Theme: Responsibility

  • THE GRAND SEQUENCE Oath, Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, B

    THE GRAND SEQUENCE

    Oath, Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, Beauty

    OATH: THE FULLY ARTICULATED OATH

    I shall not lie, cheat, steal, cause others to bear unwanted cost, or the commons to suffer loss, nor shall I tolerate those who do, nor leave them unpunished by censure, restitution, imprisonment, banishment, or death.

    TRUTH: TESTIMONY

    Identity (Categorically consistent)

    Internally (Logically) consistent

    Externally Correspondent (Empirically Consistent)

    Existentially Possible

    Parsimonious (fully accounted, parsimonious, limits)

    Moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfers)

    Beautiful (craft, aesthetic, moral, resources)

    SOCIAL SCIENCE:

    Physical Law

    Natural Law,

    Family,

    Market for Commons,

    Regional Nobility,

    Monarchy,

    Nationalism.



    GERMAN SUCCESS AND ANGLO FAILURE

    German success is reducible to the oath under nationalism. Anglo failure to the abandonment of the oath for market universalism: greed.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 08:47:00 UTC

  • We? Who are ‘We’?

    WE? WHO ARE ‘WE’? We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon those who act as parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you.

  • We? Who are ‘We’?

    WE? WHO ARE ‘WE’? We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon those who act as parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you.

  • Is there any reason we cannot warranty due diligence of full accounting of recip

    Is there any reason we cannot warranty due diligence of full accounting of reciprocity? (no)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:52:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697710104432641

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209

  • How does the law require us to warranty due diligence in products, services, and

    How does the law require us to warranty due diligence in products, services, and information today? How does science?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:52:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697607088168964

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209

  • There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error,

    There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism + deceit.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 18:36:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853678615086714881

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Who is going to decide who is using true or false speech? The right? The left? Bad idea mate.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416

  • There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error,

    There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism + deceit.

    Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just saying there is no rule of law, and lying has replaced violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:38:00 UTC

  • No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostraciz

    No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostracize(remove), or kill those who do not limit their actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs either directly or by externality against that which others have obtained an interest by the same means. People will not happily cooperate, they will cooperate because it is profitable for those who enforce such cooperation to enforce it, and profitable for people who are the victims of involuntarily imposed costs, and unprofitable for those who even attempt to impose costs. In other words: rule of law, under natural law, the scope of property being demonstrated by acts reciprocity.

    Now, go ahead and try to refute that, and I’ll eat you for lunch like pringles with beer.

    I don’t do pseudoscience, or pseudorationalism, or idealism, or supernaturalism. I do science.

    Now try it. Go a head. Lets see if you can hold your own without lying, prevaricating, or straw manning. ;)

    btw: I never said the state is a market. I said the state is an error of corporatism. But that commons are necessary for the competitive existence and persistency of a polity capable of producing liberty. So, how can one produce commons while preserving rule of law, while preventing the rise of discretionary rule (a state)? I can answer that question. You cannot. You cannot because you allowed the problem to be framed as impossible – and developing excuses to pretend it wasn’t necessary, rather than solving the problem, or simply admitting you could not – as rothbard could not – solve the problem.

    Read more

    Reply

    I don’t use a state. I use nothing but private property and rule of law, under natural law.

    How will you create the commons of property rights if commons are ‘invalid’?

    Well, someone would have to sue the mises institute for fraud, damages, etc. Which I assume would occur. But there is no ‘state’ to take action in the absence of private suit against those who distribute falsehoods.

    Reply

    Funny. I though my ”whole thing’ was to eliminate jewish marxism, jewish libertinism, jewish neo-conservativsm, anglo french and german pseudorationalism and pseudoscience, and restore empirical (truthful) government and a market between the classes using multiple houses of representatives chosen by lot.

    But then with a name like (((Rose))) I suppose you are just another liar doing what liars do – whether lying by intent, whether culturally indoctrinated into lying, or whether genetic predisposition to lying. 😉 (bait)

    Here is how to translate Rose: “I want a way to steal. I want to steal private production (jewish socialism), I want to steal commons production (jewish l ibertarianism) or I want to steal political production (jewish neoconservatism).

    Conservatives just want to stop you from stealing. Anglo Libertarianism just want to stop you from stealing even a little – even including stealing by their own.

    –“We”–

    We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you. IN which case we will happily exterminate people like you who continue to advocate methods of parasitism. ;)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:09:00 UTC

  • “[Someone says] Hoppe confuses a claim right (demand) with a liberty right (gran

    —“[Someone says] Hoppe confuses a claim right (demand) with a liberty right (granted right) do you agree with this conclusion?—A Friend

    1) He confuses a claim(want), with granted/existing(by third party insurer), with sovereign(existential) unnecessary.

    2) he confuses non contradiction in a dispute in front of a judge (third party insurer), where I cannot walk away from judgemnt in dispute, but I can walk away prior to dispute, with negotiation with a hostile party who may kill you if you walk away from the negotiation.

    In other words, he is making a moral, or a leagal argument within the context of existing cooperation, rather than making a scientific argument that is necessary to construct a polity in the first place.

    Hoppe’s philosophy is shit. His arguments as to the application of property (voluntary transactions) as a means of commensurability in all of social science is genius.

    He gets his training from fucking habermas ( a private property marxist ) and then from Rothbard (a common property marxist ) and we wonder why he makes nonsense marxist arguments in favor of private property.

    The source of liberty is the common law of torts. And the common law of torts evolved between sovereign men as a means of preventing retaliation cycles.

    Violence. It’s all from violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 10:19:00 UTC

  • ( You know, when I challenge people to fight me, I’m not kidding. I’m a middle a

    ( You know, when I challenge people to fight me, I’m not kidding. I’m a middle aged short guy. I have asthma. I’ve survived serious illnesses. But I still subscribe to the duel. And I’m willing to die. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 08:36:00 UTC