Rather stupid statement really, since if it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-07 12:00:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258365984416632833
Reply addressees: @YvesBurri @Nationalist7346
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258193042390958080
Man desires consumption, consumption is increased by opportunity, and opportunity is increased by liberty, but so is irresponsibility. And so is free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, immigration, conversion, conquest, and genocide.
The state evolved to incrementally suppress local parasitism decreasing local transaction costs, in exchange for paying taxes to pay the cost of decreasing local transaction costs. This made markets possible where only primitive trade previously existed.
Man is amoral by nature, and pragmatic. By the institution of parenting, acculturation, indoctrination, training, laws, restitution, punishment, and prevention we invest in his domestication.
Man develops theology, philosophy, ideologies, rationalizations, myths, fantasies, and various other forms of frauds, to attempt to obscure and justify his free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime.
In order to produce the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires a power law of institutions of prevention, investigation, dispute resolution, prosecution, restitution, punishment and prevention.
In order to produce a market requires a pareto distribution of assets, so that the organization of networks in an market can produce a complex division of labor and its returns without which the terms freedom and liberty have no meaning.
In order to produce a society that tolerates market competition and the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires the resulting distribution of rewards satisfy a marginal nash equilibrium.
Given three possible means of coercion: force-defense (Military-police, government), trade-boycott(commerce-law), and advocacy+insurance-undermining+ostracization(social,education,religion), elites will combine to use and misuse these skills in a competition.
Given that Man varies greatly from barely human to superhuman in physical, social, and intellectual ability, and sexual, social, economic, political, and military value, and given the power, pareto, and nash necessities of distributions, man will sort by value to others by his value in those markets – producing networks of competing and overlapping hierarchies that we call sexual, social, economic, and political class.
As such, rule of law and the independent judiciary provide a market for the suppression of criminality by not only individuals and groups of individuals, but elites in all three dimensions of elites, such that sovereignty, liberty and freedom are maintained DESPITE the presence of necessary hierarchies.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 18:58:00 UTC
IT’S OUR DUTY TO PROTECT THOSE VICTIMIZED BY BAITING INTO HAZARD
by Scott De Warren
Noblesse oblige. Yes, ironically, It is our duty to protect our people, especially the majority that lack agency and the discernment to detect the enemy’s propaganda that baits them into hazard (and pulls the rest of us down with them).
The irony is that these, our own people, constantly betray us by siding with the enemy.
In England, France, and even America our people were encouraged to rebel against their king and aristocracy – often on the thinnest of pretexts.
In the American revolution, for ex., Samuel Adams organized the rough dock workers to attack the upper classes and destroy their fine houses over what was essentially a 1% tax imposed by Britain on legal papers.
Now the descendants of those dockworkers pay 50% taxes without blinking. Yet they will still rail against kings and aristocrats – the ones that taxed them 1% to protect them militarily while praising foreign hostiles that tax them 50% while taking way their borders, liberties, and that sponsor third world invasions because it is all sold as ‘democratic’.
No, the people will be protected from such lies going forward by making the liars answerable in a court of law.
—“You have no duty to those that have betrayed you. If anything, the duty to those that haven’t betrayed you is to punish those that have.”—Martin Štěpán
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 17:51:00 UTC
Sometimes parents must be patient with their children; spouses must be patient with their mates; teachers must be patient with students; executives must be patient with their employees. Because we all must ‘own’ our decisions and our status-self-image system, as well as our cognitive investment in current network of ideas, plans, and habits resists pressure to adapt – except at our own speed and on our own terms. So people must own their adaptation – because they must weigh the costs and benefits and come to own their choices. Sometimes it takes minutes, sometimes hours, sometimes months, and sometimes years. So plant seeds rather than persuade, convince, or coerce. And leave the door open. And resist the call of pride in saying “I told you so”. Instead deliver the reward of “I hoped you would.”
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-01 12:12:00 UTC
Regarding: Alcohol, Pot, Other Drugs, Sex, Promiscuity, Prostitution, any unregulated behavior, attention-causing, or Hedonism in general – there is a difference between illegality (prohibition), legalization (private and out of the commons) and commercializing (in the commons).
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-30 15:40:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255884734430875648
(A great deal of my work is devoted to prohibiting false irreciprocal, and false-promissory speech, so that politicians public intellectual and media are liable for their words.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-28 13:06:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255121088150941697
Reply addressees: @mutedilettante
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1255118876976676865
It’s Genetic. Why the middle east chose female strategy and west and east male strategy is open to debate. But we can’t control these behaviors. All we can do is criminalize their use, like we criminalize all other criminal behavior. https://t.co/a1FwgZHDza
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-27 15:57:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254801907450884100
Reply addressees: @juchegang3 @Velveteen64 @RockingMrE @bitchute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1254801154862714883
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@juchegang3 @Velveteen64 @RockingMrE @bitchute Unwarranted, false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul, critique > Female conflict strategy (undermining) > Jewish conflict strategy > freud, boas, marx, trotsky-kristol, adorno-fromm, derrida et al, freidan et all, mises-rothbard, cantor, bohr > Alinsky Method (undermining).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1254801154862714883
—“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—
[T]hat’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend. 1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public. 2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated. 3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry. Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail. Silly people are just silly.
—“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—
[T]hat’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend. 1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public. 2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated. 3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry. Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail. Silly people are just silly.
(Its hard to get in the habit but if you just use reciprocity and testimony, and property-in-toto as checklists, then most of the time you’ll discover that baiting into hazard is something we didn’t do so our law didn’t evolve to cover.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 21:19:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253795847675969540
Reply addressees: @judicialist @ComicDaveSmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253795336340082695
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@judicialist @ComicDaveSmith What if the court would not enforce non-payment of loans (only non payment of purchases). How would lender behavior change?
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253795336340082695