ON BUNNIES (kept for future reference) (example of bad argument) 1) the ultimate

http://www.propertarianism.com/STOMPING ON BUNNIES

(kept for future reference) (example of bad argument)

1) the ultimate insurer of contracts is fear of loss by participants or insurer.

2) under rule of law, constructed upon natural law, administrated by the common law, local legal monopoly (mono-logism) is necessary to reduce transaction and opportunity costs relative to competing cities/states, not because the a ‘soveriegn’ (monopoly) need be the insurer. It is just that it is much better for economic and civil development to rely upon a monopoly.

3) law is found. legislation is made. legislation under rule of law is either not logically possible if it conflicts with natural law, or logically unnecessary if it adheres to natural law, and governing bodies then can only create contract, not law.

———–

Edward Volsunga

You think government is bad… But you still want law.

———–

Curt Doolittle

I think you don’t know what the term ‘law’ means.

1) Law of cooperation(property rights) discovered by judges

2) Legislation (commands) produced by Government.

3) Regulation (requirements) produced by bureaucracy.

Law is a science like any other.

Legislation and regulation are the product of government and bureaucracy.

———–

Edward Volsunga

Edward Volsunga I don’t think you understand law in the slightest.

Private contracts are made with the understanding that they are enforceable by a sovereign. That’s what makes them possible.

Even your arbitration contracts need to be enforceable.

You don’t have ANY law in effect without a sovereign.

———–

Curt Doolittle

So, we can agree that contracts require an ‘insurer’ (which is the term we use “insurer of last resort”.

But do contracts require LEGISLATION? or do they require only common law? (judge found law).

When two groups from two jurisdictions create a contract, how are such contracts enforceable?

When the jewish quarter and the muslim quarter and the saxon quarter had their own laws, how did they cooperate? Who insured those contracts?

So we have intra-group contracts. We have inter-group contracts. And we have inter jurisdictional (international) contracts.

Yet none of these requires a monopoly (sovereign) they only require an insurer.

So the problem we find is when one insurer can disregard another insurer. When this happens the market will go to the most reliable insurer (that’s what happens).

The government may have a role as the insurer of last resort, and in fact, the theory at present is that this is it’s sole purpose.

Military (insurer of territory, judiciary, insurance and treasury

Judiciary (dispute resolution)

Insurer of Last Resort (and treasury)

Producer of market for Commons (‘houses’)

The question is whether the (insurer) should construct legislation. My opinion is no. and that only the ‘houses’ should produce contracts, and that legislation is always and everywhere a lie.

———–

Curt Doolittle

Information, Air, Water, Land, Physical Capital, Institutions, Norms, Traditions, Myths – people DEMONSTRATE that they treat these as commons: “that which may not be consumed”.

———–

Edward Volsunga

These private insurers, will they simply pay up what is owed, or will they go after the party in breach of contract?

In either case you have disorder. Either people can fail to fulfill contracts as they please, or there will be private armed bands roving around collecting what they think they are owed.

And in actuality, either model would never work for long. It would only be transitory. Wherever there is a power vacuum there are many looking to fill it.

The aristocracy and the church lost control of the politics, and culture of the western world, and it was taken over by common people. And now it has been taken over by foreign (Jewish) interests.

What you want isn’t new, or wise. It would be momentary anarchy, with an unpredictable outcome. The power vacuum will be filled.

“Information, Air, Water, Land, Physical Capital, Institutions, Norms, Traditions, Myths – people DEMONSTRATE that they treat these as commons: “that which may not be consumed”.”

That statement is extremely naive (and wrong). I think if you consider it carefully you’ll realize the above statement is false.

Your ideology is the result of putting freedom before anything else. But surely you realize that it is not right to do so. Too much freedom isn’t good at all; a man who is free in his soul to do anything he pleases is a horrible criminal. No man who could be rightly called aristocratic would elevate freedom above all else. Just as a man must constrain his base instincts, so must government restrain the baseness of the people — lest society degenerate into… well, what we have today.

The question is never should there be government or should there be power, as these things will exist regardless of the babbling of libertarians. The question is rather who should be in power. To ignore this is to ignore reality, and lie to oneself and others.

———–

Curt Doolittle

Not much that you’re giving me to work with there.

I don’t have an ideology. I have an attempt to create a formal logic of cooperation.

In practice a monopoly insurer of a polity reduces transaction costs.

This has nothing to do with whether legislation must be created by fiat, or constructed as a contract.

———–

Edward Volsunga

It has everything to do with it. Your private insurer model wouldn’t work. Contracts must be enforceable. Who enforces the law without a sovereign?

———–

Curt Doolittle

well, given that it was the model for almost all of history, and that it still is used in international relations then how can your statement be true?

there is no sovereign between states, yet states construct contracts all the time.

