Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • (From elsewhere) (scientific method) (rule of law) Peter, Thanks again. (I am ex

    (From elsewhere) (scientific method) (rule of law)

    Peter,

    Thanks again. (I am extremely appreciative of your attention. I wish I could reduce my work to pithy one liners but I can’t.)

    Getting a couple of things out of the way: (a) Yes, My point was Hoppe was just a door for me because his arguments were analytic. Other have argued that it’s all in Kuehnelt-Leddihn – which is purely narrative. (b) I don’t believe Brouwer, Hibert, Goedel, Cantor, Russell, Mises, (or even Keynes – at least in his work on probability) understood that they were all dealing with the problem of justification. It’s clear that Poincaré couldn’t solve it. I am pretty sure that only Popper understood it. And that only Bridgman understood why – but he could not generalize it. Hayek certainly sensed it and reached into every possible discipline but couldn’t solve it except perhaps in law. But all of them sensed that something was not quite right – that science had evolved into pseudoscience: or what we today are calling ‘mathiness’. And what physicists claim is an over reliance on models and an under-reliance on increasingly expensive experimentation.

    (c) As to my reaction to Firestien, my reaction is the same as you suggested above: I go to the original authors: Hume on induction, and Popper on Critical Rationalism (even in its flawed cosmopolitan, rationalist and imprecise form), and Bridgman on his acknowledgement that we should have discovered relativity many generations earlier.

    So, of course I agree with “Ignorance”. But then, lets look at the difference between the goals of the research scientist and a teacher of science and the goals of the author of a constitution and the judges who must interpret the a law under the rule of law, such that he preserves logical decidability and therefore need not add his own subjective content in order to preserve rule of law. In other words: rather than the investigator lets look at the rules of constructing an institution that preserves liberty.

    So we start with: ‘meaning’ which assists in free association (theorizing), and ‘constructions’ which constitute proofs (the act of deciding), are very different things.

    Law must be strictly constructed if it is to be free of subjective content. This is the virtue of property rights as a positive expression of the single requirement for rational cooperation: the requirement that actions that affect others be productive, not parasitic.

    The rule of law should consist in a series of negatives, strictly constructed in response to innovations in parasitism which violate the rational incentive to cooperate.

    I am not concerned with free association – that’s a scientists concern. I do not think there is any magic to the now rather obvious fact that ‘what works’ (recipes) and ‘general rules’ (theories) are two different things – the former lets us act, the latter helps us with freely associating. But the only truths we know – meaning the only informationally complete statements – are negatives: what we know that fails. At this point it’s fairly obvious. (IN fact I have argued that there is only one rather expensive question that we need to answer in the practice of science: whether the least-cost means that we pursue confirms or falsifies Popper’s theory of Critical Preference. (I think there is a good argument to be made that we already perform the optimum means of investigation: cost based.)

    HOW DOES LAW EFFECT THE STUDY OF ECONOMICS?

    If you have immoral laws, and perform economic research to justify them, you then perform immoral economics. This is the essence of the Misesian argument. Mises made the (erroneous) argument that this was a scientific or logical constraint – it is neither. It is merely immoral. Cooperation is either rational or not. If it is not, then it is not cooperation, it is predation. And man has no obligation to suffer predation.

    Likewise praxeology allows us to construct proofs: tests of existential possibility, but not truths. We can theorize either empirically or through construction, or through free association: the means by which we come up with theories is irrelevant. What is relevant is the means by which we perform due diligence. And one of the tests of due diligence is morality: whether the transfers involved are voluntary (rational.)

    So the debate about how we do economics: empirically or deductively or by imagining fairy tail worlds, is totally irrelevant. it’s whether we test out theories. And without operational testing, (a praxeological test) we do not know whether our work is moral or not – or possible or not.

    So the missing logic in the sequence:

    – Identity (category)

    – Name (what we mistakenly call numbering)

    – Addition / Subtraction (arithmetic)

    – Relation (mathematics)

    – Causation (physics)

    was:

    – Cooperation. (economics) Meaning: Property rights as positive expressions of the negative prohibition on parasitism, without which cooperation is irrational; and where fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of externality are a sufficient test of rational and moral action.

    followed by:

    – Decidability (Law). Strict construction.

