The only certain way to do good, is to do no harm.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-04 08:23:00 UTC
The only certain way to do good, is to do no harm.
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-04 08:23:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/property-rights-and-obligations/DEFINITION: PROPERTY-IN-TOTO
(worth repeating)
in-toto: all. “in totality”. (latin).
I use property-in/en-toto as a synonym for Demonstrated Property.
Demonstrated Property being that which people act to secure, defend, retaliate against the imposition of costs upon.
Humans act to defend that which they bear costs to obtain.
1) Property-in/en-toto: all that humans act to defend.
2) Property (Norm): that which human groups evolve to insure one another against the impositions of costs upon.
3) Property Rights: that which we develop institutions to insure one another against the imposition of costs upon. Restitution in error or accident against private property. Restitution or punishment for intentional imposition of costs against private property. Punishment or fines for imposition of costs against common property. The most common of which is the export of risk upon others (drunk driving).
So property-in-toto refers to the scientific (empirical) definition of property as determined by the evidence of human behavior.
Why is this necessary? Well, the problem is that the rothbardians (Libertarians) have been espousing a definition of property called ‘intersubjectively-verifiable-property” meaning “physical things”. In other words, that the basis for law, the basis for a social order, “SHOULD BE” limited to physical things.
I’ve written quite a bit about intersubjectively verifiable property producing low trust societies with high demand for the authoritarian state. Whereas high trust societies do not generate demand for the authoritarian state – but they tolerate if not advocate mutual insurance (redistribution).
High trust societies do not rely upon a test of intersubjective verifiability, but upon RETALIATION. In other words, law evolved to ‘keep the peace” because keeping the peace (honestly) kept taxes flowing from the greater economic velocity. In other words, the nobility obtained taxes in exchange for creating order. (Which they then turned into rent seeking). But the side effect is that law that prohibits that which causes retaliation leaves voluntary cooperation as the only possible method of survival. Where voluntary cooperation means ‘production and trade’.
Note: in legal terminology it would be ‘in-toto”. When I started using the term i used the french “en” instead of english “in”. to cue the reader that it’s a new term. That was probably a mistake, since it’s descriptive as it is.
WHAT DO PEOPLE DEMONSTRATE AS THEIR PROPERTY:
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/property-rights-and-obligations/
HOW DO WE INCREMENTALLY SUPPRESS IMPOSITION OF COSTS UPON OTHERS?
https://www.facebook.com/TRSCDIncremental/posts/852912708120103
Source date (UTC): 2016-03-02 02:55:00 UTC
Truth telling and eugenic mating and property rights facilitate calculation.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-24 06:12:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702375517597646852
Reply addressees: @PoseidonAwoke @MartianHoplite @voxday @StefanMolyneux
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/700082425616056320
IN REPLY TO:
@PoseidonAwoke
Hey @curtdoolittle , @MartianHoplite, @voxday, @StefanMolyneux
Brilliant analysis: Why women destroy civilization:
https://t.co/S6abiYbMeF
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/700082425616056320
THE CONTRACT OF ARISTOCRATIC COOPERATION
We prefer to cooperate morally – meaning beneficially – with you.
If we cannot cooperate beneficially with you on fully moral terms – meaning without parasitism, then we have only four choices:
1) Pay the cost of your parasitism and suffer the consequences, in exchange for avoiding the cost of defending against your parasitism.
2) Boycott you and bearing the costs of boycotting you in exchange for avoiding the cost of transforming you into a moral individual or group.
3) Colonize you and bear the cost of evolving you, in exchange for creating a valued member of mankind.
4) Conquering you and bearing the cost of exterminating you in exchange for freedom from your parasitism.
So, you have a choice: limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, constrained to externalities under the same conditions.
Or we will eventually colonize and reform you, or conquer and exterminate you.
You may have the ambition of mere survival. Our ambition is to make mankind moral. For it is only in moral mankind that the evil and immoral are exterminated forever.
– Aristocratia –
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-19 10:07:00 UTC
PROPERTARIANISM VS ANARCHISM
(promoted to post)
Points to Ponder:
Anarchism includes no institutional method within rule of law for the construction of commons. Yet rule of law itself must be constructed as a commons. In propertarianism I have tried to construct a jury system for the construction of commons just as we have used the jury system for the construction of the commons of private property.
Anarchism does not include a definition of property rights sufficient for the reasonable, rational, or empirical formation of a voluntary polity.
I believe these are the two differences.
I do not believe a state exists in propertarianism, only that a rule of law is objective for ALL matters, rather than subjective beyond physical property.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-17 11:32:00 UTC
Superiority tested via Demonstrated Preference. ergo. yes.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 20:02:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699685406774845446
Reply addressees: @AidanTierian @Bidenshairplugs
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699683986470236160
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699683986470236160
Why do you want to tell people what they should do – what costs you think they should bear? Instead, end the involuntary bearing of costs.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 16:18:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699629042199347201
Why do you want to tell people what they should do – what costs you think they should bear? Instead, end the involuntary bearing of costs.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 11:19:00 UTC
Homesteading of opportunity, or Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited externality of the same.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-15 16:15:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699265678914822144
Reply addressees: @Eupraxsophite
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/697394938569314306
IN REPLY TO:
@Tyrord
@curtdoolittle How does property-en-toto prohibit fraud, conspiration, involontary transaction or extortion?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/697394938569314306
I am sorry. I missed this. Property-en-toto uses a broader definition of property (demonstrated), to test for aggression.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-15 16:13:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699265242912722944
Reply addressees: @Eupraxsophite
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/697394938569314306
IN REPLY TO:
@Tyrord
@curtdoolittle How does property-en-toto prohibit fraud, conspiration, involontary transaction or extortion?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/697394938569314306