Jan 27, 2020, 9:58 AM Me and mine who pay for the commons because commons produce extraordinary returns, want to know why you shouldn’t be imprisoned, enslaved, enserfed, ostracized or hung for obtaining the benefits of our commons without paying for them. Why should we permit you any freedom or liberty at all? Why is it that we don’t hang you? What’s your reason? (The difference between capitalizing commons, common infrastructure that improves trade, and redistributive consumption that is not a commons – I assume is rather obvious.)
Theme: Responsibility
-
Intersex “discipline”
Jan 27, 2020, 11:14 AM (hard questions) (judgemet of the natural law)
—“Serious question, is it ever justifiable to hit a woman if she grsm’s you too much? What is the recommended amount of force under P?”—Jack Hwite
This is a great example of how sovereignty has been used throughout our history. And why this question has such a long history in our law: because it’s a common problem. Justifiable isn’t a meaningful term. Instead, under natural law, and under traditional european law, you can challenge anyone male of female to a duel, demand apology, demand satisfaction, and if refused exercise sovereignty in self defense. Or put differently, in natural law, each of us is sovereign, whether male or female. But the sexes differ in our exercise of force. “A male physical super-predator exchanges the forgoing of his violence with women so long as women social super-predators exchange forgoing their their undermining (GSRRM) in return. If this contract is broken then physical violence and undermining are both licensed.” Or the individuals may choose to forgo the duel and simply have at each other in words and hands. A judicially sanctioned duel before peers is preferred, since differences in ability can be minimized by traditional pit and bag or other means. A conflict can be brought before the court instead and settled there. Because “Scolding” is just as much a violation of sovereignty and the peach as is physical violence. However, this is limited to discipline for insult, and when the other party lies down and submits the conflict must stop – otherwise the parties extend beyond the judicial duel into attempted murder. This competition is the only way to prevent male and female warfare by their individual means. We have constrained men’s violence but let loose women’s violence – and we are paying the price of undermining our civilization as a consequence.
-
Intersex “discipline”
Jan 27, 2020, 11:14 AM (hard questions) (judgemet of the natural law)
—“Serious question, is it ever justifiable to hit a woman if she grsm’s you too much? What is the recommended amount of force under P?”—Jack Hwite
This is a great example of how sovereignty has been used throughout our history. And why this question has such a long history in our law: because it’s a common problem. Justifiable isn’t a meaningful term. Instead, under natural law, and under traditional european law, you can challenge anyone male of female to a duel, demand apology, demand satisfaction, and if refused exercise sovereignty in self defense. Or put differently, in natural law, each of us is sovereign, whether male or female. But the sexes differ in our exercise of force. “A male physical super-predator exchanges the forgoing of his violence with women so long as women social super-predators exchange forgoing their their undermining (GSRRM) in return. If this contract is broken then physical violence and undermining are both licensed.” Or the individuals may choose to forgo the duel and simply have at each other in words and hands. A judicially sanctioned duel before peers is preferred, since differences in ability can be minimized by traditional pit and bag or other means. A conflict can be brought before the court instead and settled there. Because “Scolding” is just as much a violation of sovereignty and the peach as is physical violence. However, this is limited to discipline for insult, and when the other party lies down and submits the conflict must stop – otherwise the parties extend beyond the judicial duel into attempted murder. This competition is the only way to prevent male and female warfare by their individual means. We have constrained men’s violence but let loose women’s violence – and we are paying the price of undermining our civilization as a consequence.
