http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/09/masculism-vs-feminism/
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 00:08:00 UTC
http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/09/masculism-vs-feminism/
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 00:08:00 UTC
KIEV UPDATE: PROTESERS BUILD BARRICADES AND ORGANIZE VOLUNTEER GUARDS
Hmmm….. That is a good strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 16:16:00 UTC
INSURER: FAMILIES vs UNIONS vs INSURERS vs PARTIES
(sketch of a thought)
Declining guarantee of return:
1) Family (pay limited mutual support)
2) Insurer (Pay premiums)
3) Union (Pay dues)
4) Party (Pay donations)
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 15:31:00 UTC
WHO INNOVATES POLITICAL THEORY TODAY?
MARXISTS (nothing new here)
CORPORATISTS (chinese – state and neo-corporatism)
POSTMODERNISTS (totalitarian humanism – nothing new)
PUBLIC CHOICE THEORISTS (democratic socialist game theory – nope)
ECONOMISTS (center – maybe, MMT etc.)
CONSERVATIVES (classical liberalism – nothing new here)
LIBERTARIANS (Hoppe’s polycentric insurance)
So who really has made any innovation in political theory?
Everyone in the west is trapped in the paradigm of monopoly democracy. The Chinese have made state corporatism the movement of the 21st century. That seems to be everyone’s direction. And, I guess, compared to Corporatism, that neo-Corporatism is a minor invention. But It’s been around for a long time.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 15:05:00 UTC
I really want to do more analysis on Bitcoin. It’s actually really interesting. …. I might give it more time tonight if I can…. Hmmm.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 14:50:00 UTC
FORCING ALL IMMORAL ACTION INTO THE MARKET?
I guess one of the things that I don’t repeat often enough, is that human impulses can be redirected, but not suppressed.
With extraordinary training those impulses for near term reward can be redirected to longer term rewards. This just requires a hormonal education (training), so that the individual perceives certain suppressions as kicks or highs, the way some of us perceive saving or investing over the experience of consuming something less complex than an ‘idea’.
All of us have a frustration budget. Some of us have a love of frustration for some reason, so we love to play with problems and are actually unhappy if we dont have any to work on. But most people have a pretty low budget because MOST of their ideas and ambitions are frustrated.
So when we suppress free riding, and push competition, we must realize how much of the majority’s frustration budget is expended by doing so.
Now, look at all the types of immoral, involuntary transfers:
1-DIRECT INDIVIDUAL
Murder
Violence
Destruction
Theft
Theft by Fraud
Theft by Fraud by omission
2 – INDIRECT INDIVIDUAL
Theft by Impediment
Theft by Externalization
3 – INDIRECT COLLECTIVE
Theft by Free riding
Theft by privatization
Theft by socialization
4 – ORGANIZATIONAL COLLECTIVE
Theft by Rent seeking
Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism
Theft by Extortion
Murder, Destruction and Theft by War
FORCING ALL IMMORALITY INTO THE MARKET
While believe it or not, in-family competition, that produces a material ‘loser’ is considered immoral. And as such, most humans intuit competition on PRICE as immoral even if they don’t consider competition on QUALITY immoral.
But we have discovered that the market, conducted outside of the family, produces a virtuous cycle, since as long as there are two sellers and one buyer, while one seller loses on opportunity the buyer gains, and both sellers LEARN, and are forced to constantly innovate.
And that the civil society is produced by allowing ONLY the market as a means of fulfililng wants and needs.
Since we are unequally capable in the market, this is frustrating to many, and rewarding to the few. Even though all benefit, the inability to rest from the competition turns most of us into slaves who will be passed by if we do not stay in the race.
The only problem I see with this system is that redistribution increases the rates of breeding in the lower classes while rates of innovation make the lower classes increasingly unemployable.
We have not yet solved this problem.
As far as I can tell, the only solution is to pay the lower classes not to breed.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 12:46:00 UTC
PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN ONLY ORIGINATE IN A CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGE – therefor there are limits to those rights.
If you fail to state the limits of those rights in that contract, then it is quite possible to abuse them. But the moral use of property – meaning the ban on involuntary transfers – does not include such uses as rent seeking on property rights THEMSELVES. That would mean a contradiction.
I hope that logic is as clear as it is to me. Maybe not.
Human moral code illustrates that we expect that if you profit, that you profit by contributing something to the agreement.
This intuition is what confused us over interest. Interest is a necessary property of inter-temporal production. It’s not a convenience. Its a necessity. We can’t function without it.
And it is moral, because interest is an opportunity cost paid for by the lender, to the borrower.
However, that does not mean that you can take advantage of human suffering as a lender. That violates the principle of involuntary transfer.
This topic is exceptionally rich turf for libertarian reformation. Because by solving it, we solve the problem of placing limits on property rights such that they are acceptable to high trust societies.
Profound if you grasp it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 12:37:00 UTC
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/news-analysis-a-television-news-breakthrough-333200.htmlTHE ARISTOCRACY WANTS PROPERTY RIGHTS – FOR THEM.
“…The Family (capital F) is getting out of control; and the oligarchs want to restore exactly the types of property rights [that] they so readily tread upon…”
-Roman Skaskiw
(repost to capture roman’s quote.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 11:53:00 UTC
WHY DOES THE MONOPOLY STATE FEAR COMPETITION?
All conflicts are resolvable if private property rights are respected. So why can’t groups with different sets of property rights join different groups (unions, parties) and made contracts with one another?
There isn’t any reason that they can’t.
Except that the state, and democracy, and bureaucracies, are a monopoly.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 09:46:00 UTC
LIBERTY IS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT TOO
Active, violent, institution of property rights, against the will of free-riders and rent seekers, as well as against the will of the violent and fraudulent.
Natural rights are a logical prison for libertarians.
We can’t possibly desire to be left alone in our natural state of freedom, because that is not man’s natural state: free riding is. Community property is.
We can only logically desire to forcibly implement property rights against the will of the majority.
This is liberty’s prison.
Natural rights libertarianism, is a convenient excuse to feel morally superior while taking no active action to alter the course of events.
Liberty is made by violence.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 09:40:00 UTC