https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/828268110214000642/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=828268110214000642N.A.P. AS A SOURCE OF IGNORANCE
#Conservative #Libertarian #NewRight #Trump https://t.co/aF6zEN57eY
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 10:44:00 UTC
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/828266250988052480/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=828266250988052480THE TWO SIDES OF THE MORAL COIN: WESTERN NATURAL LAW, EASTERN NON-AGGRESSION.
#conservative #libertarian #NewRight #Trump https://t.co/Wpq17LZaQu
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 10:37:00 UTC
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/828266107228286976/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=828266107228286976FREEDOM IS CREATED BY AND MAINTAINED BY THE USE OF VIOLENCE
#conservative #libertarian #NewRight #Trump https://t.co/rJu3LUU6eo
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 10:36:00 UTC
NAP AS A SOURCE OF IGNORANCE
Our battle against libertinism (Rothbardian Libertarianism) is indifferent from the one with Marxists: Desirable but impossible half truths impede the ascertainment of less desirable but possible truths. These desirable half truths serve as what Popper called “Sources of Ignorance”. The NAP is a desirable half truth that functions in practice as a source of ignorance that prevents us from rediscovering the source of a condition of liberty: a militia and a rule of law and a hierarchy of judges, creating and maintaining sovereignty for those who fight, liberty for those who organize, freedom for those who labor, and prosperity for those who depend upon us.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:32:00 UTC
THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION
We can measure the higher and lower morality of groups by the scope of property that they protect from parasitism – non-reciprocity.
(see “Incremental Suppression”)
it is always moral for a more moral order of people to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purposes of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results.
(“Investment in the production of reciprocity”)
If it is affordable, it is immoral to fail to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purpose of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results. Otherwise one passes the cost to future generations, and increases the risk that in a period of shock or weakness the less moral people may cause either or both a decline in property, or a decline in morality of the more moral people.
(“Defense against the deceit of claiming conviction when one is practicing mere convenience: externalizing costs to others.”)
As far as I know, arguing against this position cannot be done except by the non-reciprocal export of costs upon others. In other words, the failure to aggress against immoral orders can only be explained by immoral actions.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:31:00 UTC
DO NOTHING YOU’D NEED TO GET AWAY WITH
NAP: Do what you can get away with.
Natural Law: Do nothing you’d need to get away with.
How about you defer to natural law instead of making excuses: take no action that imposes a cost upon that which another has invested.
The problem with ‘nap-pers’ is that by stating non aggression without stating what one must not aggress against, is actually saying ‘do what you can get away with’. That’s what the NAP means, and that’s where rothbard got it from.
AND THAT IS A FACT. SORRY.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:05:00 UTC
THE ADULT VERSION OF NON AGGRESSION
Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at first, shared production distance second, shared norm distance third, shared law third.
So the ‘law of non aggression” evolves with the density and complexity of the order(population) of cooperation to INCREASING scopes of property: family, property, normative property, and institutional property.
The “NAP” functions as a child’s reductio (simplistic) version of this more ‘adult’ necessity of cooperation at scale.
Thus Endeth the Lesson. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 06:15:00 UTC
Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at first, shared production distance second, shared norm distance third, shared law third.
So the ‘law of non aggression” evolves with the density and complexity of the order(population) of cooperation to INCREASING scopes of property: family, property, normative property, and institutional property.
The “NAP” functions as a child’s reductio (simplistic) version of this more ‘adult’ necessity of cooperation at scale.
Thus Endeth the Lesson. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 20:22:00 UTC
—“So underneath our sense of ownership there is a Nash equilibrium and maybe a dove waiting for the right time to take the place of a hawk.”— Marco Montes Neri
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 19:14:00 UTC
—What if aliens come? Would they be right in taking the earth?—
A right can exist only as a question between peers who are cooperating or may cooperate, or fear not cooperating. Once we are no longer cooperating no ‘right’ exists other than ‘can’. to think otherwise is to fail to mature into an adult. as children we can appeal to parents for judicial resolution (right), as members of a group, appeal to the group for juridical resolution (right), as citizens appeal to the judiciary for juridical resolution (right), and as humans appeal to all sorts of foreign organizations for defense. But when aliens with superior technology come, there is no ‘right’. There is only can. There is no jury judge, or ally to appeal to. Might can make right or wrong, but in the end, if there is to exist ‘right’ it can only be made by might. There is no other possibility. and it is not only foolish to imagine so, criminal to advocate for, but a threat to man, beast, plant, and planet.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 18:33:00 UTC