THE COMMON LAW (PROPERTY RIGHTS AND POLYCENTRIC EVOLUTION) ARE A SOLUTION TO POLITICAL ILLS THAT IS AWE INSPIRING.
Elegant: the common law will let us destroy socialism. It’s sort of like the universal solvent: water. It dissolves theft and deception regardless of form, as long as property rights (a protocol) exist to permit it to do its work.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 01:50:00 UTC
LIBERTY OR LICENSE?
One either possesses liberty or license. A Rothbardian, at best, has license, an Aristocratic Egalitarian at worst has liberty. 🙂
License: Legal rights, human rights, natural rights, argumentation ethics.
Liberty: Reciprocal insurance in the contract to use violence to defend life and property.
Licence = nonsense.
Liberty = violence.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-22 05:28:00 UTC
ALWAYS HAVE WEAPONS
The law that is enforced is determined by the men with weapons.
Therefore, always have weapons.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-15 06:38:00 UTC
THEY MUST SUE OBAMA OR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME DESPOTIC
(Reposted from comment on National review:)
They either must sue or impeach or they risk the de facto destruction of the balance of powers.
I prefer that he be struck by lightening from the hand of god (or a lucky lunatic foreign or domestic), but otherwise impeachment is political, impossible and leaves us with an imbecile in the presidency, while the courts construct prescedent and effectively reconstruct the laws that he has broken. I would much prefer a body of law to constrain the administration than I would the political process.
Once he is guilty he is defacto guilty of high crimes, so impeachment is either easier or unnecessary. In either case his presidency is done.
We will eventually have to separate state (ritual and veto) from government (administration). The presidency is, empirically a failed institution, both domestically and internationally. A monarchy with veto power and a parliamentary system have proven superior. But since we have no monarchy, a president unbound by term limits whose only power was the podium and veto would better fulfill the demands of the balance of powers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:41:00 UTC
SCRUTON DISCOVERED THE COMMON LAW (AS DID HAYEK AND WEBER)
—-Scruton took the opportunity to study law and “discovered … the answer to Foucault” in the common law of England, which he took as proof “that there is a real distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power, that power can exist without oppression, and that authority is a living force in human conduct.”—
But does anyone grasp that the common law, voluntary exchange and property rights form a calculable, not rational, set of operations?
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-29 10:36:00 UTC
The supreme court is just fine with undermining the constitution, undermining the rule of law, destroying the family, and creating special inegalitarian rights for minorities. But god forbid they should limit the power of the other two branches of government. If we have a revolution I want the privilege of pulling the gallows lever for Roberts. I assume there is too much competition ahead of me for both Ginsberg and Sotomayor.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-29 07:27:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/What-can-the-Indian-government-do-to-protect-the-rights-of-Indian-laborers-in-foreign-countries-especially-in-the-Middle-East-Why-has-it-not-taken-any-action-till-now
QUESTION: “Hello Curt. What’s your stance on IP especially taking Kinsella’s arguments into account?” (Derogatory reference to Kinsella’s personality edited out. – Ed.) ANSWER: [I]n the abstract I agree with the principle that easily accessible licenses for limited monopolies are not beneficial for consumers. However, that rational argument may or may not mean much in practice. 1) IP does appear to rapidly affect business willingness to invest. So, just like property rights exclude people from commons to facilitate the willingness to take risks, IP excludes people from opportunities in order to facilitate the willingness of individuals to take risks. So empirically speaking and rationally speaking, these are trade-off questions not matters of truth and falsehood. 2) Humans don’t like free riding and we intuitively dislike direct copying – seeing it as a case of free riding. I think the question is limited to whether you’re fooling someone or not (trademarking). So as long as you’re not violating a trademark, which is a question of ‘weights and measures’, (fraud), then I think it’s hard to argue against copying anything at all. The test is pretty empirically simple – if you can glance at something for two seconds and tell the original from the copy, then it’s not a trademark violation. If you can then it is. It’s a pretty simple test. We have proven it over and over again. 3) For licensed monopolies, I think it is entirely moral to appeal to the ‘people’ asking for a limited monopoly to produce a good that the market cannot reliably produce. This tends kind of thing tends to be limited to very specific goods (health and medicine) or expensive original research in physical sciences, or high risk investments with high benefit to the commons (transportation and infrastructure). All that occurs is that private investment takes risk and reward, with some lottery bonus from the commons, that if they succeed they will recover their costs free of predation from others. Again, this is a purely pragmatic thing. And as long as such things are put out to ‘bid’, so that whomever wins gets the benefit, then I think it’s just a rational choice to get individuals do off book research and development on behalf of the commons in exchange for winning a lottery if they succeed. However I see these licenses as exceptions on the same level as laws, not grants to be easily obtained without serious discretion. 