    So operational criticism is not means of investigation – the means of investigation is irrelevant (that would be the fallacy of justification). Operations are a test of existential possibility. And laws are means of recording truth propositions in the negative form. Liberty is not a positive argument. It is a prohibitionary one: non-parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, indirection, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of gains, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, conquest, and murder.

    So that is the difference in value judgements: do you wish assistance in free association? Or do you wish assistance in preventing the parasitism that allows for free association?

    That the warranty of due diligence is normatively enforced rather than legally enforced is less important in science than it is in propaganda. Because it is by propaganda and pseudoscience that the postmodern and progressive agenda is advanced.

    The norms of science need be practiced as requirement for warranties of due diligence before information is added to the informational commons – and those violate those warranties should pay restitution for their damages.

    Truth telling can be institutionalized. Because one need not be correct. one need only perform due diligence that he is not engaged in errors of omission, insufficient elimination of imaginary content, bias, and deceit.

    Scientists (even critical rationalists) defend their ability to err. AS if error was anywhere near as important as deceit.

    But as the 19th and 20th centuries have shown, (if not Kant himself), our civilization was attacked by pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, outright lies and propaganda.

    So my goals are not to eliminate error in the process of invention. My goals are the construction of institutions that prohibit deception.

    And this should be the goal of any moral economists – not just of philosophers.

    Anyway. Thanks for your valuable time. I hope I was able to communicate this rather interesting intersection of epistemology, science, morality and law.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ( Eli Harman , Ayelam Valentine Agaliba, Frank Lovell, Bruce Caithness #criticalrationalism #libertarian )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 08:18:00 UTC

  • RIGHTS TO PROPERTY: Transitus: “Transit:Crossing (without stopping): a border-pa

    RIGHTS TO PROPERTY:

    Transitus: “Transit:Crossing (without stopping): a border-path”

    Usus: “Use: Transit and stopping: a park”

    Fructus: “Fruits: harvesting berries in a park, hunting game, or planting or grazing”

    Mancipio: “Transfer or sale of rights”

    Abusus: “Consume or Destroy: tearing down, mining, polluting.”

    Obstructio: “Obstructing view, air, water

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-22 14:12:00 UTC

  • LET FREEDOM REIGN Prohibit parasitism. Property rights for property en toto. Com

    LET FREEDOM REIGN

    Prohibit parasitism.

    Property rights for property en toto.

    Common organic law.

    Universal standing.

    Universal adherence.

    Contracts for commons

    Hereditary Monarch with Veto.

    Citizenship as shareholder.

    Dividends.

    Progressive fees.

    Voluntary allocation to commons.

    Truthful speech and deed.

    Warranty of truthful speech and deed.

    Mandatory insurance

    Involuntary saving.

    Involuntary service.

    No politicians.

    Lots of public intellectuals.

    Every man a sheriff.

    And catching liars is a profitable avocation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-21 12:39:00 UTC

  • BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS? SEAN GABB PUTS ONE FORWARD (I thought I’d add to it.) —

    http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/05/10/a-draft-bill-of-rights-for-the-united-kingdom/A BRITISH BILL OF RIGHTS? SEAN GABB PUTS ONE FORWARD

    (I thought I’d add to it.)

    —

    Sean, Thoughts as I have them given Epstein, Hayek, and what we have seen in the states…

    a) No law shall be applied retroactively (no law no crime, no law no fine, no law no fee)

    b) Specify that unreasonable time be determined independent of the resources or constraints of the courts. (this will solve the vast majority of problems)

    c) Search and seizure does not prohibit freezing of assets, and it must, since this has gotten out of control in the states. American courts abuse this to starve you or impoverish you into submission.

    d) All persons acting in a crown capacity: police, administration, and judiciary, are required to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, at all times. Police in america are incentivized to lie and have become very good at it.

    e) Prohibit entrapment. This has gotten out of hand in the states.

    f) Jury nullification for unjust laws. (Obvious)

    h) Separate violent and non violent offenders. Use single person cells if cells are required.

    g) Restore Libel Defamation and Slander (unless statements are true)

    h) prohibition upon infringement not violation.

    If possible (hard to swallow):

    i) universal standing in cases of violation of these (BoR) rights ( meaning that one need not be harmed, only possess direct knowledge of an infringement of these rights. If one possesses direct knowledge and does not act to prosecute infringement, then one is a conspiracy to the infringement.)

    j) all persons engaged in the administration of the law: police, administration and judiciary are personally liable for their actions, and must possess private insurance (bonds) to perform their duties.

