Our Movement Makes Leaders – We Don’t Appoint or Approve Them https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/our-movement-makes-leaders-we-dont-appoint-or-approve-them/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:06:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266732695712944131
Feb 9, 2020, 7:38 AM We don’t ask people to do anything. They do them of their own volition. John, Bill, Eli, Brandon, Martin, Alain, Pomen, and the fifty other guys I could mention – we just let the market do its job. And we even spin off people. People take P and use it for their own purposes. And that’s what we want them to do. P creates a big tent on the methodology, but it creates a lot of tribes for the application of it to different political, economic, philosophical, and spiritual frames. Sure, I have a solution for constitutional reformation to continue the western tradition and to follow the hindus and the chinese into insulation from the semitic and african civilizations so that we can each develop our civilizations according to our needs. But you can build any form of political or economic order under P and under rule of law with P – you just have to do it truthfully and reciprocally. So when we say “markets in everything” we mean EVERYTHING.
Feb 9, 2020, 7:38 AM We don’t ask people to do anything. They do them of their own volition. John, Bill, Eli, Brandon, Martin, Alain, Pomen, and the fifty other guys I could mention – we just let the market do its job. And we even spin off people. People take P and use it for their own purposes. And that’s what we want them to do. P creates a big tent on the methodology, but it creates a lot of tribes for the application of it to different political, economic, philosophical, and spiritual frames. Sure, I have a solution for constitutional reformation to continue the western tradition and to follow the hindus and the chinese into insulation from the semitic and african civilizations so that we can each develop our civilizations according to our needs. But you can build any form of political or economic order under P and under rule of law with P – you just have to do it truthfully and reciprocally. So when we say “markets in everything” we mean EVERYTHING.
Prioritize Trust Over Performance. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/prioritize-trust-over-performance/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:06:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266732600514797568
Feb 9, 2020, 7:48 AM by Luke Weinhagen The prioritization of trust over performance. Both are important, but their prioritization under normal conditions should always favor trust. This same graph is what I am aiming at when I say things like “kinship capitalism”. Enough performance for the in-group capitalism to function well but never at the cost of trust and never allowing incentives for higher performance to be subsidized by the expenditure of trust.
Feb 9, 2020, 7:48 AM by Luke Weinhagen The prioritization of trust over performance. Both are important, but their prioritization under normal conditions should always favor trust. This same graph is what I am aiming at when I say things like “kinship capitalism”. Enough performance for the in-group capitalism to function well but never at the cost of trust and never allowing incentives for higher performance to be subsidized by the expenditure of trust.
The State https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-state/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:04:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266732125891551234
Feb 9, 2020, 1:32 PM The state is the only de-facto sovereign (organization) in competition with other polities for territory, resources, trade routes, built capital, and population. The state maintains that sovereignty as an insurer of last resort, maintaining a monopoly of violence in its capacity of insurer of last resort. It obtains income to pay for its function as an insurer of last resort, through fees sufficient to provide insurance against all competitors. The state adds value by suppression of all competitors to it’s fees, using the judicial system – thereby freeing the population from many high friction transaction costs in exchange for one low friction transaction cost (taxes). This is why states are always wealthier than non states – economic velocity. The government produces commons in addition to the states in order to generate the returns from commons – organizing the production of non-consumables prohibiting privatization by consumption ‘abusus’, but by allowing “usus” (use), creating ‘fructus’ (fruits). The production of commons increases population, trade, and therefore revenues that can be distributed between the production of common when times are fair(good), and functioning as insurer of last resort when times are dear (hard). Since the cost of both sovereignty and commons is only determined by market competition, then we have no say about the construction of state, military, judiciary, government, and institutions. We have only say in how competitive we desire to be and the relative conditions we live under. To produce a relatively anarchic polity would require only the production of sufficient military capability to deny all competitors, and retaining population and production necessary to pay for it, with the commons necessary to retain that population. In other words you don’t get to choose very much if you want to survive as a polity. The only means of minimizing a government long term is to do what I’ve recommended, which is exhaustive application of the law of reciprocity limiting allr ents, and then a payment (tax) system that was as closests to operating a business as possible. And that would require, exactly what I’ve proposed.
Feb 9, 2020, 1:32 PM The state is the only de-facto sovereign (organization) in competition with other polities for territory, resources, trade routes, built capital, and population. The state maintains that sovereignty as an insurer of last resort, maintaining a monopoly of violence in its capacity of insurer of last resort. It obtains income to pay for its function as an insurer of last resort, through fees sufficient to provide insurance against all competitors. The state adds value by suppression of all competitors to it’s fees, using the judicial system – thereby freeing the population from many high friction transaction costs in exchange for one low friction transaction cost (taxes). This is why states are always wealthier than non states – economic velocity. The government produces commons in addition to the states in order to generate the returns from commons – organizing the production of non-consumables prohibiting privatization by consumption ‘abusus’, but by allowing “usus” (use), creating ‘fructus’ (fruits). The production of commons increases population, trade, and therefore revenues that can be distributed between the production of common when times are fair(good), and functioning as insurer of last resort when times are dear (hard). Since the cost of both sovereignty and commons is only determined by market competition, then we have no say about the construction of state, military, judiciary, government, and institutions. We have only say in how competitive we desire to be and the relative conditions we live under. To produce a relatively anarchic polity would require only the production of sufficient military capability to deny all competitors, and retaining population and production necessary to pay for it, with the commons necessary to retain that population. In other words you don’t get to choose very much if you want to survive as a polity. The only means of minimizing a government long term is to do what I’ve recommended, which is exhaustive application of the law of reciprocity limiting allr ents, and then a payment (tax) system that was as closests to operating a business as possible. And that would require, exactly what I’ve proposed.
“WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE A VOTE?” (voting) https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/why-should-you-have-a-vote-voting/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 13:52:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266729250771668993