The left has called us dinosaurs for our treatment of sovereignty as sacred, and the natural common aw as our scripture. But what they referred to was in fact older than they: an ‘adult’ – whether or not they intended to.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 15:29:00 UTC
The difference between Legal argument and Propertarian (Natural Law) argument, is that we don’t have to make excuses for ‘rule’ (commands), legislation(commands), and regulation(commands), just whether a disagreement is true and moral – meaning perfectly reciprocal.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 13:30:00 UTC
SOVEREIGNTY = perfect (exceptionless) reciprocity by perfect (exceptionless) reciprocal insurance, in numbers sufficient to deny violations of reciprocity to all possible (exeptionless) extant numbers.
PERFECT RECIPROCITY = limiting one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property – in – toto, limited to productive externalities.
PROPERTY IN TOTO = That in which one has expended any resource with intent to obtain an interest, without imposing a cost on that which another has expended a resource with the intent to obtain an interest. Synonym: ‘demonstrated property’
INTEREST: = ergo, leaving only homesteading, transformation, and exchange, as means of obtaining an interest. Synonym: monopoly share (a possession), proportional share (citizenship in a commons), proportional share (private in a common contract), demonstrated share ( a denial of opportunity( such as norms and traditions)
RESOURCE : life, body, effort, time, attention, kin, material possession, material interest (share), organizational interest, normative interest, institutional interest, informational interest. Synonym: “capital”.
YIELDS:
Possession(insured by self defense) > consensual property (insured by reciprocity) > normative property(insured by normative enforcement) > property right (insured by third party enforcement) > natural right(ideal between government and citizens) or human right(ideal between governments). Technically speaking,under rule of law, under natural judge-discovered common law, under perfect reciprocity (sovereignty), natural rights can be brought into existence.
Under these conditions it is possible to create sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom by utility, and subsidy by preference.
(Good luck getting that degree of precision out of parasitic libertines) 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 11:27:00 UTC
*Never turn the other cheek.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 06:45:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN: DOMESTICATING ANIMAL MAN FOR PEERS AND PROFIT.
An animal has no agency, only impulse; can enter no contracts, only seize conveniences; can resolve no disputes truthfully, only imagine excuses. It cannot be reasoned with, only bribed or punished. But with bribes and punishments it can be trained. And if training fails, abandoned to the wild, enslaved, imprisoned, or killed.
We train the animal with property in toto, manners, ethics, morals, and law. We use peers, parents, teachers, sheriffs, police, judges, juries, soldiers, generals and kings.
The animal can be trained from beast to slave, to serf, to dependent, to freeman, to civilian, to soldier, to aristocracy: human.
The training requires sentience, awareness, consciousness, reason, knowledge, and agency.
But each degree of training demands more of the animal, and many – most – cannot complete it, and transcend the animal.
As such the world is full of a few humans and many domesticated animals of varying degree, and many, many beasts.
Thankfully, like many domesticatable animals, these animals, once domesticated, can often be put to good use.
And as such, the beast man, like all other domesticatable beasts, can be domesticated for profit.
The domestication of man – that occupation we call rule – is the most profitable occupation of all, except for one:
The success in breeding, and training humans.
Because while animals are a commodity, producing the rare human is the most profitable industry of all.
And if it fails, hunting the beast man that remain, is the greatest joy of all.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-30 22:32:00 UTC
INTENTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. VIA POSITIVA (STORIES) HELP ORGANIZE BUT VIA NEGATIVA (LAW) DECIDES OUTCOMES.
The purpose of Natural Law is to prevent harm, resolve disputes, and force restitution. If no dispute, no harm, no externality exists then this is not a matter for law. law evolves via negativa. by discovering methods of conflict because of parasitism and preventing them by recording them as a warning that one will be forced to pay restitution, and as a help to those who want to know how to avoid conflict. It is a purely empirical process.
If one seeks to build consensus that is not the function of the law (via negativa). Yet if one seeks to build consensus by MEANS THAT CANNOT BE WARRANTED, and means that cannot be testified to, then one has failed to perform due diligence against harm, and one can be brought up for restitution.
Intentions are irrelevant.
The ease of transfer is irrelevant.
The ‘good’ of the outcome is irrelevant.