    Sean Gabb’s Original Post:

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:33:00 UTC

  • PRIVACY Privacy is a legal, normative, and moral construct: we are bound to pay

    https://mobile.twitter.com/narmno/status/595057396638187520ON PRIVACY

    Privacy is a legal, normative, and moral construct: we are bound to pay the cost of morals, norms, and legal codification of them when we enter in to the commons. What occurs in our homes is only relevant if it causes externalities. And what is in our minds is ungovernable. This is a vast subject which I won’t go into further, but privacy exists iff and only if we preserve the objectively moral and the normative and legal observation of if. What has changed is only that with vast increases in our exposure to information about one another, two outcomes are produced: (a) a reduction in the LOCAL influence of any of our actions, and (b) a realization that we are all open to the same errors, make the same errors, and mature out of those errors with experience; and (c) the lowering of the impact of negatives on our reputations if our errors are unselfish and merely ignorant in nature. All three of these factors REDUCE the impact of foolish human actions on the moral, normative, and legal commons. As such privacy is less valuable and useful than it WAS in the past – at least in matters of COGNITION and OPINION, if not crime.

    ON LEANING – IN

    Still thinking about this.

    There is no material value to women’s entry into the work force. The value is in that women are not PROHIBITED from entering the work force, and are therefore less dependent on marriage for sustenance, satisfaction, and reproduction. However, women abused their entry into the franchise by parasitically obtaining through the state, the income of marriage without providing the care-taking, sex, and compromise of marriage. So for men, adding women to the franchise merely expanded the state, made them slaves of the state, decreased the value of taking ownership for and paying the cost of the commons (society), caused rapid expansion of dysgenia, insured their poverty and loneliness in old age, and led a large number to suicide. Women destroyed the compromise. Without women’s votes the left would never obtained power in any country, and used it to destroy western civilization. I see similar effects in Japan. But I have the disadvantage of limited on the ground experience, and must work entirely from data.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 03:25:00 UTC

  • I WOULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB OF ARGUING IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE THAN DID

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/29/in-depth-key-questions-and-remarks-from-the-supreme-court-oral-arguments-on-marriage/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqXKZKXonjHpfsX64%2B4vWKS3i4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMS8tqNK%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHmHONESTLY, I WOULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB OF ARGUING IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE THAN DID THE PLAINTIFFS.

    The article is quite good: Roe v Wade did not allow the democratic process to work and therefore created an unsettled matter of profound divisiveness. The argument presented is that the states can continue the experiment. The court has no interest in repeating another roe-v-wade, and cutting short the democratic process.

    This is of course how the court should always have acted.

    But we must grasp that progressives are immoral, unscientific authoritarians and conservatives are moral, scientific, preventers-of-authoritarianism.

    In the end (as Eli Has stated) the problem is the term ‘marriage’. There is no reason that one cannot have all social and political benefits of heterosexual marriage, yet call it something else.

    I made that argument pretty thoroughly back in 2002.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-07 03:26:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/25/at-u-m-sexual-violence-includes-discount

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-05 07:10:00 UTC

  • On Marriage

    [I] won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:
    (a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity;
    (b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other;  
    (c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production;
    (d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and
    (e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.);
    (f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders.

    Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace.

    Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’.

    However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us.

    So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism).

    Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control.

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
    It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations.

    If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs).

    Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy.

    All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic.

    CLOSING
    This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences.

    My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

  • On Marriage

    [I] won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:
    (a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity;
    (b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other;  
    (c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production;
    (d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and
    (e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.);
    (f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders.

    Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace.

    Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’.

    However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us.

    So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism).

    Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control.

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
    It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations.

    If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs).

    Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy.

    All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic.

    CLOSING
    This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences.

    My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

  • ON “MARRIAGE” I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but unde

    ON “MARRIAGE”

    I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of (a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity, (b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other; and (c) a political demand that one control free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-sustaining production; and (d) monogamy controls males who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and (e) the fourth purpose is to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.); (f) and finally, to force the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders.

    Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace.

    Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’.

    However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us.

    So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism).

    Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control.

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN

    It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations.

    If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs).

    Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy.

    All families have similiar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic.

    CLOSING

    This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences.

    My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-01 04:43:00 UTC