4) My problem with the rothbardian (ghetto) ethic is that it’s advocating free riding on the work of others, and NOT a matter of competition if you did not conduct the research yourself. Competition is not free riding, since you are doing a better job of voluntarily organizing production and satisfying customers. However, benefitting from someone else’s research and development and capturing the rewards for it is simply free riding. Again, I see the Rothbardian ethic as simply an obscurantist set of arguments meant to justify parasitism rather than enforcing the fundamental requirement for rational cooperation: that we all contribute to production without parasitism upon others. Humans punish cheaters. The only way to increase the velocity of production and trade is to increase trust, and the way to increase trust is to suppress all free riding so that every individual is forced to participate in production, rather than engage in parasitism. Rothbardianism is simply a complex, overloaded, obscurant argument meant to justify ghetto parasitism. It is irrational to choose a stateless polity with low trust and persistent retribution over a stateful polity with low trust and high suppression of retribution. This is why people demand the state: to suppress immoral and unethical people such as rothbardians, so that a high trust society can develop. An anarchic or private polity will only be possible to form under a high trust society that prohibits all free riding with the exception of kin. Curt Doolittle PS: I’m sure this will generate nonsense but I’m pretty sure my argument is rock solid. Just how it is. Rothbardians need to get over it.
QUESTION: “Hello Curt. What’s your stance on IP especially taking Kinsella’s arguments into account?” (Derogatory reference to Kinsella’s personality edited out. – Ed.) ANSWER: [I]n the abstract I agree with the principle that easily accessible licenses for limited monopolies are not beneficial for consumers. However, that rational argument may or may not mean much in practice. 1) IP does appear to rapidly affect business willingness to invest. So, just like property rights exclude people from commons to facilitate the willingness to take risks, IP excludes people from opportunities in order to facilitate the willingness of individuals to take risks. So empirically speaking and rationally speaking, these are trade-off questions not matters of truth and falsehood. 2) Humans don’t like free riding and we intuitively dislike direct copying – seeing it as a case of free riding. I think the question is limited to whether you’re fooling someone or not (trademarking). So as long as you’re not violating a trademark, which is a question of ‘weights and measures’, (fraud), then I think it’s hard to argue against copying anything at all. The test is pretty empirically simple – if you can glance at something for two seconds and tell the original from the copy, then it’s not a trademark violation. If you can then it is. It’s a pretty simple test. We have proven it over and over again. 3) For licensed monopolies, I think it is entirely moral to appeal to the ‘people’ asking for a limited monopoly to produce a good that the market cannot reliably produce. This tends kind of thing tends to be limited to very specific goods (health and medicine) or expensive original research in physical sciences, or high risk investments with high benefit to the commons (transportation and infrastructure). All that occurs is that private investment takes risk and reward, with some lottery bonus from the commons, that if they succeed they will recover their costs free of predation from others. Again, this is a purely pragmatic thing. And as long as such things are put out to ‘bid’, so that whomever wins gets the benefit, then I think it’s just a rational choice to get individuals do off book research and development on behalf of the commons in exchange for winning a lottery if they succeed. However I see these licenses as exceptions on the same level as laws, not grants to be easily obtained without serious discretion. 4) My problem with the rothbardian (ghetto) ethic is that it’s advocating free riding on the work of others, and NOT a matter of competition if you did not conduct the research yourself. Competition is not free riding, since you are doing a better job of voluntarily organizing production and satisfying customers. However, benefitting from someone else’s research and development and capturing the rewards for it is simply free riding. Again, I see the Rothbardian ethic as simply an obscurantist set of arguments meant to justify parasitism rather than enforcing the fundamental requirement for rational cooperation: that we all contribute to production without parasitism upon others. Humans punish cheaters. The only way to increase the velocity of production and trade is to increase trust, and the way to increase trust is to suppress all free riding so that every individual is forced to participate in production, rather than engage in parasitism. Rothbardianism is simply a complex, overloaded, obscurant argument meant to justify ghetto parasitism. It is irrational to choose a stateless polity with low trust and persistent retribution over a stateful polity with low trust and high suppression of retribution. This is why people demand the state: to suppress immoral and unethical people such as rothbardians, so that a high trust society can develop. An anarchic or private polity will only be possible to form under a high trust society that prohibits all free riding with the exception of kin. Curt Doolittle PS: I’m sure this will generate nonsense but I’m pretty sure my argument is rock solid. Just how it is. Rothbardians need to get over it.
QUESTION: “Hello Curt. What’s your stance on IP especially taking Kinsella’s arguments into account?” (Derogatory reference to Kinsella’s personality edited out. – Ed.) ANSWER: [I]n the abstract I agree with the principle that easily accessible licenses for limited monopolies are not beneficial for consumers. However, that rational argument may or may not mean much in practice. 1) IP does appear to rapidly affect business willingness to invest. So, just like property rights exclude people from commons to facilitate the willingness to take risks, IP excludes people from opportunities in order to facilitate the willingness of individuals to take risks. So empirically speaking and rationally speaking, these are trade-off questions not matters of truth and falsehood. 2) Humans don’t like free riding and we intuitively dislike direct copying – seeing it as a case of free riding. I think the question is limited to whether you’re fooling someone or not (trademarking). So as long as you’re not violating a trademark, which is a question of ‘weights and measures’, (fraud), then I think it’s hard to argue against copying anything at all. The test is pretty empirically simple – if you can glance at something for two seconds and tell the original from the copy, then it’s not a trademark violation. If you can then it is. It’s a pretty simple test. We have proven it over and over again. 3) For licensed monopolies, I think it is entirely moral to appeal to the ‘people’ asking for a limited monopoly to produce a good that the market cannot reliably produce. This tends kind of thing tends to be limited to very specific goods (health and medicine) or expensive original research in physical sciences, or high risk investments with high benefit to the commons (transportation and infrastructure). All that occurs is that private investment takes risk and reward, with some lottery bonus from the commons, that if they succeed they will recover their costs free of predation from others. Again, this is a purely pragmatic thing. And as long as such things are put out to ‘bid’, so that whomever wins gets the benefit, then I think it’s just a rational choice to get individuals do off book research and development on behalf of the commons in exchange for winning a lottery if they succeed. However I see these licenses as exceptions on the same level as laws, not grants to be easily obtained without serious discretion. 4) My problem with the rothbardian (ghetto) ethic is that it’s advocating free riding on the work of others, and NOT a matter of competition if you did not conduct the research yourself. Competition is not free riding, since you are doing a better job of voluntarily organizing production and satisfying customers. However, benefitting from someone else’s research and development and capturing the rewards for it is simply free riding. Again, I see the Rothbardian ethic as simply an obscurantist set of arguments meant to justify parasitism rather than enforcing the fundamental requirement for rational cooperation: that we all contribute to production without parasitism upon others. Humans punish cheaters. The only way to increase the velocity of production and trade is to increase trust, and the way to increase trust is to suppress all free riding so that every individual is forced to participate in production, rather than engage in parasitism. Rothbardianism is simply a complex, overloaded, obscurant argument meant to justify ghetto parasitism. It is irrational to choose a stateless polity with low trust and persistent retribution over a stateful polity with low trust and high suppression of retribution. This is why people demand the state: to suppress immoral and unethical people such as rothbardians, so that a high trust society can develop. An anarchic or private polity will only be possible to form under a high trust society that prohibits all free riding with the exception of kin. Curt Doolittle PS: I’m sure this will generate nonsense but I’m pretty sure my argument is rock solid. Just how it is. Rothbardians need to get over it.