I mean, look at the hanseatic cities. They had quarters with their own laws, much like today’s embassies have their own laws.

all that matters is that you have an insurer and that the cost of a competing insurer’s conflict is high enough that each maintains predicatable relations.

This is why international trade is so important.

———–

Curt Doolittle

You would fare a lot better if you presumed you just don’t understand – and seeking to understand rather than assuming I am wrong and that you are right. smile emoticon It’s just more likely. (a lot). wink emoticon

———–

Edward Volsunga

I suppose then for convenience you are pretending that there are no international courts? No United Nations?

And it was not used “as the model for almost all of history”, not for most people. Sovereigns in history are much more common than long periods of stable anarchy. And with good reason.

You seem to be forgetting that before this power vacuum was filled, state attacked state much more regularly, and great powers vied for supremacy over the world.

—“You would fare a lot better if you presumed you just don’t understand”.—

I could say the same to you — you have a presumption that you are right, and you have overlooked much of what I have said to continue thinking so. It is indeed true that the philosopher spirit is one of accepted ignorance, and following the argument. But used here, by you, it is a pointless and sophistic argument.

———–

Curt Doolittle

But (a) you claimed that one needed a sovereign authority, and those courts have no power of enforcement, just as the UN has no power of enforcement, and (b) modern international courts are a product of the postwar experiment – they are novelties. SO how did contract and trade exist between states for all of history?

I forget very little. I rely upon a fairly rigid set of requirements (which you don’t).

identity (which you don’t practice, which is why i keep defining terms)

internal consistency (you do practice this as far as it goes)

external correspondence (you don’t make appeals to evidence but to ‘reason’)

Existential Possibility (you don’t, but then, that’s a hard one)

Full accounting (you dnon’t because you’re engaging in selection bias)

parsimony/limits (which you don’t do because you wouldn’t make the hasty generalizations you do.

———–

Edward Volsunga

—Trade worked as it does today, through private merchants operating under the law of each realm the operate within.—

Is this not the way it is and was? Trade between nations doesn’t come near showing what you think it does.

I find it odd that you want to use the peaceful relations of nations throughout history as proof, when history has been anything but peaceful. Your own so called “evidence” makes a mockery of your ideas. Relationships between independent states are dominated by force, rather than justice or any sort of fairness. And you wish for such a system in our every day lives?

Like · Reply · 14 hrs

———–

Curt Doolittle

Here:

– Milsom’s Natural History of the Common Law.

– Picketty’s A Concise History Of The Common Law….See More

———–

Edward Volsunga

Don’t post me libertarian references and leave. Defend your ideas. How does the violent history of nations, those that were sovereign themselves and without overlords, at all prove your fantasy?

———–

Curt Doolittle

What fantasy? I’m reporting history.

Tell me how the Hansiatic league spread.

read the OH above on the use of violence.

read the chaotic expansion of anglo saxon and British law.

Law is like any technology: it can be spread by force (as did most of imperial law. Or it can be spread by pulling (as did hanseatic law). And to some degree roman, napoleonic, and soviet law. it’s a technology. That said, who insures it? what insures law between states is loss of trade and failing that, violence. What insured it between pre-state actors? the same.

What insured the agreement that Ukraine, if she gave up her 1200 nuclear weapons her borders would be defended, yet Putin walked right in? who insures international law against china, america, and russia? fear of loss does. It doesn’t matter what scale.

you keep jumping to the conclusion that I’m advocating libertarian polycentric law when I’ve written against it forever. My point is only, and for some reason you can’t grasp it, that legislation (monopoly) is not necessary, and instead that contracts can be negotiated for the production of rules and regulation of local conduct. Ergo, there is no need for majority rule – assent. Instead, any group can construct a commons as long as it survives legal dissent. This eliminates the opportunity for rent seeking (corruption) in the construction of commons.

Your theory is that a hierarchical monopoly of enforcement is required. I’m responding that no such hierarchical monopoly has existed. That it’s a balance of powers and interest that makes it necessary.

Instead local semi.monopolies arise because of the problem of transaction costs NOT because of contract law.

And that states did and do act as insurers of last resort not authorities between states – these are mere treaties with one another the cost of which is too high to break.

Just as the cost of violating another insurer’s is too high to break.

You have no knowledge of history, no knowledge of law, no knowledge of economics, if you cannot put together that polycentrism has always been present in law, and it is the slow expansion of commercial ties that slowly joins custom, practice, law, norm into a unified system. Hence expansion of consumer capitalism.

I mean, wtf. You’re a chipmunk and you’re getting aggressive with me?

People like you are why people like me give up granting access. Because you waste our time with your autistic egoism.

