The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all members of any faith are responsible for the heresies within that faith. Ergo, if your faith has members that violate natural law, reciprocity, or accountability then, this religion is by definition not a right, and does not protect fundamental rights.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 13:58:00 UTC
DEBT(RESTITUTION:JUSTICE) VS PARASITISM(INJUSTICE)
(important post)
PARASITISM (EXTRACTION: INJUSTICE : WAR)
Political Parasitism : Forcible Redistribution to non-kin (war).
Political Harm: Forcible Maintenance of Suicidal Commons (war).
Political Debt : Child support, Alimony, Common Property (war).
Usury Debt: Predatory Financing Debt (asymmetric knowledge, unproductive, warrantied (no skin in the game), involuntary, causing externalities) (war)
—VS—
DEBT (RESTITUTION: JUSTICE: COOPERATION)
Debt: Forcible Transfer of Restitution for Non Predatory Debt (fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary, free of externality.)
Restitution Debt: Forcible transfer of restitution.
Punishment Debt: Imposition of costs for betrayal.
The only ‘debt’ is restitution.
Interest must be earned (productive).
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 03:24:00 UTC
I dunno. Josh and the Nietzscheans kicked my around a bit and I’ve been working on it, and I can probably get there. Natural Law, the right to demand it, to enforce it, and to make beauty to celebrate one’s victory is enough. I begin to see a sort of way to get there….
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 09:46:00 UTC
BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC MUST BE MODEST AND SHOW RESPECT FOR PURITY IN THE COMMONS.
( https://www.facebook.com/JoeySalads/videos/549083008591884/ )
Had she picked a spot with limited privacy it would be one thing. Had she placed a blanket over her shoulder, that would be another. But they picked a spot where she was ADVERTISING and that’s quite different. It’s disregard for purity in the commons.
We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason.
As far as I know the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom.
I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts.
Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust.
Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies.
Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism.
Sorry. Just how it is.
PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM THREE LOW TRUST GENE POOLS AND CULTURES IN THIS VIDEO. (PROLES)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 09:39:00 UTC
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?utm_hp_ref=yahoo&ir=YahooWHY ARE SOME MEN ABOVE THE LAW? ‘CAUSE IT’S HARD TO KNOW THE TERMS OF THE IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN ASYMMETRICALLY INFORMED PARTIES.
(i.e. women want us to make the world safe for their impulses.)
Hmmmm….. Not sure I agree. Surprisingly for me also.
There is an enormous asymmetry of knowledge and experience between a man of the world at 40, and a naive (ignorant) college girl.
I do not read Martha’s post any differently than the same young woman attempting to drive an exotic super car, and damaging it, and herself in the consequent accident. She assumed too much of herself in both circumstances. She should have had less confidence and more skepticism, and made more inquiries, and engaged incremental training of herself.
The ethical question is not whether she disapprove of the experience. But why she was so ignorant, and why he was wiling to have sex with her, and why she expected him to have sex on her (naive) terms?
From his perspective (and any man who has a lot of female attention), ‘rough sex’ is pretty commonplace – and often desirable, and often rewarded. (Thanks to the internet era, we have data now, so it’s not a matter of subjective opinion. It is what it is. Women prefer the inner gorilla to the outer gentleman, and more intelligent people tend to be worse at sex. )
So it begs the question: why do we teach equality and subjective prediction of normative behavior, rather than asymmetry?
As far as I can tell the postwar era was an intellectual, cultural, political, and economic, catastrophe – an experiment with a new postmodern mysticism.
Effete (naive) subjective projections of norms to the contrary.
Why do we lie? Why have we created a century of lies?
Men are super-predators that have spent at least ten thousand years in self pacification through war, ritual, religion, politics, economics, law, sport, norms, the family, farming, mutual cooperation, and daily fighting. Why do we tell ourselves and others that man does anything other than act in his rational self interest given the options at his disposal?
Women have had too little time to redevelop institutions and wisdom of controlling their impulses now that they are free of the hearth, home, and paternal and maternal protections.
The law accounts for this by punishing people of similar experiences, and being skeptical of asymmetric experiences. As such **avoid asymmetric experiences** in all walks of life. Risks are fun but costly in all walks of life. A woman has a genetic bias to experiment with alphas but her youthful ignorance does not know how to manage them.
We do not make the world better by making it safe for idiots to act in ignorance and impulsiveness. We make it better when we educate and avoid risks we do not understand the consequences of.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 05:30:00 UTC
The chinese can lie only because we do not make them put skin in the game.
We ignore the principle of warranty.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 10:25:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/12/24/the-silver-rule-cooperation-the-golden-rule-buying-options-on-cooperation/THE OATH
“What Is your Oath?”
“I shall not steal,
by action or inaction,
by word or silence,
by will or weakness.
I shall speak the truth,
even if it leads to my death,
and demand the truth,
upon pain of death.
I shall master my will,
master my body,
master the truth,
master a craft,
and master those
who have not yet
done the same.
I shall never leave
an enemy unchallenged,
never flee
in the face of enemies,
and never surrender
to enemies,
even if it means
my death.
I shall prosecute those who steal
by action or inaction,
by word or silence,
by will or weakness.
I shall fulfill the duties
of warrior and sheriff,
of prosecutor and executioner,
of judge and jury.
I shall safeguard the helpless,
assist those in need,
care for the commons,
and create beauty in it.
And I shall leave this world
for those that have lived in it,
and those who live in it,
and those that may yet live,
a better paradise
than I entered it.
I shall make no promise
that violates this oath,
and if I break this oath,
I demand my brothers in oath
shall kill me without mercy
and purge my name
and my memory
from this earth.
This is my oath.”
(all)
“That is Your Oath, and we shall hold you to it.”
“Rise a Knight”
THE SILVER RULE
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/12/24/the-silver-rule-cooperation-the-golden-rule-buying-options-on-cooperation/
NEVER BEND AT THE KNEE INVOLUNTARILY
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/12/14/never-bend-at-the-knee-involuntarily-ever/
WILL YOU INSURE YOUR BROTHERS
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/12/14/will-you-insure-your-brothers/
CLEANSE THE EARTH OF LIES
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/12/07/cleanse-the-earth-of-lies-and-theft-and-we-will-become-the-gods-we-seek/
(how close is this getting to a religion? a religion of restoration? a religion of conquest?)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 05:47:00 UTC
I have no problem with killing. It is simply necessary at times.
Because we cannot kill ideas without the killing the host that has invested in them.
But Suffering is not acceptable, and revelry in suffering is contemptible.
This is the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
There is no place for evil in the human heart.
Reason is not compatible with passion.
Truth not compatible with hatred.
Kill them all if needed.
But take no joy in it.
It is a necessary action.
But not one to take joy in.
For each life lost is one that could have been beautiful if not infected by evil.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:12:00 UTC
—“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)
[I]’d like to give you a different suggestion.
That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.
1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)
2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies
3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws
4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science
But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).
So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.
My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.
So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.
ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY
So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.
“SOLID BASE”
Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).
The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.
As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.
SEE:
INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/
THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/
Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
—“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)
[I]’d like to give you a different suggestion.
That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.
1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)
2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies
3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws
4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science
But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).
So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.
My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.
So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.
ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY
So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.
“SOLID BASE”
Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).
The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.
As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.
SEE:
INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/
THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/
Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.