You know, the fact that the modern church (a) tolerated pedophiles and worse, (b) refused to rectify(sic) the situation, (c) has not reformed to allow married priests, and (d) has now directly turned against european civilization – doubling down on supernaturalism and (e) selected an anti-european pope, means it is time to end that church and bring about another. Why is it that we persist this middle eastern savagery rather than transcend the abrahamic dark ages, and emerge a people of natural law, nature, and the transcendence of man?
Theme: Reform
-
BOOK(S) UPDATE 1. The main book was too large, so I broke it into multiple books
BOOK(S) UPDATE
1. The main book was too large, so I broke it into multiple books. The first of which was reforming libertarianism. The main book is still around 800 pages, and I expect will stay in that range even after I cut everything possible. Whether I break out the New Constitution into a separate book is still an open question. I am still of the mind to put the constitution in the middle of a book containing the ‘mythology’.
2. There is a lot of overlap between the books. The libertarianism book is targeted to libertarians, and includes the misesian and rothbardian arguments. Other readers will not benefit from that information, so the main book only touches on it.
3. I have a 95% first draft of this book on reforming Libertarianism: Liberty into Sovereignty. There are bits here and there I need to work on – particularly the very beginning (which i write last). And of course there is the usual editorial work (flow). Undone places are marked ‘undone’. I will continue working through them until complete.
4. If you haven’t worked on books like this before, it usually takes three or more iterations to get it to ‘done’. So there is quite a bit editing for content, flow, and the usual trivialities of consistency, spelling and grammar.
5. Some of you will find the progress interesting, some will want to read it, and some may want to help by providing comments.
A) PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT.
B) PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ME REGRET SHARING THIS DOCUMENT WITH YOU BY FAILING TO UNDERSTAND IT IS A 95% FIRST DRAFT.
C) PLEASE DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE WORK IT TAKES TO GET FROM FIRST DRAFT TO PRINT.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-28 10:55:00 UTC
-
Can you hear that? That sound? That’s the sound of revolution coming. It’s getti
Can you hear that? That sound? That’s the sound of revolution coming. It’s getting louder. And we will make history. We will revel in our time. And we will restore the constitution of natural law that separates us from the primitivism of the rest of the world. #Trump
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-27 20:35:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978732230829731840
-
REVOLUTION COMES! #Trump ( )
REVOLUTION COMES! #Trump ( https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/30/on-revolution-changing-the-status-quo/ )
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-26 17:57:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/978329991996952576
-
But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter
But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 13:31:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975726575999217664
-
Constitutional Revolution
Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience. If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites. And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law. But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity. The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot. But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it. -
CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law ar
CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION
Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience.
If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites.
And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law.
But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity.
The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot.
But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 09:33:00 UTC
-
Constitutional Revolution
Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience. If you understand my work it’s that I’m advocating for the best interest of the common laboring, craftsman and middle class and their families. And not for the priestly, intellectual, bureaucratic, or dependent class. That’s the end result of moral law: Producers vs Parasites. And so the conundrum is, that my formal work is in the interest of a class not necessarily able to access that work at a technical level, only DEMAND IT BE IMPLEMENTED. I cannot ‘dumb it down’ any more than we can dumb down calculus, programming, or strictly constructed law. But the Constitution as it was written was a first attempt at formal articulation of the natural law of reciprocity and the market political order for market civilization: rule of law. We can complete that project and write a constitution strictly constructed under reciprocity. The laboring, working, and entrepreneurial classes need only understand that constitution, and the processes of decision articulated therein. And the result of that law will be once again, a moral society in which good men and families prosper and parasites cannot. But to bring about a moral order requires the organized use of violence to alter the status quo -at high personal cost to those men who are willing and able to demand that change.Revolution is necessary for the preservation of our prosperity. There was never a better time for it. -
The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding
The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 21:37:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975486249476722688
Reply addressees: @Communism_Kills
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975483633782882311
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/975483633782882311
-
Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: P
Mises was only half wrong but fully irrelevant. Hayek was right and prescient: Prohibit the bad and all that is left is good.And the means of incremental empirical suppression of the bad is the dry evolutionary process we call the judge discovered common law of tort: Reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 00:16:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974801562643070982
Reply addressees: @FriedrichHayek @BobMurphyEcon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974765006825832449
IN REPLY TO:
@FriedrichHayek
I’m rather shocked at how many fundamental mistakes @BobMurphyEcon makes in this article on Hayek, knowledge, Mises, and calculation. Stunned actually. https://t.co/rn3JZED9pi
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974765006825832449