Theme: Responsibility

  • WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS HYPOCRITES? (answering the hard questions) (from Twitt

    WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS HYPOCRITES?

    (answering the hard questions) (from Twitter)

    —“How do you respond to people who say that the Founding Fathers were hypocrites for owning slaves?”—Julie Borowski @JulieBorowski

    1) They weren’t hypocrites. In order to win the war against England they had to tolerate the demands of the south, and the south couldn’t economically afford to abandon slavery. The solution was to return them to Africa, and some were, but without Fiat Currency couldn’t finance it. It was the worst financial decision in american history..

    2) So instead of the high cost of paying for the repatriation of the slaves, and borrowing to compensate the southern farms to convert to employment labor, we had a far more costly civil war of anti-secession when the north realized that the south would rule the western expansion, leaving the (puritain) north isolated and behind.

    3) Humans mask their economic incentives with moral claims, but as in all things ‘follow the money’. If we asked all the farmers today to go without immigrant labor, universities without foreigners, and services without minorities, prices would skyrocket, and bankruptcies ensue.

    4) The great crime was the false promise of the possibility of integration of vastly different people, when Europe had already discovered the impossibility of integrating even (neolithic farmer) mediterranean and germanic (horse) peoples, and Ireland was a third world country.

    5) And so blacks are in an impossible position because they cannot form a polity producing norms, traditions, values, commons, and political systems given the distribution of their abilities (vastly larger lower class, deeper sexual maturity), and whites can’t tolerate the costs to THEIR commons.

    6) The solution we find everywhere is we separate into neighborhoods, and watch every city turn into Johannesberg (Detroit, Baltimore) as the absolutely inevitable deterministic effects of natural differences take their course: productive whites, asians and jews flee civic plague.

    7) the cosmopolitan project of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, political correctness designed repeat the attempt by judaism, christianity, and islam to deprive nations of self determination, sovereignty, and meritocracy, and reduce them to dark ages yet again is over.

    8) We can only cooperate by trade, but we cannot cohabitate or share suffrage, since our group strategies due to genetic differences and genetic distributions. Only europeans can produce high trust commons with high investment parenting expressly for producing commons. Period.

    9) No other people can come close to achieving it, except the Koreans and Japanese, and even then, they can’t produce commons only refrain from consuming them.

    10) African Slavery, industrialized by islam, was a purely economic decision for purely rational reasons : resistance to malaria. Even so, at present rates, African Americans will have killed more of one another over a century than slaves were brought to America. (Yes, really).

    11) African Americans have only one oppressor: the mirror. The only solution is (a) Separation so that their elites cannot defect, leaving 2/3 of their population incapable of social, economic, and politcal organization and (b) six generations of one child at for unemployables.

    12) Why this is so obvious to my African audience (“There is nothing wrong with Africans that shrinking the bottom won’t fix”) and so intolerable to Americans? Because Americans like puritans, are shallow virtue-signaling moralizers masters of deceit without lying in the world.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-20 09:24:00 UTC

  • Your job is should. I do law. Law decides only what’s false and irreciprocal. Th

    Your job is should. I do law. Law decides only what’s false and irreciprocal. That’s my job. If it’s not false or irreciprocal it’s not the law’s problem. If the law does should we no longer have rule of law but rule by command and that’s bad.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-19 17:47:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1274035999090360322

    Reply addressees: @LovelyEWhite1 @BurnedRemains

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1274034586230624258

  • Your job is should. I do law. Law decides only what’s false and irreciprocal. Th

    Your job is should. I do law. Law decides only what’s false and irreciprocal. That’s my job. If it’s not false or irreciprocal it’s not the law’s problem. If the law does should we no longer have rule of law but rule by command and that’s bad.

    Reply addressees: @LovelyEWhite1 @BurnedRemains

  • It’s not possible nor desirable to control people’s thoughts. So it’s not possib

    It’s not possible nor desirable to control people’s thoughts. So it’s not possible or desirable to prevent belief in falsehoods.

    It is possible however to prevent you from selling and distributing these falsehoods with in the physical and informational commons.

    No more lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-19 12:11:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273951443972734976

  • It’s not possible nor desirable to control people’s thoughts. So it’s not possib

    It’s not possible nor desirable to control people’s thoughts. So it’s not possible or desirable to prevent belief in falsehoods.

