IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN EQUALITY OF SNOWFLAKES
“Every one of us is a very special snowflake, and we are all equal.”
That doesnt make much sense unless we mean treated equally under the law when we need to resolve a conflict. Marginal difference vs marginal indifference and all that sort of thing….
Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 03:06:00 UTC
CURIOUS THOUGHT: What Happens If We?…….
So, lets say that tomorrow, all property rights violations by corporations were immediately open to suit by any individual, albeit under loser-pays. What difference would there really be?
I am not sure that there would be much really.
Now, lets say one month later, all special privileges for all businesses and collective bargaining groups disappeared: all barriers to competition etc. How would the world be any different?
I think that there would be a bit of difference.
Now, lets say that one month later, all consumer credit (not producer credit) was provided directly from the treasury, at minimum interest, to individuals by credit card, bypassing the banks.
I think there would be a lot of difference. Mostly because the financial system would be cut out of the distribution of liquidity.
Now,let’s say, that one month later, instead of lowering interest rates, the treasury just distributed money directly to those consumer credit cards. What would change?
I think the change would be radical. And most of it for the good.
Particularly since no one would tolerate a single immigrant who was a non producer.
Interesting.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 13:41:00 UTC
READING LIST FOR THE COMMON LAW (PRIVATE LAW)
– Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty
– Milsom’s Natural History of the Common Law.
– Plucknett’s A Concise History Of The Common Law.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 11:34:00 UTC
[I]f one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does not. This is essentially restoring the greek discipline of rhetoric in an age where media replicates faster than greek era human voices could quell. This is also much closer to anglo saxon law. Why is it that I an produce a ladder that subjects people to harm and am accountable, but if I advocate a political policy that causes millions of deaths, I am not accountable? (as usual, I am suggesting a common law (property rights), universal standing, and private insurance based solution to regulation, with fairly high confidence that the public, insurers and producers will seek practical means of solving problems without authoritarian intervention.)
[I]f one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does not. This is essentially restoring the greek discipline of rhetoric in an age where media replicates faster than greek era human voices could quell. This is also much closer to anglo saxon law. Why is it that I an produce a ladder that subjects people to harm and am accountable, but if I advocate a political policy that causes millions of deaths, I am not accountable? (as usual, I am suggesting a common law (property rights), universal standing, and private insurance based solution to regulation, with fairly high confidence that the public, insurers and producers will seek practical means of solving problems without authoritarian intervention.)
[W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule? Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.
[W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule? Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.
So why would you be afraid of arguing the truthfulness of your public speech in a court of your peers, if your public speech was truthful?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 04:23:00 UTC
THE BRITS WERE RIGHT, STILL ARE, EVEN IF THEY”VE ABANDONED REALITY.
Except for writing down the constitution in explicit terms (a project that still would be valuable), and giving the proletariat its own house rather than handing over the house of commons, and not ‘really’ preserving the monarch’s right of veto, the british system was superior to the american system in every possible way.
The parliamentary system as they conduct it is superior on so many levels, not the least of which is that we could get rid of an Obama today more easily. The use of Barrister’s and Solicitors is something I would never have thought of but certainly produces better process. And it is easier to hold policy across multiple governments. The one thing I feel strongly about is that the military must be its own branch of government, with written constitutional obligations and limits, rather than commanded by the government. (and when I say military, I mean it in my terms, not extant american terms.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 02:11:00 UTC
INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC SPEECH?
If one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does not. This is essentially restoring the greek discipline of rhetoric in an age where media replicates faster than greek era human voices could quell. This is also much closer to anglo saxon law. Why is it that I an produce a ladder that subjects people to harm and am accountable, but if I advocate a political policy that causes millions of deaths, I am not accountable?
(Looking for non-reactionary problems with this, without giving a lot more detail, so that I don’t color it too much.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 02:00:00 UTC