[Y]es, I’ve been doing a bit of research and it’s starting to come together. Whig history bites again. Falsification wins again.
LIBERTARIANISM IS REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS…OR ISNT IT? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/libertarianism-simplified-the-three-proper-powers-of-government.html [R]ule of Law (universal application, universal standing), Common Law (organic), Property en Toto (right to seek restitution for any imposition upon anything constructed by the bearing of costs: that which is obtained by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria. The challenge for libertarians has been the definition of private property: that which one can seek restitution for in court under rule of law. Saying we defend it without defining it is an incomplete statement that allows the audience to assume his concept of private property is what the speaker refers to. This is a cute act of suggestion that inspires moral affiliation, but it is not sufficient for representation as the basis for law that provides non discretionary decidability in matters of conflict. Rothbardians define property with the ethics of pastoralists and the ghetto: inter subjectively verifiable property. These are the low trust ethics of the steppe, levant, and medieval ghetto. If we look at high trust societies instead, they assert property rights not only to physical property, but to all property that causes conflict and retaliation for the imposition of costs. So humans demonstrate that they treat as their property all that they have expended resources to obtain with the expectation of a monopoly of control(private), fruits from(shareholder property), and prevention from consumption (commons). We agree to enforce retaliation or restitution against impositions against all of those forms of property. But why? Because the most scarce and rewarding good is cooperation. We evolve moral intuitions, moral and ethical rules, manners, laws and traditions to preserve the value of cooperation. Property rights then represent a warranty by the group members of those forms of property that one has acquired or invested in or refrained from the consumption of, in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate and the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, including the rewards from the production of commons- property rights being the first commons. The origin of property preceded cooperation. The origin of morality followed cooperation. The origin of rights evolved from morality. Law evolved from the need for uniform application of restitution for impositions upon property. Property rights did not evolve from the scarcity of goods but from the gradual atomization of the family in the increasingly individualistic division of labor. So while libertarianism contains comforting memes, it is predicated on a number of half truths and falsehoods. The problem we face is the preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. Property rights – insuring one another – are the means by which we do so. As such, the scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is that which preserves the will to cooperate. And as far as we know, that is a high trust requirement. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian institute Kiev, Ukraine. Libertarianism is reducible to rule of law under the total prohibition against the imposition of costs against that property necessary to preserve the incentives to cooperate.
LIBERTARIANISM IS REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS…OR ISNT IT? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/libertarianism-simplified-the-three-proper-powers-of-government.html [R]ule of Law (universal application, universal standing), Common Law (organic), Property en Toto (right to seek restitution for any imposition upon anything constructed by the bearing of costs: that which is obtained by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria. The challenge for libertarians has been the definition of private property: that which one can seek restitution for in court under rule of law. Saying we defend it without defining it is an incomplete statement that allows the audience to assume his concept of private property is what the speaker refers to. This is a cute act of suggestion that inspires moral affiliation, but it is not sufficient for representation as the basis for law that provides non discretionary decidability in matters of conflict. Rothbardians define property with the ethics of pastoralists and the ghetto: inter subjectively verifiable property. These are the low trust ethics of the steppe, levant, and medieval ghetto. If we look at high trust societies instead, they assert property rights not only to physical property, but to all property that causes conflict and retaliation for the imposition of costs. So humans demonstrate that they treat as their property all that they have expended resources to obtain with the expectation of a monopoly of control(private), fruits from(shareholder property), and prevention from consumption (commons). We agree to enforce retaliation or restitution against impositions against all of those forms of property. But why? Because the most scarce and rewarding good is cooperation. We evolve moral intuitions, moral and ethical rules, manners, laws and traditions to preserve the value of cooperation. Property rights then represent a warranty by the group members of those forms of property that one has acquired or invested in or refrained from the consumption of, in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate and the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, including the rewards from the production of commons- property rights being the first commons. The origin of property preceded cooperation. The origin of morality followed cooperation. The origin of rights evolved from morality. Law evolved from the need for uniform application of restitution for impositions upon property. Property rights did not evolve from the scarcity of goods but from the gradual atomization of the family in the increasingly individualistic division of labor. So while libertarianism contains comforting memes, it is predicated on a number of half truths and falsehoods. The problem we face is the preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. Property rights – insuring one another – are the means by which we do so. As such, the scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is that which preserves the will to cooperate. And as far as we know, that is a high trust requirement. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian institute Kiev, Ukraine. Libertarianism is reducible to rule of law under the total prohibition against the imposition of costs against that property necessary to preserve the incentives to cooperate.