Don’t criticize what you don’t understand, especially, when the reason you don’t understand is that you haven’t done the hard work of mastering the field. In propertarian terminology that makes you a thief who is shaming me as a means of obtaining a discount on personal instruction rather than spending your own effort on research.

If you want me to teach you, pay me. If you want to observe and participate that’s mutually beneficial. But if you don’t have the knowledge to construct a scientific argument , and you’re too fucking rude to seek to understand, then have the good grace to be quiet.

Fuk.

———–

Edward Volsunga

I grasp your position. I just think it’s wrong.

How do you have private law, contracted law between individuals, without calling it polycentric? If one man contracts to two separate people the same item, then both of those private laws would have jurisdiction over the item, and therefore would be competing within the jurisdiction. You can’t avoid it. You’d have competing laws all over the place. This just isn’t well considered.

Your system is exactly like every other libertarian nonsense system I’ve ever seen, except you are adamant that it isn’t. Never go full certainty.

In the United States, where there is an absolute hierarchy and a monopoly, the courts will decide what happens. If you go to arbitration you will then go to a court for enforcement.

Get this through your head: ALL private contracts in the United States are made under the jurisdiction of sovereign power.

Then there is the problem of people being unable to find insurance if they are deemed a credit risk, essentially removing from them the ability to contract…

Your system is awful.

———–

Curt Doolittle

First, we have polycentric legal constructions in america, which is why we have courts of review. Or maybe you don’t understand the american legal process. It bubbles up. it’s called common law. Just as Legislative law bubbles up through the review system. Just as federal law is both forced down and bubbles up to the supreme court.

Second, the reason we have conflicts is that we cannot have polycentric laws in social preference (reproduction), while at the same time we require monopoly in matters of the coordination of property (production), This is the REASON for american social division.

third, the world has polycentric legal constructions – we call them governments. yet while there are courts of mediation, we have no international courts with sovereign power. Instead, governments/states abide by mediation because of the economic COSTS to them of not doing so.

Fourth, this form of order allows the ongoing separation of courts of social organization (reproduction) to remain heterogeneous, and courts of contract and trade (production) to remain homogenous. Which is, of course, necessary, or the best gene pool would conquer the others and as such there would be no reproductive defense in holding states.

CLOSING

(a) you don’t know the meaning of polycentric law (court discovered law)

(b) you don’t understand my ‘system’ – in the least.

(c) in my ‘system’ there is a sovereign power (monopoly) the judiciary. This means “rule of law” not ‘rule by law/rule by legislation’.

(d) in my ‘system’ the ‘government’ (houses) construct contracts that must hold up in court, rather than issuing commands that modify natural law. This eliminates majority rule’s rent seeking.

(e) in this ‘system’ majority rule is not necessary, survival of any legal dissent is necessary. (ie: there is no reason that Seattle cannot have BOTH a train and a monorail if the people want that.)

(f) in theory and practice this transforms government to function identically to the evolution of contract law, preserving both rule of law and natural law.

You maintain the tactic over and over again, of straw man criticisms – you merely don’t understand.

The value in illustrating your constant failures is in demonstrating your constant failures for others.

OLD EUROPE

What I have done is demonstrate why the west defeated ‘the rest’ in rates of innovation. And how to restore it.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

———–

Curt Doolittle

Tying to cast my work as a restatement of libertarian polycentric law is false. I am an aristocratic (anglo) libertarian, not a rothbardian (jewish) libertine.

I have restored classical liberalism (houses), added houses for new classes, and changed from majority assent to legal dissent, therefore constructing contract law in government, rather than issuing commands we ‘cheekily’ call ‘legislative law’. Therefor preserving rule of law. By adding universal standing in matters of the commons, and incorporating public information as a commons, and defining a method for warrantying due diligence of truth content, it is possible to allow free truthful speech (information production) just as we allow free product and service production, while at the same time limiting free untruthful speech (political correctness etc) just as we l limit defective or fraudulent goods and services, using the courts of common law – thereby empowering activists to require that the government’s contracts adhere to rule of law.

Cheers.

———–

THE “YOU’RE NOT A PHILOSOPHER” ATTACK

———–

———–

Edward Volsunga

–“I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Conservative Libertarian tradition, and founder of the Propertarian Institute”. —

This is a the self description of an ideologue, not of a philosopher.

———–

Curt Doolittle

Really?

Do you know what the difference is between ideology and philosophy?

So do you have any arguments to put forward of are you just going to urinate on verbal firehydrants? wink emoticon

———–

Edward Volsunga

Edward Volsunga Philosophy is the love of wisdom itself. To know your ignorance and seek the impossible — wisdom.

Ideology is to hold highest a specific ideal, besides wisdom which leaves the mind open by its nature.

