No, UPB Is a Minor Retread on NAP.

(FB 1549967190 Timestamp)


—“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conflating UPB with the NAP suggests you’re not familiar with it? UPB is more like the extension of the scientific method to ethics more than anything else. I can’t see anything on the website about UPB – unless its refuted under a different name.”— Hamish


Comparing Jewish Libertarian Ethics vs European Libertarian Ethics.

The test of any jewish-libertarian law is voluntarism.

1. The first test of it’s failure is blackmail. It fails the test of blackmail.

  1. The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.

  2. The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.

  3. The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….

  4. The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….

  5. The sixth test is of voluntarism is undermining (propaganda, tradition, law, activism, reciprocity )….

Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale.

Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”.


The test of european libertarianism is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost by externality that would reduce the trust and risk of the people to engage in the production of goods, services, information whether private or common. it is applicable to all. that’s what rule of law means: applicable to all.

European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin.

European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others.

The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result.

The reason we developed the commons, mercantilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family exept for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics.

Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility.


What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences.

This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization.

The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people.

The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services).

All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons.

I finished the law for the age of information.



“A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”

  1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called â??hazardors.â? Jacob.

  2. In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488.

  3. In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281.

  4. Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614.

Leave a Reply