GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let you live, (b) keep your things (c) let you remain free of slavery (d) Let you keep a portion of your production? It’s the inverse of the Crusoe’s Island thought experiment. Historically, the model that we evolved with, is an evenly distributed but scarce population preying on one another to obtain territory, women, and goods. How do you develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the historical (existential) rather than pessimistic (Kahn) or optimistic (Crusoe) models? Genghis Khan <———- Steppe ———> Crusoe
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.
-
Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.
-
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self own
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS.
Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation).
So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible.
The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false).
Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war.
So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional).
And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds.
So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights.
And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy.
And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:41:00 UTC
-
Yes we are being colonized. But The Only Enemy Is In The Mirror
THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR Never let people get away with irreciprocal judgement of others. Start complaining about others only after you have exhausted analysis of your own failings. This is what I tell to white people as well. We are unhappy because we expect others to do other than pursue their reproductive strategies – yet this in itself is illogical. The question is always, not why does a competitor harm you, but why are you too weak and incompetent to fend off a competitor? The only enemy is in the mirror. The strong and capable have no enemies because they have defended against those enemies. 0 – Yes the asian states are (filthy) dirty places, which is why westerners must (a) get shots, (b) are told “not touch anything that isn’t you”, and (c) are told not to eat or drink anything that a ‘Mohammed’s hands could touch’, and (d) india in particular but china as well produces such an extraordinary range of birth defects that are not due to inbreeding and incest – which are the cause of extraordinary birth defects in the arab and muslim worlds. 1 – yes these states are backward by nature. Hence the difference in corruption between ukraine, russia, india, and china. They are all very corrupt. 2 – Anglo revenue is from (a) reliable (non-corrupt) courts and the social and political superiority that arises from non-corrupt courts, (b) technological superiority that arises from the wealth of superior social and juridical non-corruption, (c) consumer consumption, and particularly consumer consumption of of housing. Our military is a money-losing proposition other than for preventing a non-market volatility of petroleum which has replaced agrarian territory as the most influential determinant of the wealth of advanced nation states. 3 – Anglos have made a great deal of their wealth dragging the primitive world out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, hunger, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature. Anglos have spent a great deal of their wealth (a) preventing communism, (b) and now preventing islamism, and (c) we will probably have to prevent chinese authoritarianism if we are not careful. And worse we have committed near self destruction out of foolish charitability in immigration. 4 – The question is, since we have seen chinese colonization, russian colonization, french colonization, spanish colonization, dutch colonization, and inter-african colonization, and it was possible to conquer the world or even commit genocide on the entire planet – that is the opportunity cost. In other words, you could be colonized by the chinese, russians, mongols, turks, muslims. The question is not why these people colonize you. It is why you are so weak demographically, culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, that they can? Which is what I say to white men. If we are being colonized the only reason we are colonized is because we are too weak to prevent it.
-
Yes we are being colonized. But The Only Enemy Is In The Mirror
THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR Never let people get away with irreciprocal judgement of others. Start complaining about others only after you have exhausted analysis of your own failings. This is what I tell to white people as well. We are unhappy because we expect others to do other than pursue their reproductive strategies – yet this in itself is illogical. The question is always, not why does a competitor harm you, but why are you too weak and incompetent to fend off a competitor? The only enemy is in the mirror. The strong and capable have no enemies because they have defended against those enemies. 0 – Yes the asian states are (filthy) dirty places, which is why westerners must (a) get shots, (b) are told “not touch anything that isn’t you”, and (c) are told not to eat or drink anything that a ‘Mohammed’s hands could touch’, and (d) india in particular but china as well produces such an extraordinary range of birth defects that are not due to inbreeding and incest – which are the cause of extraordinary birth defects in the arab and muslim worlds. 1 – yes these states are backward by nature. Hence the difference in corruption between ukraine, russia, india, and china. They are all very corrupt. 2 – Anglo revenue is from (a) reliable (non-corrupt) courts and the social and political superiority that arises from non-corrupt courts, (b) technological superiority that arises from the wealth of superior social and juridical non-corruption, (c) consumer consumption, and particularly consumer consumption of of housing. Our military is a money-losing proposition other than for preventing a non-market volatility of petroleum which has replaced agrarian territory as the most influential determinant of the wealth of advanced nation states. 3 – Anglos have made a great deal of their wealth dragging the primitive world out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, hunger, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature. Anglos have spent a great deal of their wealth (a) preventing communism, (b) and now preventing islamism, and (c) we will probably have to prevent chinese authoritarianism if we are not careful. And worse we have committed near self destruction out of foolish charitability in immigration. 4 – The question is, since we have seen chinese colonization, russian colonization, french colonization, spanish colonization, dutch colonization, and inter-african colonization, and it was possible to conquer the world or even commit genocide on the entire planet – that is the opportunity cost. In other words, you could be colonized by the chinese, russians, mongols, turks, muslims. The question is not why these people colonize you. It is why you are so weak demographically, culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, that they can? Which is what I say to white men. If we are being colonized the only reason we are colonized is because we are too weak to prevent it.
-
GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let
GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE
What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let you live, (b) keep your things (c) let you remain free of slavery (d) Let you keep a portion of your production?
It’s the inverse of the Crusoe’s Island thought experiment.
Historically, the model that we evolved with, is an evenly distributed but scarce population preying on one another to obtain territory, women, and goods.
How do you develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the historical (existential) rather than pessimistic (Kahn) or optimistic (Crusoe) models?
Genghis Khan <———- Steppe ———> Crusoe
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:43:00 UTC
-
KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM by Luke Weinhagen Understanding this: —-“
KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM
by Luke Weinhagen
Understanding this:
—-“There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).”—-
… and developing the skill to accurately identify these categories, makes everything Propertarianism is exploring understandable and in context.
Where I’ve had misses in comprehension has consistently been where I’ve mis-categorized one or more of those three as another in whatever relation is being explored.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:28:00 UTC
-
THERE EXIST NO RIGHTS Rights do not exist between peoples. Power exists. Rights
THERE EXIST NO RIGHTS
Rights do not exist between peoples. Power exists. Rights are exchanged between kin for the purpose of cooperation in the pursuit of wealth and power. Everything else is just religious wishful thinking – the kind of thinking that makes people poor.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 12:30:00 UTC
-
GAME DAY Let’s Play A Game Today: Natural Law Court. In today’s game, pick a top
GAME DAY
Let’s Play A Game Today: Natural Law Court.
In today’s game, pick a topic, event, or person that is in conflict with natural law, name who you would prosecute (can be fictional) and lets see if we can successfully prosecute that case.
(PS: Please do not waste my time trying to be cunning or funny. you won’t be either, just tedious. lol )
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 09:34:00 UTC