Think about how illogical the term special interests is
https://www.quora.com/Are-the-Republican-and-Democratic-parties-in-the-US-actually-one-party-controlled-by-special-interests
Think about how illogical the term special interests is
https://www.quora.com/Are-the-Republican-and-Democratic-parties-in-the-US-actually-one-party-controlled-by-special-interests
Opinions on this are irrelevant, since the data is overwhelming, the resarch substantial, and it’s quite clear that people vote race, gender, and marital status. In other words – their reproductive strategy.
https://www.quora.com/As-a-voter-do-your-values-inform-your-politics-or-do-your-politics-remodel-your-values
He doesn’t listen to the Alt Right. They’re the equivalent of the evangelicals for the Neocons. True Believers.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 20:25:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766008194195947520
Reply addressees: @ChipBrooks17 @FemaBand
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765998049269342208
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/765998049269342208
Rule=simplicity=army:positive –VS– Judgement=complexity=market:negative
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 20:24:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766007792327127040
Reply addressees: @FemaBand @ThomasEWoods @lewrockwell @jeffdeist @jtsale
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766007182764548096
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/766007182764548096
(Molyneux’s position is actually correct given absence of a political steady state.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 20:11:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766004434593783808
Reply addressees: @FemaBand @ThomasEWoods @lewrockwell @jeffdeist @jtsale
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766003978274353153
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/766003978274353153
It will end with LR if not corrected. This is what’s disappointing for liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 20:01:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766002046625611776
Reply addressees: @FemaBand @ThomasEWoods @lewrockwell @jeffdeist @jtsale
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766001925590487040
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@FemaBand @ThomasEWoods @lewrockwell @jeffdeist @jtsale Reforming MI is emotionally not logically or scientifically difficult.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/766001925590487040
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@FemaBand @ThomasEWoods @lewrockwell @jeffdeist @jtsale Reforming MI is emotionally not logically or scientifically difficult.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/766001925590487040
https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-President-lead-a-country-fairly-and-democratically-with-so-many-people-having-mixed-agendas-ideas-and-opinions/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=08163832It’s impossible, since democracy is only capable of selecting priorities among people with homogenous interests, and impossible to select between conflicting choices among people with heterogeneous interests.
Markets let us cooperate on means despite different ends – no monopolies.
Democracy is a monopoly in which we cannot cooperate on means because of different ends.
Democracy has been a catastrophe.
The original anglo model was not democratic but consisted of different HOUSES for each CLASS, including the CHURCH, so that Monarchy, regional managers, personal property owners, and common people(church) could negotiate EXCHANGES between the classes.
The English system created a market under which most can be satisfied. Democracy destroyed it by creating a monopoly under which no one can be satisfied.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 16:18:00 UTC
—“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—
[L]et’s take a look:
(a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.
(b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.
(c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.
(d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).
(e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.
The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.
There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.
Curt
—“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—
[L]et’s take a look:
(a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.
(b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.
(c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.
(d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).
(e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.
The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.
There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.
Curt
[T]he *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism): – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive” – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical”