PROPERTARIANISM: The Power to Deny Power.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 21:24:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083837146505580546
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A LIE 1. Rothbard and Hoppe always start with some a
EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A LIE
1. Rothbard and Hoppe always start with some artificial moral license to property rather than that property produces a division of labor that is more rewarding than predation (for the able) and is the only reason for the able to cooperate, and the only means of cooperation at scale.
2. In the Free Rider Problem, the answer is that if you are a free rider you are consuming opportunity and resources that could by replaced by those who DO contribute to the commons that they benefit from. This is in fact what people demonstrably do: outcast free riders.
3. We inherit the investments of our ancestors we do not free ride upon them because they are ours by inheritance, in exchange for persisting the genes, civilization, culture and investments of those previous generations, just as we hope following generations will preserve ours.
4. —“must therefore be supplied outside the free market, by the coercive force of the government”– No, it is because it is an unsubstitutable good. There is no restitution for lost life nor substitution for risk of life. NONE.
… I can’t even continue refuting rothbard because it makes me so angry that we have lost two generations to (((more lies))).
EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A (((LIE))) DEFENDED BY A HALF TRUTH, AND APPEAL TO REASONABLENESS.
…. EVERYTHING. YES, ….. EVERYTHING.
Rothbard is only useful in so far as we can study his excellence at Straw Manning, Undue Praise, Pilpul and Critique, and by that study, understand why we moral men are vulnerable to that category of (((lies))).
It’s just lies.
ROTHBARD IS JUST (((A LIAR))) THAT SUCKERS MIDDLE CLASS YOUNG MEN, LIKE MARXISM WORKING CLASS MEN, LIKE POSTMODERNISM WOMEN AND NON-MEN.
Everything he says is false. Study rothbard to learn how to lie, so that we can end lying to our people.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 16:39:00 UTC
-
One can have an interests in the criminally obtained, or the reciprocaly obtaine
One can have an interests in the criminally obtained, or the reciprocaly obtained, or obtained by homesteading (creating).
Potential Property consists in those interests that have been obtained under the natural law of reciprocity.
Property by norm consists of that which others agree not to impose costs upon.
Property rights consist of that which is not only norm but insured by a third party to whom you may appeal for enforcement.
It is not JUST that one demonstrates property by what he defends – he demonstrates INTEREST by what he defends, but he cannot defend an interest that which was produced by crime or deceit without violating the natural law of reciprocity.
I think what seems circular to you is that you’re not starting with reciprocity first, then evolving property from it, and instead, trying to (impossibly) evolve reciprocity from interest.
Reciprocity > demonstrated interest > agreement on scope (property) > insurance of scope (rights)
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 16:28:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARIANISM: The Power to Deny Power
PROPERTARIANISM: The Power to Deny Power.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 16:24:00 UTC
-
QUESTIONS: FREE MARKET VS RECIPROCAL CAPITALISM by Noah J Revoy Let’s compare
QUESTIONS: FREE MARKET VS RECIPROCAL CAPITALISM
by Noah J Revoy
Let’s compare the trope “Free Markets” of Free Market Capitalism with “Reciprocal Markets”, of Reciprocal Market Capitalism.
Or stated differently, lets compare the IDEAL good of free markets regardless of externality – particularly knowledge, fixed, cultural, and genetic capital, with the MEASURED good of reciprocal markets under rule of law that prohibits the consumption privatization, or destruction, of such precious capital.
QUESTIONS:
1. How would you describe the differences between Reciprocal Capitalism as proposed under a propertarianism model and Free Market Capitalism as promoted by libertarians?
2. What problems does Reciprocal Capitalism solve (vs Free Markets)?
3. What are the libertarians missing?
4. How could Reciprocal Capitalism help solve some of the moderate lefts concerns about markets?
5. Both the left and the right have problems with the current “Free Market Capitalism” as practiced in the west. (Free market is a poor descriptor as its not truly free and often not even a real set of markets).
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 09:48:00 UTC
-
As far as I know, the natural law of reciprocity is simply a statement of moral
As far as I know, the natural law of reciprocity is simply a statement of moral intuition, and moral intuition is nothing but a statement of reciprocity. they should be identical. If they aren’t then someone is lying,cheating, stealing, or preying upon someone else.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 00:53:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083164976607571968
Reply addressees: @MusaVaino @DataDistribute
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083163450178707456
IN REPLY TO:
@MusaVaino
@curtdoolittle @DataDistribute Yes I can respect that. I am 2/3 trough of the propertarian institute videos. Interesting stuff! I think you are addressing a very real and interesting problem. Propertarianism seems to regulate morality through law. Can men still be good at heart if they just follow your law?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083163450178707456
-
Yes, The Paradigm is Difficult.
January 8th, 2019 12:34 PM [Y]es. I know the propertarian paradigm is difficult. Propertarianism = Natural Law = The completion of the scientific method = the reformation of the social sciences from pseudosciences to hard sciences = algorithmic, strictly constructed, common law of reciprocity, testimonial speech, and the warranty of due diligence of that speech = the means of constructing a scientific government = an explanation of the west’s success in the ancient and modern worlds, and the west’s survival from semitic, abrahamism. It used to be that the idea of science was as difficult as this idea of social science. Sorry. Paradigm shifts of this scale are just hard.
-
Yes, The Paradigm is Difficult.
January 8th, 2019 12:34 PM [Y]es. I know the propertarian paradigm is difficult. Propertarianism = Natural Law = The completion of the scientific method = the reformation of the social sciences from pseudosciences to hard sciences = algorithmic, strictly constructed, common law of reciprocity, testimonial speech, and the warranty of due diligence of that speech = the means of constructing a scientific government = an explanation of the west’s success in the ancient and modern worlds, and the west’s survival from semitic, abrahamism. It used to be that the idea of science was as difficult as this idea of social science. Sorry. Paradigm shifts of this scale are just hard.
-
YES, PROPERTARIANISM SOLVES THE SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEM. —-“I just realized tha
YES, PROPERTARIANISM SOLVES THE SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEM.
—-“I just realized that Propertarianism solves the problem of sustainability. A propertarian society would prevent over-consumption of resources since to do so would be parasitic upon future generations (and/or on neighbouring states/groups). You’ve done it. Solved a major problem in ecology.”— Alba Rising
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-08 10:34:00 UTC
-
by William Douglas Watson Since people are willing fight for religious beliefs (
by William Douglas Watson
Since people are willing fight for religious beliefs (defend), they are considered property in toto. That means they should not be infringed upon if they are compatible with the rest of civilization.
Curt has no interest in hindering our right to practice our religion, only in hindering the use of ANY METHOD to perform or advocate for theft (parasitism).
He hasn’t always done a good job of making this clear (recently he has been trying to clarify) but that is not his job.
His job is to write law. Our job is to make the law digestible for others.
In a propertarian society we would have much greater religious freedom to actually live out our faith. Real freedom of association (positiva) would be restored because we would have freedom to disassociate (negativa).
So, as an example, you could no longer be forced to bake cakes that advocated for “alternative lifestyles”.
This is just a quick example of a current hot button issue but if you give it some thought I’m sure that you could find many other examples where we, as Christians, would benefit from the restoration of just this one aspect of natural law.
(cd: approved)
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-07 15:59:00 UTC