Those are statemetns of positiva (intention and excuse making)
However, when we come into dispute, disputes are decidable. All differences in property in toto are decidable.
If one does not impose a cost against property in toto then the matter is undecidable, precisely because it is immaterial. What you do in your own head that does not manifest itself as an imposition of costs upon the costs paid by others is irrelevant. (and reciprocity applies to others).
If you want a positive political philosophy (methods of cooperating in the production of commons) then we have a spectrum of options from near dictatorship to near anarchy to choose from. I don’t need to list them. We know them.
If you want a positive personal philosophy (generative options) we have at least these methods to choose from: , dreaming/free-association, the occult/new-age, superstition, myth, literature, Tradition/habit, rules of thumb/imitation, general rules of arbitrary precision (truth/science/history).
if you want an mental discipline mindfulness discipline we can achieve this through drugs/dreaming, suppression/meditation, internal-(recursive)-conversation/prayer, disciplined and restive ritual, contemplative writing, disciplined action-planning(stoicism), physical exercise/hiking-running-walking.
But if you want to DECIDE between competing wants, or decide between matters of conflict, there is only one possible method of decidability.
Now I might prefer a highly redistributed homogenous polity under strict rule of natural law, requiring all of that redistribution to be truthfully stated in the law, transparently performed and objectively measured. And I might prefer that order simply because I am highly independent by virtue of my talents and skills, and people seem to find me useful. But I can see others who are not so independent, not possessed of talents and skills, and not found useful, preferring a different order – although it is hard to understand a better order for getting it to them morally.
Now, others might prefer a different order for immoral reasons. Those reasons might be obvious (inabilty to compete in a market). Or they might be less obvious: inability to organize toward a productive end truthfllly. or they might be insidious: attempting to disorganize or organize toward a harmful end.
But all of these cases are decidable.
But in order for a case to be decidable, someone’s interests (property in toto) must have been subject to harm because of it.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 13:04:00 UTC
Q&A: ABORTION
—“May I ask what your views on abortion are?”—
I have to answer this question by starting with the basis of decidability.
0) My view is that moral decidability is provided by continuing domestication for the purpose of transcendence by the prohibition on parasitism alone. Or rather productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer alone. And as such perfectly cooperated man results in transcendent man.
1) my view is that the effort to fully employ our women, so that we could increase taxation, so that we could enter the work force late, and retire early, has been self-genocidal. This is merely intergenerational parasitism. We are killing future generations by our conspicuous consumption of tax revenues.
2) my view is that the cost of raising children meritocratically is only calculable in a two+ person household. (the economics of this should be obvious).
3) my view on infanticide is that we have been doing it since the dawn of time – by the cruel means of exposure. And that abortion merely preserves this eternal trend. And moreover, I am not sure we shouldn’t do much more infanticide. I am certain that any defect that externalizes costs onto others is bad, and that we tolerate the nonsense of hormonal mothers in more than just births but in failing to sterilize the incompetent, and to hang the (predatory) criminal population.
4) my view on killing is the same.
5) my view on conquest is the same.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 12:34:00 UTC
There no reason for Defamation, Libel, and Slander to cause damage under common law. This leads to nonsense. The only natural law requirement for defamation, libel, and slander is that the speech is false. In fact, I am not sure, given the Cosmopolitan history of “heaping undue praise” that “undue praise” should not accompany defamation, libel, and slander.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 13:36:00 UTC
***Your approval is undesirable. Your productive exchange is. And if that’s unattainable, your submission is preferable, and failing that, your extermination necessary.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 09:50:00 UTC
The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take your things?’
The first question of debate is also ‘why do I not kill you and take your things’?
The answer to both questions is, “Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding for both parties – at least over the medium and long term.”
But if we we lie, if we cast insults, then we are de-facto, not cooperating, to produce disproportionately rewarding ends. So ethics ends.
And if we tolerate the existence of people who engage in lie, insult, and fraud, then we are not cooperating with those with whom we cooperate. So Morality Ends.
So, unbound by cooperation, unbound by ethics, and unbound by morality, we return to violence as of greater benefit than suffering lie and insult and non-cooperation.
So it is only moral that I kill you and take your things.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:31:00 UTC