The Seven Laws

Friday, 18 December, Year 12 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

During the 40s (1640s) one John Selden supposedly (apud Milton) constructed something towards a theory of international law on the basis of something he calls "the seven laws of Noah". I've no idea where the hell he got that crap ; but upon perusal it's self-obviously unrelated to the actual seven laws. Here they are :

  1. Do not mistake man for offspring.
  2. Do not suffer the seekers of long life to live.
  3. Do not allow a victim innocence.
  4. Do not speak over your Master's words.
  5. Do not wallow content.
  6. Do not aid the needy [but only the worthy].
  7. Do not believe by count.

I'll entertain questionsi from the publicii, at least for a while.

  1. There are also some inescapable difficulties of translation from The Word to this sad doggerel, so it's possible though unlikely some rephrasing might be necessary. []
  2. Importantly : there is no rule against the taking of life ; nor against fucking ; nor does anyone give a shit what you whoreship. []
Category: Cuvinte Sfiinte
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

12 Responses

  1. what's going on here can anyone told me ??

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 23 December 2020

    Life, as you don't know it.

  3. By rule number 4 I will not continue this comment any further.

  4. What's belief by count? Is it something like the "97% of climate scientists agree" thing, or perhaps otherwise put, democracy?

  5. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Friday, 25 December 2020

    "There's three of these and two of those so therefore these", whatever these or those might be.

    Not exactly democracy, in the sense "don't fuck around" doesn't reductively mean "no dildos" -- dildos are unavoidably an inconsequential side point in any discussion of sexuality and similarily the common man's delusions of self-importance (=democracy) are just as unavoidably an inconsequential side point in any discussion of ethics. Both electoral and representative systems, however, democratic or no, social, political or otherwise. Fabled Buridan may not steer left or right because there's three lights right to the left's two (or vice-versa).

    Just as well the "preponderence of evidence" standard, rendering most of what currently passes for "civil jurisdiction" outright immoral, and with one clean sweep bring back that whole pile of fiat sadness to the tulip-era Dutch wisdom (readily summarized as "fuck you, there's no legal remedies, should've thought about it before doing it"). Further applications in the trite vein render basic health insurance impossible (no, smoking can't be bad "because it's bad to many people") and so on ; but most generally any attempts at synthetic, constructive non-human life are thus interdicted. Sovereignity will have to be vested explicitly without possible exception by this rule, greatly limiting the wiggle room for usual evil posturing. There's to be no space for the anal child's perennial "oh who knows if this bullshit I came up with is no good, hasn't been tried out yet" bla bla bla.

  6. This has helped me untangle more concepts than I'd discovered the need to ask about and left me a fabled burro newly loaded up besides; thank you. Some remaining perplexions:

    1. What's the distinction between social system and political system?

    2. Why "basic health insurance impossible" - isn't insurance about pricing known risks by statistical methods, not so much classifying things "good" or "bad"? And if this law proscribes the activity, is any other sort of insurance left standing?

    3. From the href I take "non-human life" to mean (social / political) systems where the sovereignty of the group is not vested. What do "synthetic" and "constructive" mean in this context?

    4. "Sovereignity will have to be vested explicitly without possible exception by this rule" - I seem to be missing some step to get to this conclusion. Is the argument that if it's not vested then you end up stuck having to decide by count, as when a jury fails to reach unanimity?

  7. Almost forgot, until by remarkable coincidence reminded by your latest: 5. Is Bitcoin a case of such synthetic, constructive non-human life? Do its nodes not decide the "true history" of the system based on count (of accumulated hash)?

  8. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 10 January 2021

    Minds take shits, just like any other part of living things. Unlike all other shits, the shits minds shit accrete, in principle indefinitely. When the minds are female the corresponding latrines/middens chiefly consist of tapioca chewing and assorted matrimonial pursuits ; when the minds are male the latrines fill with the debris of culling runts and respective wank. The first set's called social and the second set's called political for historical reasons.

    Insurance is about pricing risk in the sense scratch tickets are about market research. Insurance strictly exist as a game of extraction from the poor, it's exactly the capitalist equivalent of the mercantilist notion of taxation. If you are by yourself equal to any possible contingency, you don't need insurance for anything. If however you're feeble, and need mommy's hand there to hold yours just in case, then you pay the premium and get the shaft. At about the same time I had a car window broken and a parent of a slavegirl had a car window broken. I self-insure ; my car's window was fixed the following day for a little under a coupla hundy, notwithstanding it was a special order (tinted etc) on a luxury model. The parent pays for insurance, which is why they had a $500 co-pay on a $350 job, leaving them a) questioning why they pay $x thousand a year for insurance and b) telling the girly in question she should readmorenytimes/gotocollege/buyinsurance/etc. These seemingly contradictory stances are readily answered by the answer to a, which is self-obvious : if "the worst" happens, I just reach into the drawer and pull out whatever stacks ; they however are up shit creek w/o paddle -- for which reason they must pay the premium, go to "college" volunteer to be reaped and everything else.

    Constructive ; synthetic.

    Something like that. Whenever you're "reasoning" you're counting something, which is ultimately what computers do.

  9. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 10 January 2021

    Bitcoin has a terrible history when it comes to making men out of shit stacked this high. You may blame me for it if you wish, you might even pretend however convincingly to yourself that there's some objective difference to support imagined distinction between kludge #1 and kludge #2. However...

  1. [...] iconry : too reminiscent of settled female life, "happy" in its deranged senses and therein wallowing content ; or perhaps because the modesty of it strikes an aesthetic chord. I'm not particularly convinced I [...]

  2. [...] minute tribe of deranged maniacs that so disgusted Imperial administration restated its ethics around an interdiction of murder, it's true, but this exceptional (truly, unparalleled) [...]

  3. [...] among a gaggle of people who "all agree" with anything -- anything whatsoever at all, take "murder is wrong" for as fine an example as any, for it well illustrates the true boundless expanse of that anything [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.