-
Your Principle Job as A Parent
Your Principle Job as A Parent https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/your-principle-job-as-a-parent/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 15:25:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264940735717093381
-
The Trooper
BACKGROUND: The driver had been ‘stalking’ the Trooper while in pursuit of a speeding car. This put the Trooper in a position of being threatened. When stopped,the driver antagonized the officer. Single Troopers are dependent upon our submission to investigation for their safety. The Trooper verbally escalated so that he did not have to Physically escalate to violence in order to force the driver into submitting to investigation, or to throw the driver ‘into the system’ for failing to submit to investigation. Other countries use groups of police at all times but they are smaller countries with more dense population with fewer drivers, because those countries were not organized for cars like the USA. So either triple the cost of officers or submit to investigation to keep costs down. WHAT”S THE PROBLEM 1) educate the public (a) the police’s role in identifying risky behavior (insurer), and enforcing violations, and intervening in crimes, and resolving disputes, (b) in the citizen’s responsibilities when ‘pulled over’ or ‘questioned’. 2) explain to the public how the officers need to react in each case: (a)instruct to investigate, (b) command if necessary, (c) verbally escalate if necessary, (d) physically escalate if necessary (e) escalate to deadly force of necessary. 3) train officers to ensure that they can only escalate in response not initiate escalation, and that their primary function is (a) obtain control of the environment, and (b) de-escalation (c) investigation in that order. And that escalation is only necessary if they can’t get control of the environment. 4) explain to the public how cops and citizens are human beings, who don’t know each other, thrown into conflict. Be forgiving of one another. Most of what I find when investigating is simply not getting the training I got as a child by the police in how to interact with police and what police were trying to do and why. Explaining incentives is all that’s necessary for ordinary human beings. Most ‘bad’ police behavior is due to initiating the accusatory method ithat causes the citizen to escalate his behavior. Rather than just asking for his or her side of the story. And it’s this ‘cheap’ way of agitating the citizen so that he can put the citizen into the system, rather than de-escalate the situation. In other words, police are habituating the strategy of ‘don’t make me come here or you’ll be in the system’ rather than “I’m here to de-escalate conflict in the citizenry, to reduce your risky behavior, or to intervene in criminal behavior”.
-
The Trooper
BACKGROUND: The driver had been ‘stalking’ the Trooper while in pursuit of a speeding car. This put the Trooper in a position of being threatened. When stopped,the driver antagonized the officer. Single Troopers are dependent upon our submission to investigation for their safety. The Trooper verbally escalated so that he did not have to Physically escalate to violence in order to force the driver into submitting to investigation, or to throw the driver ‘into the system’ for failing to submit to investigation. Other countries use groups of police at all times but they are smaller countries with more dense population with fewer drivers, because those countries were not organized for cars like the USA. So either triple the cost of officers or submit to investigation to keep costs down. WHAT”S THE PROBLEM 1) educate the public (a) the police’s role in identifying risky behavior (insurer), and enforcing violations, and intervening in crimes, and resolving disputes, (b) in the citizen’s responsibilities when ‘pulled over’ or ‘questioned’. 2) explain to the public how the officers need to react in each case: (a)instruct to investigate, (b) command if necessary, (c) verbally escalate if necessary, (d) physically escalate if necessary (e) escalate to deadly force of necessary. 3) train officers to ensure that they can only escalate in response not initiate escalation, and that their primary function is (a) obtain control of the environment, and (b) de-escalation (c) investigation in that order. And that escalation is only necessary if they can’t get control of the environment. 4) explain to the public how cops and citizens are human beings, who don’t know each other, thrown into conflict. Be forgiving of one another. Most of what I find when investigating is simply not getting the training I got as a child by the police in how to interact with police and what police were trying to do and why. Explaining incentives is all that’s necessary for ordinary human beings. Most ‘bad’ police behavior is due to initiating the accusatory method ithat causes the citizen to escalate his behavior. Rather than just asking for his or her side of the story. And it’s this ‘cheap’ way of agitating the citizen so that he can put the citizen into the system, rather than de-escalate the situation. In other words, police are habituating the strategy of ‘don’t make me come here or you’ll be in the system’ rather than “I’m here to de-escalate conflict in the citizenry, to reduce your risky behavior, or to intervene in criminal behavior”.
-
Inalienable rights
Feb 1, 2020, 7:39 PM
Inalienable means not only that it can’t be taken from you – but you can’t let it be taken from you, and you can’t give it away.
-
Inalienable rights
Feb 1, 2020, 7:39 PM
Inalienable means not only that it can’t be taken from you – but you can’t let it be taken from you, and you can’t give it away.
-
Example of How Legal Education Fails
Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM
—“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—
Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.
—“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—
That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.
—-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—
1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive
—“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—
Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )
—“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-
So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.
-
Example of How Legal Education Fails
Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM
—“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—
Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.
—“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—
That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.
—-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—
1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive
—“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—
Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )
—“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-
So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.