attempt at #naturallaw. https://t.co/Ks9ETBaOmD
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836829536398499841
Testimonial Truth, Sovereignty, and Natural Law, Are Sacred To Western Man.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 07:39:00 UTC
Like science, Via-Negativa can be Codified.Via-Positiva cannot be.So Anything not bad may yet be good. Natural Law is Negative.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 02:04:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836759087551557632
Reply addressees: @ne0colonial
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836756432888315904
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/836756432888315904