You base your arguments on your love for freedom. Everything you propose is predicated on freedom being greatest.

Even when you try to claim that what you are really advocating is a method of bringing different people together, you merely again show your democratic spirit.

I normally ignore ideologues, but I take interest in you, because you pretend philosophy. And like all pretend philosophers, you misrepresent both yourself and philosophy.

I question you because you say you know something, and I’d like us both to discover whether that’s true.

———–

Curt Doolittle

Is that what philosophy is? I thought that was a romantic bit of self congratulation on the part of Plato.

I thought instead philosophy was a discipline, that the purpose of that discipline was truth, and that philosophers were required to produce a system of thought.

Now most academic philosophers actually specialize in the history of thought, and are in fact professors of philosophy rather than producing philosophers. I mean, speaking empirically, that certainly appears to be the case. (although this is a common discussion in academic circles, the evidence is pretty consistent.)

Now, ideology as a category is an outcome of democracy. The purpose of ideology is to create emotional incentive to act to influence the implementation of policy. Ideology need be neither internally consistent nor externally correspondent, or consist of existentially possible statements. Its sole purpose is to excite, agitate, and motivate action in order to influence the probability of implementing policy.

Now, as for freedom being highest, it is not freedom I am seeking but prosperity and non-conflict which happens to produce freedom. It so happens that freedom and markets produce prosperity and provide a means for cooperation without conflict only competition.

Now, I’m not quite done working through the entire philosophical spectrum (I haven’t finished religion, war, and aesthetics), and I am still working on truth as the prevention of lying. But it’s a complete system, and its internally consistent and externally correspondent, and respects identity in that it’s non-conflationary. In other words, I write analytic philosophy.

Now, other philosophers have told me that I don’t in fact white philosophy, that I write social science. And this is actually true. I write social science within the framework of philosophy becuase it is a well undrstood framework for the construction of a system of thought. But, in addition, I would argue that I write legal philosophy. And that law is the philosophy of the west – natural law.

And I am quite well aware of what I have done and how innovative if not profound it is. And I’m also aware that it’s the most important development since marx, and refutes marx (who knew he was wrong by the time he died.)

But you aren’t going to grasp all of that by monopolizing my time with empty criticisms as a means of saving yourself time reading, and getting me to tutor you on your own terms (which is what you are doing). The reason being that I’m not done yet, and the only thing I’ll tell you that I’ve told others (most of whom are probably quite a bit better informed than you are) that it’s done when it’s done and the only thing you can do is participate in the journey.

Cheers. wink emoticon

———–

Edward Volsunga

I’m afraid to disappoint you, but no, philosophy is exactly what it says. “philo-sophy”. It’s just been misused by those who want the popular image, without having to follow the argument. You know, ideologues like yourself.

I will agree that most academic so called “philosophers” are more so historians.

Ideologies exist at all times — not just during democracy. Do you say that people only live by certain ideals when they can vote for them? During the novelty of democracy yes, more such ideologies appear and take root. But your conception of ideals and ideology is wrong. Clearly. They are not “an outcome of democracy”.

Have you ever considered that your system isn’t the high and mighty word of a wise man (the only to ever live that I know of), but, and as is much more likely, the ignorant musings of a (very) arrogant fool?

What you have done is not innovative, or profound. You’ve simply been patting yourself on the back a little too hard.

———–

Curt Doolittle

1) So you’re making the assertion that the word philosophy defines philosophy not the actions, methods, processes, and evidence of work within the discipline of philosophy determine the meaning of philosophy. So you’re arguing the etymological or platonic defines the field rather than the demonstrated and existential actinos within the field, right? So by that reasoning the word ‘nice’ still means ‘a bad person’ (which is its origin). And that any other term’s hermenutic content rather than the test of that ‘description’ (term) performs in the real (existential) world? Right.

All of your arguments are this, frankly, unintelligent, inconsistent, amateurish, erroneous, and ridiculous.

2) You can’t make that statement when you don’t understand it. That’s logically impossible. Again, you’re just ridiculous.

If you could falsify it then you could say you’d levied a criticism.

If it’s not original, then you could demonstrate the originator.

You can do neither.

SO IN ONE POST YOU CREATE FALSE ARGUMENTS TWICE

So, do I need to be this analytic with each of your posts and continue to humiliate you over and over again? Or will you admit that you’re just an arrogant ignorant child reaching far beyond your abilities?

Sorry man.

You haven’t yet made an argument.

You just issue one prevarication after another.

You want attention and self confirmation.

You’re just another example of infantilization of western men.

Either that, or you’re just a liar.

I have the impression that you’re a mix of both. infantilized, ignorant, and dishonest.

But it could be you’re just arrogant and stupid.

Cheers.