[S]tate bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankruptcy reform, just as the EU is experiencing the problems of the catholic periphery vs the protestant core. It’s not a constitutional issue, b/c it’s one of the most important reasons for the formation of the federal system: unifying bankruptcy laws so interstate commerce and consequent scale was possible without continuous conflicts that constrained trade. Opponents would resist under the Contracts Clause but the court would eventually extend protection to the states since the states are not making the legal change, the federal government is, and despite the 10th (which is universally ignored anyway), the bankruptcy code is a power specifically granted to the federal government specifically for this reason. Add to the fact that it was done by false promise of ‘progressive’ (((socialist))) eternal growth on one end and financial (((rent seeking))) constructed using fractional reserves guaranteed by the federal government, and the credit expansion, all via the treasury and federal reserve, instead of retaining the returns for redistribution to the citizenry, and we have criminal conspiracy at least of conspiracy of interests not sufficiently defended against by a government lacking experience in financial corruption practiced in the Pale – especially ukraine and russia. (Where mises and rothbard inherited their ideas and tried to spread them to the west.) While screwing politicians, government employees, their unions, and investors that profited from seeking rents by offering credit that baits states into hazard, the populations of the states would benefit greatly from no longer spending their tax revenues on employee pensions as large as their medicare-medicaid expenses, leaving a single digit trickle of income for infrastructure and investment. Personally I would love to write a brief for the court on this, and bring the issue before the court because it would provide the impetus to end the fed, and nationalize the finance sector dependent upon treasury issue, and instead, force them to raise all capital from the private sector, forcing the sector to compete for savings rather than continuously destroy them. Biggest organized crime in human history.
Theme: Reform
-
RT @ThruTheHayes: A body of policy changes & law, a project plan, shareholder ag
RT @ThruTheHayes: A body of policy changes & law, a project plan, shareholder agreements, & a constitution for function; or it’s shit-talk.…
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:18:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253734990996819969
-
If it’s genetic then as I’ve suggested our laws must evolve to protect against c
If it’s genetic then as I’ve suggested our laws must evolve to protect against cognitively female anti-social and social-criminal behavior (Undermining, Seduction,False promise, Baiting into Hazard, Magical Thinking). But it is difficult to imagine females or Ashkenazim changing.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 13:32:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253678232626495489
Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716 @YouTube
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253677342578409472
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@unfinis06265716 @YouTube The question is, whether the degree to which the Ashkenazim are cognitively feminine in each influence: Genetics, Religion, Tradition, and Culture. (German jews had almost fully integrated pre-war, such that “presbyterians and jews were indistinguishable.”) Evidence says genetic.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253677342578409472
-
But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and
But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/but-im-not-creating-a-popular-political-movement-im-creating-a-revolution-and-a-body-of-law/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:06:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253415062234034177
-
But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law
BUT I’M NOT CREATING A POPULAR POLITICAL MOVEMENT I’M CREATING A REVOLUTION AND A BODY OF LAW (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)
—“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford
Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.
-
But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law
BUT I’M NOT CREATING A POPULAR POLITICAL MOVEMENT I’M CREATING A REVOLUTION AND A BODY OF LAW (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)
—“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford
Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.
-
The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law
(natural law is to human sciences, as mathematics is to physical sciences)
[I]f you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity.
-
The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law
(natural law is to human sciences, as mathematics is to physical sciences)
[I]f you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity.
-
THE P PROGRAM AND OUR PURPOSES Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the
THE P PROGRAM AND OUR PURPOSES
Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people.
Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been.
P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity.
Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace.
The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation.
Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets.
We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 09:00:00 UTC
-
STATE BANKRUPTCY IS NECESSARY State bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankr
STATE BANKRUPTCY IS NECESSARY
State bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankruptcy reform, just as the EU is experiencing the problems of the catholic periphery vs the protestant core.
It’s not a constitutional issue, b/c it’s one of the most important reasons for the formation of the federal system: unifying bankruptcy laws so interstate commerce and consequent scale was possible without continuous conflicts that constrained trade.
Opponents would resist under the Contracts Clause but the court would eventually extend protection to the states since the states are not making the legal change, the federal government is, and despite the 10th (which is universally ignored anyway), the bankruptcy code is a power specifically granted to the federal government specifically for this reason.
Add to the fact that it was done by false promise of ‘progressive’ (((socialist))) eternal growth on one end and financial (((rent seeking))) constructed using fractional reserves guaranteed by the federal government, and the credit expansion, all via the treasury and federal reserve, instead of retaining the returns for redistribution to the citizenry, and we have criminal conspiracy at least of conspiracy of interests not sufficiently defended against by a government lacking experience in financial corruption practiced in the Pale – especially ukraine and russia. (Where mises and rothbard inherited their ideas and tried to spread them to the west.)
While screwing politicians, government employees, their unions, and investors that profited from seeking rents by offering credit that baits states into hazard, the populations of the states would benefit greatly from no longer spending their tax revenues on employee pensions as large as their medicare-medicaid expenses, leaving a single digit trickle of income for infrastructure and investment.
Personally I would love to write a brief for the court on this, and bring the issue before the court because it would provide the impetus to end the fed, and nationalize the finance sector dependent upon treasury issue, and instead, force them to raise all capital from the private sector, forcing the sector to compete for savings rather than continuously destroy them.
Biggest organized crime in human history.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 08:27:00 UTC