THE LAW ON RECIPROCITY, RESTITUTION, RESTITUTION
Restitution (1x) for Accident
Double (2x) Damages for failure to admit
Triple (3x) Damages against individuals for harm
Decuple (10x) Damages against groups for harm.
…
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 15:03:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100048530943721473
THE LAW ON RECIPROCITY, RESTITUTION, PUNISHMENT, AND PREVENTION
Restitution (1x) for Accident
Double (2x) Damages for failure to admit
Triple (3x) Damages against individuals for harm
Decuple (10x) Damages against groups for harm.
The law has three purposes for three parties to any suit.
1. Restitution (victim)
2. Punishment (criminal)
3. Prevention (polity)
Groups must be HEAVILY incentivized to limit their own behavior since sacrificial actors exist in every group, and can advance group interests if not controlled by the group.
Hence
1. Punishment of the individual.
2. Punishment of the individual’s family (insurers of individuals)
3. Punishment of the group (insurers of families)
…
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 10:02:00 UTC
That would not be a cost on a demonstrated in vestment, but instead, an attempt to skirt the cost of self regulation in defense of the commons. In other words, the speaker would be committing evidence that he was a free rider (a criminal).
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 17:18:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099720143922520065
Reply addressees: @rohansharan @mmay3r
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099701981520777217
IN REPLY TO:
@rohansharan
@curtdoolittle @mmay3r What if someone argues that hurting their feelings is an imposition of costs upon them by you and force you with your own rule of law that you should create “safe spaces”.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099701981520777217
BEN BAKER ‘GETS IT’
—“I’m trying to understand. … Law is then a summary of natural (proper and just) consequences for action/inaction.
As far as it can be enforced depends on the affordability…this would also determine the willingness of men to administer and enforce the law via Incentives.
It’s an immovable object, or very nearly.
Government (governance deferred from the individual to a collective specialising in law and violence, held in common somewhat and funded by citizens) is the flexible part, the expression of that described above but adjusted to each population with their endemic characteristics, abilities etc.
Holy shit.”—Benjamin Baker
You just graduated my friend. Welcome to the judiciary. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 09:52:00 UTC
TIP: American law not only seeks (a) restitution, and (b) punishment to disincentivize the actor, but (c) prevention to provide disincentive would be imitators. In the court’s eye, the 250m is compensation for willingness to prosecute, and prevention (warning) to others.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 20:39:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098321262357696512
Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098284715126259713
IN REPLY TO:
@BobMurphyEcon
If I say I think $250 million is a ludicrous amount, but I still think what happened to this kid is a travesty, I’m pretty sure every other person on Earth will hate my guts. https://t.co/Ek1nP93KfC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098284715126259713
[L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.
[L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.
February 20th, 2019 10:31 AM
—“I think he is saying that you are gossip rallying yourself in this instance and that it is relatively well placed on the irony scale.”—Jay Thompson
I thought RECIPROCITY was moral. And that ‘he’ is using pilpul to create a false equivalency between argument vs argument and ridicule vs ridicule. Which is sophistry or dishonesty or ignorance, or stupidity. THE ARGUMENTATIVE PROCESS If ridiculed, return it, and then restate the central argument. If that process doesn’t return to argument, repeat. If repetition doesn’t work, the return to violence. Never let GSRRM go unanswered. Identify it. Return it. Restate the central argument. (inform thru repetition) Repeat. Hardly requires restating the central argument with Kinsella. THERE IS NO ROOM ON THE BUS FOR LIES This is why I don’t see hope for y’all. You are all dependent upon the use of avoidance of the central argument like women, jews, and muslims, which demonstrates that christianity is a vehicle for the deceits of women, jews, and muslims and therefore you cannot ‘earn the franchise’ by reciprocity of truthful speech. Every time you make one of these childish bits of nonsense all you do is confirm: you are not able to evolve past that level of infantilism we equate to women and children or that level of dishonesty we call abrahamism. So please stop wasting my time. We cannot cooperate, because we cannot agree to reciprocity, and we cannot agree to reciprocity because we cannot agree to truthful speech that would end abrahamic deception in supernatural, ideal, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific terms, that gave us judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, using the very means of fraudulent discourse you are using with me. It’s not complicated. Just not worth talking about. Xians must find a way on their own. I can’t help those who are allies of the enemy. And christians are allies of the enemy of our people. Because christians are more allied to jews, christians, and muslims than they are to their people, their science and their law and their history. Solve your own problem. There is no ride on P for christians in alliance with the enemy on the preservation of lying. Truth is my way and the original way of our people before the dark ages of abrahamic ignorance and submission. Find your own way. There is no way of appropriating P in defense of lying.
No man has any rights over any other, except in the group’s righthing of a wrong before the jury. “The Rights of Anglo Saxons”. A man has duty to a landholder (sovereign), in exchange for land and service. This is the meaning of ‘sovereignty’. It is not ‘individualism’. It is SOVEREIGNTY.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 13:07:00 UTC
CROSSING THE LINE INTO LEGALLY ACTIONABLE
Let’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose.
So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive.
I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz.
So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense.
So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 11:21:00 UTC