[D]espite my criticism of Russian politics and culture since the invasion of Ukraine for purely dishonest reasons, I tend to have deep affection for Russian people, even when I think they are absurd, superstitious and crazy. Because I love that they are brave. Americans are brave by and large *outside of the millennial generation*. Some brits are brave, if a minority. But continentals seem submissive and feminized to the core. So that is why I love Russians. Every crazy, lunatic, superstitious, conspiracy-theorizing, pseudoscientific, one of them – at least in the middle and upper classes. Russian working class is as boorish as the come, and the saddest example of white people( outside of California. lol). The wonderful thing about Russians is personal craftsmanship – pride in cunning in particular (which blows up as frequently as it succeeds). But they are very proud of their work, and very prideful in judging it. I find them very American in this regard. Unlike americans they do not easily trust one another, so while individual work is exceptional, collective work must be managed. And management is universally poor among Russians. The most obvious obstacle to Russian (and Ukrainian) trust is that admitting ignorance to others places you at the mercy of those who claim to possess knowledge that they almost always don’t have, but seek as a means of obtaining status, control, and as a consequence, work avoidance. Achieving ‘rest’ (laziness) is somehow seen as a reward, or bonus, or status symbol (Mafia Ethics – Russia is a Mafia Culture, just as Judaism is a Mafia Culture, and the two are closely related in that Judaism relies on cunning and Russian culture relies upon force). Russians ‘fence’ to demonstrate who should be in control. They lack the socratic and jesuit, and anglo technique of slowly ‘seeking to understand’ one another’s position. Women do this all the time. Instead Russian men seek to trip one another up or argue for position of authority rather than seek to collect Knowledge from each other and come to a consensus. Men do this all the time. This is how trust is built between peers. But Russians, like the Chinese and muslims, always seek hierarchy. The reason to do business with anglos and germans is because they are trustworthy and honest, and friction and risk are reduced. The reason other cultures like to work with their own is that they understand one another’s lie-signals and so they can lie honestly with one another and consider it manners. It is less economically productive but more comfortable for them. Conversely, when working with higher trust peoples, the feel weaker, or more nervous. Now, Muscovites are not equal to Russians. Many Moscow business people are like very poor versions of Germans. They are highly empirical, and work very hard. But they live in a world of corruption and theft, and fragile infrastructure. So they must be more skeptical than the westerners. I have more than a few times tripped up using anglo french political language with Russians and they view it as dishonest or patronizing. I must keep it in mind at all times. I am not an authority on this subject. I write so that I can understand it. I think I have come to understand, a bit, the Russian character. But I can only empathize so far. I know who I am and where I come from. We are the most trusting people on earth – to our own detriment.
[D]espite my criticism of Russian politics and culture since the invasion of Ukraine for purely dishonest reasons, I tend to have deep affection for Russian people, even when I think they are absurd, superstitious and crazy. Because I love that they are brave. Americans are brave by and large *outside of the millennial generation*. Some brits are brave, if a minority. But continentals seem submissive and feminized to the core. So that is why I love Russians. Every crazy, lunatic, superstitious, conspiracy-theorizing, pseudoscientific, one of them – at least in the middle and upper classes. Russian working class is as boorish as the come, and the saddest example of white people( outside of California. lol). The wonderful thing about Russians is personal craftsmanship – pride in cunning in particular (which blows up as frequently as it succeeds). But they are very proud of their work, and very prideful in judging it. I find them very American in this regard. Unlike americans they do not easily trust one another, so while individual work is exceptional, collective work must be managed. And management is universally poor among Russians. The most obvious obstacle to Russian (and Ukrainian) trust is that admitting ignorance to others places you at the mercy of those who claim to possess knowledge that they almost always don’t have, but seek as a means of obtaining status, control, and as a consequence, work avoidance. Achieving ‘rest’ (laziness) is somehow seen as a reward, or bonus, or status symbol (Mafia Ethics – Russia is a Mafia Culture, just as Judaism is a Mafia Culture, and the two are closely related in that Judaism relies on cunning and Russian culture relies upon force). Russians ‘fence’ to demonstrate who should be in control. They lack the socratic and jesuit, and anglo technique of slowly ‘seeking to understand’ one another’s position. Women do this all the time. Instead Russian men seek to trip one another up or argue for position of authority rather than seek to collect Knowledge from each other and come to a consensus. Men do this all the time. This is how trust is built between peers. But Russians, like the Chinese and muslims, always seek hierarchy. The reason to do business with anglos and germans is because they are trustworthy and honest, and friction and risk are reduced. The reason other cultures like to work with their own is that they understand one another’s lie-signals and so they can lie honestly with one another and consider it manners. It is less economically productive but more comfortable for them. Conversely, when working with higher trust peoples, the feel weaker, or more nervous. Now, Muscovites are not equal to Russians. Many Moscow business people are like very poor versions of Germans. They are highly empirical, and work very hard. But they live in a world of corruption and theft, and fragile infrastructure. So they must be more skeptical than the westerners. I have more than a few times tripped up using anglo french political language with Russians and they view it as dishonest or patronizing. I must keep it in mind at all times. I am not an authority on this subject. I write so that I can understand it. I think I have come to understand, a bit, the Russian character. But I can only empathize so far. I know who I am and where I come from. We are the most trusting people on earth – to our own detriment.
[A]ll costs are opportunity costs. What is the difference in cost between one set of possibilities and another set of possibilities. Unfortunately human cognitive bias cannot easily make these judgements because we have dense information about the present, and sparse information about the alternatives. Plus we are loss averse, and skeptical of one another. The christianization of the west is probably the greatest crime in history followed by the muslim conquest of byzantine and Persian empires, and followed by the cosmopolitan pseudosciences of the 19th and 20th centuries: marxism, freudianism, Keynesian innumeracy, postmodernism, and the socialist enfranchisement of women and their destruction of the family, law, property rights, and history, grammar, logic and truth telling. Lies, damned lies, and more lies.
[A]ll costs are opportunity costs. What is the difference in cost between one set of possibilities and another set of possibilities. Unfortunately human cognitive bias cannot easily make these judgements because we have dense information about the present, and sparse information about the alternatives. Plus we are loss averse, and skeptical of one another. The christianization of the west is probably the greatest crime in history followed by the muslim conquest of byzantine and Persian empires, and followed by the cosmopolitan pseudosciences of the 19th and 20th centuries: marxism, freudianism, Keynesian innumeracy, postmodernism, and the socialist enfranchisement of women and their destruction of the family, law, property rights, and history, grammar, logic and truth telling. Lies, damned lies, and more lies.
[T]HE ARISTOCRACY GAME. We don’t play truth or dare. We play truth or DIE.