In war, Rothbard wrote, “Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest.”

The same happened in the Covid vaxx campaign. And just as in wars, the “public interest” was never secured.

The new social contract, the black version:

There’s only one thing that would stop our children from busting into these liquor stores; there’s only one thing that would stop our kids from busting into these jewelry stores, stealing watches and jewelry, and that’s reparations.

Move over, Rawls.

Steve Sailer argues:

The New York Times began its listing of Penn law professor Amy Wax’s speechcrimes with:

Amy Wax, a law professor, has said publicly that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites…”

Now, you know and I know that’s likely the most thoroughly documented fact in all of American social science.

It’s not a good society where stating what is both obvious and consensus science at the same time requires heroic self-sacrifice.

Cupit extends his analysis of promising to requesting and argues that a mere request can generate obligations for the same inner reason that promising can.

His idea is that the requestor trusts that the requestee is not “cold, uncaring, indifferent, unloving, disregardful.” If that trust is disappointed, the requestee makes the requestor into a dupe for trusting him.

The implausibility of this should have been a warning to Cupit, but he is eager to unify his theory. The disanlogy is that there is a natural and perfect duty to keep promises; there is at most only an imperfect matter of Christian charity to grant requests. No one has to honor any particular request. Every man, including a Christian, is perfectly at liberty to refuse to grant any request.

The perfect duty to keep promises generates a right to have the promises kept; the imperfect duty of charity does not generate any rights to be assisted.

Even if the requestor’s trust is correct, and the requestee is warm, caring, etc., no felt charity must result in any particular work of mercy. The trust is not broken by virtue of the requestee declining to help.

Something is broken indeed, but it is not faith (or trust) but hope. The requestor is hoping to get what he wants. But if he doesn’t, he is not by that fact made into a dupe, he is not degraded.

God is perfectly charitable, but He is not a genie and does not satisfy all prayers. If God does not help, it is a wrong response to lose one’s faith in Him. Again, what is disappointed is your hope, and not even hope in general as a theological virtue but hope in this particular thing. Hope is an imperfect virtue, its consummation is possession of the good hoped for. In the case of a request I merely hope that you will grant it, in the case of a promise I own your compliance by right. Failure to honor a request, unlike failure to keep a promise, is not a rights violation.

Cupit argues that it’s true that the requestor can abstain from making a request, but if he does so on the ground that he thinks the request will be denied, he is being unjust to the requestee by assuming him to be cold, uncaring, etc. But this entails that if one wants to make a request, he is morally required on pain of injustice to do so, and that is absurd.

Babylon Bee posted a funny bit on “Eight Subtle Signs Abortion Was Outlawed In Your State.”

Unfortunately, they feel the need to virtue signal:

More minorities running around than usual: They were never aborted by Planned Parenthood. Because of Christian fascism.

It doesn’t work this way. This is because the “minorities,” when they grow up, will kill the Babylon Bee writers and eat their loving Christian hearts.

At that point it will become true of them what Jesus said of Judas: “It would be better for them if they had never been born.”

Now far be it from me to condemn all the “minorities” for the sins of some. And abortion is hardly a solution. But “Planned Parenthood are the real racists” is not much of a zinger.

There was a video some time ago recorded by a gas station clerk.

A black guy was paying for his stuff when a white beggar came in through the door and started to spin a story about how he needed money for a ride because his car broke down, you know, the usual lies that beggars make up to make themselves appear more deserving of help.

If it were me, I might feel an obligation to give him something. I might try to escape, but I would also feel guilty. Don’t make eye contact and get out quickly.

But not the black guy. Here’s what he said to the beggar, turning slightly:

“Motherfucker, I don’t give a shit.”

I was struck by this. But that’s blacks. There is total lack of charity or even ability to empathize.

Black criminals are extreme manifestations of this psychopathic savagery. They don’t care about anyone’s rights or what anyone wants. They kill as if they were a natural disaster like plague. Worse, they enjoy the excitement of the crime. They kill for kicks, to prove that they’re tougher than you. They torture to revel in their power. They live without a conscience.

Of course, the same can be said about some white criminals. The point is that blacks are in general a degraded people because it is so difficult for them to love others.

It is this misbegotten race that is being glorified, unjustly, by idiot whites today. The irony is that this only corrupts blacks further. White people are driving blacks into hell.

Cupit makes a brilliant point about why it is wrong to break a promise.

When you promise, my trust in you is morally required of me. If I fail to trust, if you are at all trustworthy, I do you an injustice. This is unlike a mere statement of intent you might make.

So trust is essentially coerced, extracted from me by your right, I have no choice in this matter. But in that case, I’m at your mercy, and if you renege on your promise, you are responsible for my false belief.

And what happens when you renege is you make me into a dupe, a fool, an idiot for trusting you. This degrades my status and hence constitutes wrongful treatment.

It’s interesting that Cupit argues that this wrongful treatment is not unjust. I think he’s right, and to get an injustice we need to upgrade a mere promise into a full-blown contract.

A contract is an explicit invitation to capitalistic social cooperation. It is a sacrament of a meeting of the minds. So for two people to make a contract is to acknowledge each other as human with the relevant libertarian natural rights.

And to break the contract later is to violate those rights, thereby treat the other party as less than human. And that, according to justice as fittingness, is unjust.

In Chapter 3 of Justice as Fittingness, Cupit describes two ways of looking at individuals and society. One is “wholeness” which I will interpret as a libertarian view that each individual has natural rights of the right sort. The other is “membership” where the individual is conceived as a part of a totality.

Cupit seems to derive the idea of membership by an analogy between society and the human body.

Ok, while it’s true that society, like the body, features unity-in-variety, this is where similarities end.

Society comes into being as a product of purposeful cooperation between individuals for mutual benefit; it’s not mindless things ordered for the purposes of the whole organism. The analogy fails completely. Society does not feature “membership” at all in this sense.

The correct holistic description of society is not organism at all but process, of growth and development.

And this does not imply any gibberish like “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Progress consists in ever greater inclusion.

You are to include every manner of disease into your body and sin into your soul.

Love the filth.