How Propertarianism Would Judge Hitler’s Germany’s Relocation Policy

(ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.)

SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY

It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law.

Here is the Answer:

(a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage.

(b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite).

(c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons.

(d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons.

(e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”.

(f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history.

(g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.