under propertarianism, we aspies will form a new class of a sort of juridical priesthood. If for no other reason than it is unnatural to think, write, and speak in this level of precision and detail.
Its definitely non-trivial.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 07:08:00 UTC
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115THE LAWS GOVERNING OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT
(Put in place in 1948)
Interesting that (a) they do not address the problem of non-state actors (islam and communists) despite the era, and (b) they do not address members of the government – any one of which acts as a non-state actor. In other words the government in this law constitutes the entity worthy of protection, and NOT the people nor the rule of natural law upon which the government was founded and fought for.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-23 21:28:00 UTC
EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE ANARCHY
The only Anarchy that can exist is a condition of Sovereignty. Under Sovereignty one can have possessions, but not property. One can have possession but not ownership. But Sovereignty requires relative invulnerability. So to create sovereignty we form alliances with others who desire sovereignty by the exchange of reciprocal insurance. To resolve conflicts between us without violating sovereignty, we can only appeal to the universal decidability of natural law. We accumulate decisions under natural law in the common law. Under reciprocal insurance, natural law, and common law’s norms, we leave behind possessions and create ownership and property. By the combination of sovereignty, exchange of insurance, common law, and the accumulation of decisions, and openness of the contract for reciprocal defense of sovereignty, we create that order we call sovereignty for ourselves. But slaves are more profitable than Enemies. Serfs are more profitable than slaves. citizens are more profitable than serfs. So to increase our defenses, increase our dominion, and increase our wealth, we extend sovereignty, to the citizenry, thus creating a condition of liberty. one possesses sovereignty by ability. one possesses liberty by permission. One possesses freedom out of utility. One possesses subsidy (redistribution) out of charity. There is only one source of sovereignty: the organized application of violence to prevent all alternatives. There is only one source of liberty: the permission of those who fight for sovereignty. There is only one reason that the sovereign grant liberty: profitability. There are only one means of demanding liberty from the sovereign: enfranchisement through reciprocal insurance by violence, or by raising the cost of the absence of liberty through the organized application of violence. Wishful thinking is just lying to yourself and others. That’s the domain of religion. In the domain of truth, there is only one source of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy: the organized application of violence.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 21:01:00 UTC
(Saving in progress)
1) —“Hello Curt! Briefly, and simply, would you tell me the difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy?”—
CURT:
Great question.
A Dictator is not bound by rule of law. He exercises discretionary rule.
A Monarch in the european sense, is bound by rule of law, and exercises discretion only within the bounds of rule of law.
Most cultures other than china limit rulers to some sort of traditional boundaries or religious boundaries. But only christian monarchies were semi-bounded by whatever natural law the church and tradition were able to limit them with. Anglo saxons were quite good at limiting the power of the monarchy, and that is the tradition that carries with us.
2) —“Regarding how aristocratic families earn their status, a King is nominated to lead? He is lifted up to the top of a society rather than oppressing the people?”—
CURT:
For most of european history, kings were elected. The reason they adopted inheritance was to end succession conflicts. But the consequence was the extension of time preference and the increased production of competitive commons.
3) —“Things we’re more stable that way I guess. I suppose even with a “bad” King, the people could more or less go about their business
Why are modern royalty so impotent? I was raised on Queen Elizabeth and all things British (plus James Bond ). Where are they now when we could use some Leadership?”—
CURT:
(Great questions. I’m going to answer this in the main thread so that everyone benefits. I’m doing some other things right now so it might take some time. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 11:19:00 UTC
Jefferson misunderstood.
It is not the method of governance that matters so much as rule of law that constrains the action of all – governing and governed alike.
He justified majoritarianism, possible only under homogenity, yet enfranchised all hoping that the church would create the homogenaity.
But the ‘priesthood’ that ‘kept the faith’ of western civilization in prehistory, and in the ancient, medieval, and modern periods, has been the judiciary. The church was just another house of government.
The question we must solve is quite simple: how to preserve the independence, scholarship, and exclusivity of the judiciary, as the final arbiter of disputes over property-in-toto.
The truth is that self interest alone is what drives these people. And self defense of their status is enough, so long as the militia stands, and the miitary indocrtinates.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 09:09:00 UTC
So now we have a full sequence of causal relations between reproductive necessity and property rights in law. bio>moral>law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:41:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787317519120031744
Reply addressees: @danielcraigb
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787116258990911489
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787116258990911489
RULE BY OUR BETTERS IS PREFERABLE
I don’t fear rule by my betters as long as they are limited by rule of law under natural law, with universal application and universal standing. Because under rule of law the only possible way that they have to act is in my, and, our benefit. Conversely I detest being ruled by my inferiors without rule of law under natural law, with universal application and universal standing. Democracy guarantees that by sheer numbers my inferiors rule.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 14:42:00 UTC
Q&A: —“Hello Curt! Briefly, and simply, would you tell me the difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy?”—
Great question.
A Dictator is not bound by rule of law. He exercises discretionary rule.
A Monarch in the european sense, is bound by rule of law, and exercises discretion only within the bounds of rule of law.
Most cultures other than china limit rulers to some sort of traditional boundaries or religious boundaries. But only christian monarchies were semi-bounded by whatever natural law the church and tradition were able to limit them with.
Anglo saxons were quite good at limiting the power of the monarchy, and that is the tradition that carries with us.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 16:05:00 UTC
THE OBJECT OF LAW, POLICY, AND COMMONS
The Object of Law: The Individual
The Object of Policy: The Family
The Object of Commons: The Economy
Then Society Will Take Care of Itself.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-10 13:43:00 UTC
A judge may exercise introspection and discretion in the ascertainment of the credibility (honestly and truthfulness) of the individuals and the evidence. This is a form of sympathetic testing.
What he may not do is exercise introspection and discretion in the decidability of the law.
Rule of law = the elimination of discretion in matters of decidability.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-08 11:21:00 UTC