Jan 30, 2020, 6:41 PM
—“I just read your “Civilizational Differences in Strategy and Conflict”. Excellent work! … I have a question. Toward the end of the post, you write “punish it in a via-negativa market for the continuous suppression of profit by plausible deniability of accountability”. Can you give an example of such a market, or an example of the effect of of such a market? Do you mean punishment for an observed negative consequence to a demonstrated interest (reciprocity)?”—
“profit from plausible deniability to bait into hazard”
Selling goods or services without warranty
Selling drugs, encouraging prostitution, or pornography.
Selling gambling, selling alcohol on credit, selling credit.
Selling improbabilities, advertising, religion
Selling marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism…
One is not accountable for the consequences, because there is no warranty stated, and no warranty enforced. This is how abrahamic method of deceit was spread: western sovereignty is vulnerable to undermining because sovereigns are not prohibited from making bad choices, and we have forbidden retaliation and restitution for consequences of volition – even voluntary choice to be baited into hazard.
In other words, the current emphasis on criminal reform is to add requirement for intent to stop police from criminalizing accidental violations. So our requirement for means, motive, opportunity, would be increased to include ‘intent’ also.
Likewise, my emphasis on libility reform would be to force involuntary warranty on any baiting into hazard – which would effectively outlaw baiting into hazard, as violating sovereignty in the same way deceit violates sovereignty – and literally gut the advertising, media, entertainment, gambling, academic, credit card, consumer-financial, debt collection, and political sectors, and even the contracts for things like cell and cable bills. this effectively converts buyer beware (despite his or her ignorance) to lender beware (because of their asymmetric knowledge of risks). Instead all of this lending would go through the treasury and all CONSUMER interest be captured for the commons. If we combine liquidity distribution (managing the money supply) with direct distribution of cash to citizens on debit cards, we will invert the economy to be in the service of consumers.
I hope this explains enough.
Just like falsificationism and testimonialism and grammars convert justification to falsification – inverting our understanding of truth, this conversion of the law will restore sovereignty to the citizens and end the parasitism upon them that has destroyed the working middle managerial and small business classes.
This is the greatest most revolutionary reform since the roman redistribution of land, and second only to the restructuring of continental power in the 19th century.
And yet it is the very OPPOSITE of marxism.