    It is possible however to prevent you from selling and distributing these falsehoods with in the physical and informational commons.

    No more lies.

  • The law provides rules for the good to punish the bad. Mindfulness increases the

    The law provides rules for the good to punish the bad. Mindfulness increases the number of good in relation to the bad. Prosperity decreases the incentives of the bad. So norms, laws, and traditions provide incentives such that the good are more numerous than the bad.

    Even some religions try but they one serve to move the crime from simple to more complex. Even some societies try more laws, and more education, but they only serve to move the crime from simple to more complex.

    But genetics are what they are. There is no substitute for hanging every possible criminal at every possible opportunity for a five hundred years, and thereby genetically pacifying a people.

    The law is simply the filter that provides the good people with rules for deciding who to hang. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-18 09:15:00 UTC

  • WHAT DOES TORT INCLUDE? —“Good morning Curt have a great day wherever you are.

    WHAT DOES TORT INCLUDE?

    —“Good morning Curt have a great day wherever you are. A quick question on Tort, does Tort only have to do with the consequences of actions. Does it have anything to do with inaction? (does inaction not exist in Law)”—

    The origin of law is retribution. The origin of written law is standardization of punishment so that retribution does not cause retaliation cycles. The purpose of law evolved to maintain the peace, by standardizing (a weight and measure) responsibilities and liabilities, so that there were fewer harms created, fewer retaliations, and as such prevented retaliation cycles (feuds at small scale, wars at larger scale).

    The european traditional law and our common law evolved over time to increase responsibility from intentional, to failures of due diligence, to failures of defense of others on behalf of others. P-Law explicitly takes this to its full conclusion as inalienability – in other words, if you have a right you are responsible not only for defending it, but defending others, and you cannot divest yourself of either right or obligation without yourself committing a crime.

    Tort just means trespass. This is a simple term referring to the imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. One of the reasons I’m against the non aggression principle is that under natural law one need only impose a cost by intent, failure of due diligence, failures of defense. Libertarianism is libertinism – not responsible for anything.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-18 08:58:00 UTC

  • MORALITY Falsify the following statement: The only displays, words or deeds that

    MORALITY

    Falsify the following statement:

    The only displays, words or deeds that are not criminal, unethical, or immoral consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition upon the costs of the demonstrated interests of others – a condition we call ‘reciprocity’ (PRODUCTIVITY, GAIN)

    Because only such display, word, and deed, avoids the production of the incentive for retaliation for imposition of costs against against demonstrated interests, and as a consequence the continuous cumulative reversal of the incentives to cooperate, rather than return to the natural self and group interest to engage in boycott, parasitism, or predation. (COST, LOSS )

    As such any display word or deed that is not immoral is either amoral or moral – where we demarcate the amoral from the moral by the requirement under morality for transfer of increases in demonstrated interests directly or indirectly by externality. (INVESTMENT)

    Individuals demonstrate instinctual differences in moral biases, and seek to advance those biases as rather than moral preference but moral weight and measure, when such biases are merely expressions of genetic and reproductive interests, and as such serve as negotiating positions – terms of voluntary cooperation. (ADVERTISING)

    Groups of individuals produce compromise norms that satisfy these same criteria. (MARKETS)

    But in all cases, via negativa, all conflicts are decidable by tests of reciprocity – which is precisely how all cases in the world are judged. (JURISPRUDENCE)

    In other words: morality is empirical. It’s Reciprocity within the limits of individual, normative, or universal demands.

    (You won’t falsify that.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-17 14:05:00 UTC

  • If it is not law then it is criminal. If it is criminal anyone in the state, or

    If it is not law then it is criminal. If it is criminal anyone in the state, or court, participating in it is subject to prosecution.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-16 23:07:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273029557596151808

    Reply addressees: @realJamesPepper

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1273029357116809218


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @realJamesPepper Under the Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity the State cannot make law nor the court. They can create contracts (legislation and regulation), and courts can produce findings under that law, but if it does not survive the tests of sovereignty and reciprocity it is not law.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1273029357116809218

  • If it is not law then it is criminal. If it is criminal anyone in the state, or

    If it is not law then it is criminal. If it is criminal anyone in the state, or court, participating in it is subject to prosecution.

    Reply addressees: @realJamesPepper