QUESTION: “Curt, please explain how you mean “their own houses of government”” A

QUESTION: “Curt, please explain how you mean “their own houses of government””

ANSWER: People with similar economic interests: the monarchy (ownership of the formal institutions of government – ie: law), landed nobility (responsibility for local economies), commons (responsible for business and finance), church – the house of proletarians (responsibility for production of insurance – insurer of last resort – and all commons: care-taking).

We had it right all along. If you cannot demonstrate sufficient interests for a higher house then you only have the interests of a lower house.

If we conducted contractual exchanges between houses (as we did in the past) and that these contracts were constructed under common law (in the ancient sense as organic application of property rights), then we would have a vehicle for cooperation rather than government as a vehicle for conflict.

And exchange is always welcome. an imposition or theft is not.

The market cannot solve the provision of all goods, because the purpose of some goods is not produced through competition, nor are all goods produced producible if consumable.

We are living a lie, and that is why government must be a venue for conflict; it is presumed to be a lie: that we are equal and of equal interest, and that as such a Pareto optimum can be found. Instead, the only known way of producing an optimum is through voluntary exchange – a Nash equilibrium.

Like infinity, a Pareto optimum does not nor can it, exist. Something approaching Pareto optimums may evolve because we pursue Nash equilibria, but like unicorns and infinity, these are just loose ideas, to use for analogistic purposes.

NO PROPOSITIONS ARE DECIDABLE BY PARETO OPTIMUM. Only evidence of the success or failure of our achievement of a Nash equilibrium.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine.