http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-taboo-genetics-1.13858TABOO GENETICS
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 14:04:00 UTC
http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-taboo-genetics-1.13858TABOO GENETICS
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 14:04:00 UTC
QUESTION
“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla
ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS






QUESTION
“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla
ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS






QUESTION
“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla
ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS






QUESTION
“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla
ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS






LIBERTARIANISM
libertarian lih-ber-tair’-ee-un
An individual who demonstrates a preference for one or more of the definitions of Libertarianism.
Libertarianism lih-ber-tair’-ee-un-ih’-zum (noun)
–“Roderick Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.”—
However, Rod Long’s definition, by using the term ‘voluntary association’ is imprecise because it does not contain the purpose or consequences of that allocation of property to individuals who can form voluntary associations. That purpose is that individuals can associate and voluntarily organize production in an expanding division of knowledge and labor, and that individuals contribute to production what they can, as they wish. Unless property is allocated to individuals, then the voluntary organization of production is impossible. And the voluntary adaptation of production to the multitudinous changes in scarcity and preference is impossible.
CAUSES OF LIBERTARIAN PREFERENCES
1) SENTIMENT: A sentiment giving precedence to individual liberty above the competing sentiments of care-taking and order — which are the respective priorities of left and right.
2) POLITICAL BIAS: A range of political biases that express the precedence for liberty as the freedom from organized coercion through the minimization or elimination of monopolistic government — and therefore maximizing the self organizing civic virtues and norms.
3) ECONOMIC BIAS: An economic philosophy that seeks to maximize human prosperity by increasing the opportunity for entrepreneurial trial and error by advocating the inviolability of individual property rights, free trade, and sound money.
4) GENERAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: A set of political philosophies which give liberty (freedom from coercion) the highest moral preference, over all other moral preferences, and seek to minimize both government and reduce or eliminate the state by distributing all property rights to individuals who then voluntarily organize production and distribution.
5) INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: An framework of political institutions that seeks to replace the monopoly of the abstract state and its attendant bureaucracy with private formal institutions and public informal institutions that are subject to the pressures of market competition.
i) Classical Liberalism – state, government of divided powers, and private property under common law.
ii) Minimal Statism – minimum state and government and private property under common law
iii) Private government – no state, private government, and private property under private law
iv) Anarchy – no state, no government, and private property under common law.
Each of these models relies upon an explicitly articulated political philosophy that reduces all rights to property rights, where property has been obtained by the processes of homesteading, manufacture, and voluntary exchange, which are necessary for peaceful human cooperation because they facilitate the emergence of a market for goods and services where prices convey information that we can use to determine our actions.
These rights are enforced by some variation of the common law, and are inviolable and unalterable by the state or government. This leaves the function of government limited to the facilitation of investments in the commons, and the resolution of disputes between groups and classes.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 07:15:00 UTC
NOTHING TO LOSE AND NOTHING TO FEAR
—“There is no one so careful about what they post on Facebook as University Professors.”— Anonymous
Well some of us work outside of the Cathedral. The rules are different. We have nothing to lose. And nothing to fear.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 07:08:00 UTC
PARTICIPATING IN REVOLUTIONARY FERVOR
Is there anything better for an anarchist, than a late night meeting, drinking scotch and coffee, talking about training local citizens how to fight an invasion using 5GW?
People fantasize about this sh_t and some of us live it. I was VERY jealous, so I felt I had to do my part. I decided to finance something very interesting that they need very much. He he he. That will be my little contribution.
People are apparently training all over Ukraine now. Someone told me that last night they overheard people practicing on the subway.
Freedom is something you demand at the point of a gun.
Every other kind is just permission.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 07:07:00 UTC
HUMOR AS TRUTH
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 05:46:00 UTC
CONTRA KINSELLA ON AGGRESSION
(I might as well just beat this horse until it’s really, really, dead.)
Aggression that causes violence is determined empirically. The definition of Property that people treat as aggressed against is determined empirically. You don’t get to make stuff up. We are supposed to be the smart people you know?
[kinsella]—“Libertarianism says that only aggression may be countered with force, that aggression is the only way to violate rights so that a forceful response is justified. Other rightful behavior, even if it is immoral or “bad,” is rightful so long as it is not aggression”— [kinsella]
Yes, rothbardian libertarianism says that immoral and unethical actions are permissible and that you are forbidden from retaliating against people in court, and that you can be taken to court if you retaliate against immoral and unethical actions.
Yes, rothbardian libertarianism legally authorizes immoral and unethical conduct. Yes, rothbardian libertarians prohibits retaliation for immoral and unethical conduct. Yes rothbardian libertarianism provides incentives to engage in immoral and unethical conduct. Because immoral and unethical actions allow profiting from unproductive professions that are parasitic to the polity. So yes, rothbardian ethics reflect the ethics of the low trust societies of the world. And in all low trust societies, the state is necessary as a suppressor of violence. That is why all low trust societies have strong central states: to suppress violence created by immoral and unethical actions that are non-productive, and which have no peaceful means of resolution other than violence.
High trust societies force all profiting into the market where it is mutually beneficial. High trust societies force ALL competition into the market. They force all actions into PRODUCTIVE actions.
It is ONLY high trust societies that have produced liberty. That is why only the formerly aristocratic nations possess liberty. Because through outbreeding and violence they forced all conflict into the market for goods and services, by prohibiting both criminal, unethical and immoral actions.
Why have no low trust societies that employ the absence of moral and ethical standards ever formed?
<sarcasm>
OF COURSE I’M RIGHT.
I know. You will get there. Or you will go to your grave whispering “I believe in NAP, I believe in NAP, I Believe in NAP” like any other good cult member.
Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it. Abandon rothbardiansim as the failed program that it is: a pathetic attempt to pretend that cosmopolitanism was somehow a competitor to aristocratic egalitarianism.
TIme for big boy shoes.
You can do it if you try.
<sarcasm/>
PROPERTY IS DEFINED BY EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL MEANS
If we define property as people ACT in high trust societies define property then yes it is a trespass. That is what I can’t seem to get across to you.
Low trust = scarce property rights.
High trust = lots of property rights.
People flock TO high trust societies and AWAY from low trust societies.
High trust = high velocity of trade and low demand for the state.
Low trust = low velocity of trade and high demand for the state.
It’s just the evidence. Nothing will change it. No matter how many canticles for rothbard you kneel for. No matter how much hand wringing that you muster.
Jan lester was almost right. I”m right. This is how it is. Just time to deal with it.
A voluntary polity is only POSSIBLE under suppression of immoral and unethical behavior via the common law, because people will not abandon or tolerate unethical behavior.
2 mins · Like
<sarcasam>
So. Um. Like usual. I’m right. Yeah. Sorry. It must be painful.
I kinda wish someone else had this job. You know? But it seems like it’s my civic duty to flush Rothbardian ethics into the toilet of phlogiston theories.
<sarcasam/>
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 16:26:00 UTC