Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • TERRITORIAL PROPERTY REQUIRES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS As I’ve argued in my “Ancestr

    TERRITORIAL PROPERTY REQUIRES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

    As I’ve argued in my “Ancestral Lands” video, Lands belongs to those who improve it (invest in it), not those who merely make use of it – that’s true of all property. Possession is just possession. Property is the result of transformation (investment).

    Typically (historically) monuments and physical infrastructure determine ownership (property).

    It’s not clear why Boer conquest of SA territory is different from Bantu conquest of Khoi and San territory – except that the investment has been profoundly more effective – there wasn’t any before the Boers. None.

    It’s not clear that the slaughter of south african whites is anything more than a repetition of the past slaughter of african tribes by one another.

    My prescription is that if there is evidence of fighting, the separation is the only solution.

    I would prefer africa for africans and europe for europeans at least until we are at demographic, social and economic parity. But some people want globalization where none of us is safe from competitors.

    There is a minimum difference in distribution of ability, knowledge and custom that is necessary for peaceful cooperation. Beyond that, then one group must oppress or kill the other.

    And that is the worst of all possible solutions.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-10 18:26:00 UTC

  • Territorial Property Requires Capital Improvements

    As I’ve argued in my “Ancestral Lands” video, Lands belongs to those who improve it (invest in it), not those who merely make use of it – that’s true of all property. Possession is just possession. Property is the result of transformation (investment). Typically (historically) monuments and physical infrastructure determine ownership (property). It’s not clear why Boer conquest of SA territory is different from Bantu conquest of Khoi and San territory – except that the investment has been profoundly more effective – there wasn’t any before the Boers. None. It’s not clear that the slaughter of south african whites is anything more than a repetition of the past slaughter of african tribes by one another. My prescription is that if there is evidence of fighting, the separation is the only solution. I would prefer africa for africans and europe for europeans at least until we are at demographic, social and economic parity. But some people want globalization where none of us is safe from competitors. There is a minimum difference in distribution of ability, knowledge and custom that is necessary for peaceful cooperation. Beyond that, then one group must oppress or kill the other. And that is the worst of all possible solutions.

  • Territorial Property Requires Capital Improvements

    As I’ve argued in my “Ancestral Lands” video, Lands belongs to those who improve it (invest in it), not those who merely make use of it – that’s true of all property. Possession is just possession. Property is the result of transformation (investment). Typically (historically) monuments and physical infrastructure determine ownership (property). It’s not clear why Boer conquest of SA territory is different from Bantu conquest of Khoi and San territory – except that the investment has been profoundly more effective – there wasn’t any before the Boers. None. It’s not clear that the slaughter of south african whites is anything more than a repetition of the past slaughter of african tribes by one another. My prescription is that if there is evidence of fighting, the separation is the only solution. I would prefer africa for africans and europe for europeans at least until we are at demographic, social and economic parity. But some people want globalization where none of us is safe from competitors. There is a minimum difference in distribution of ability, knowledge and custom that is necessary for peaceful cooperation. Beyond that, then one group must oppress or kill the other. And that is the worst of all possible solutions.

  • Rule of The Sovereign

    If the Truth is not enough, and therefore law is not enough, then you are weak, and lack the agency necessary for demands of reciprocity between sovereigns. As such you may not rule, or govern, and may have only liberty(capital), freedom(property), and subsidy(insurance), by permission, as the sovereign see fit. And you may purchase liberty, freedom, subsidy, and defense under the natural law of sovereigns, by acts of and military and civic defense of the commons, civil contribution by payment of fees, and the reciprocal defense of the subsidy, property, and liberty of peers.

  • Rule of The Sovereign

    If the Truth is not enough, and therefore law is not enough, then you are weak, and lack the agency necessary for demands of reciprocity between sovereigns. As such you may not rule, or govern, and may have only liberty(capital), freedom(property), and subsidy(insurance), by permission, as the sovereign see fit. And you may purchase liberty, freedom, subsidy, and defense under the natural law of sovereigns, by acts of and military and civic defense of the commons, civil contribution by payment of fees, and the reciprocal defense of the subsidy, property, and liberty of peers.

  • Morality Is an Exclusively Present Question

    there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question. — edit — This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first. I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction). otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense. So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means. Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity. Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses) Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard. It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable). You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation. Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors. Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital. Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital. Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there. Evolve or die. Eat the Weak.

  • Morality Is an Exclusively Present Question

    there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question. — edit — This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first. I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction). otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense. So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means. Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity. Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses) Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard. It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable). You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation. Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors. Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital. Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital. Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there. Evolve or die. Eat the Weak.

  • We Depend Upon Morality

    —“We depend upon Morality in the negotiation between oursleves and others for front row seats (or even seats half way) in the present theater of life. The strong have less of a need to negotiate than the weak. The weak are more fanatic about morality precisely because they lack the (inner) strength to manifest themselves in life. They need the approval of others. And the weaker you are, the more nonsense you drag into the moral negotiation.”—Roger Dols Good articulation – yes. Also. If you are very wealthy (which i have been), with any degree of influence (power), then you come to understand that nothing changes whatsoever, other than the wealth and influence of those who you compete with, and their decreasing compatibility of interests with you. and you can trust no one. It is nearly as difficult to defend wealth as it is to make it.

  • We Depend Upon Morality

    —“We depend upon Morality in the negotiation between oursleves and others for front row seats (or even seats half way) in the present theater of life. The strong have less of a need to negotiate than the weak. The weak are more fanatic about morality precisely because they lack the (inner) strength to manifest themselves in life. They need the approval of others. And the weaker you are, the more nonsense you drag into the moral negotiation.”—Roger Dols Good articulation – yes. Also. If you are very wealthy (which i have been), with any degree of influence (power), then you come to understand that nothing changes whatsoever, other than the wealth and influence of those who you compete with, and their decreasing compatibility of interests with you. and you can trust no one. It is nearly as difficult to defend wealth as it is to make it.

  • Propertarianism Is Falsifiable but Very Difficult to Falsify

    —“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute. The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line. 1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify. Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date. I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)