http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/690836074285891584/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=690836074285891584#Conservative #AltRight #NRx #libertarian https://t.co/yoOdsq4HWu
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 04:58:00 UTC
SO WAIT: JEWISH WRITERS ATTACK TRUMP AND CHRISTIAN WRITERS DEFEND TRUMP?
Because that’s sure what the evidence looks like.
the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization:
boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism.
It took us a thousand years to recover from the first attack on the west by Jewish Christianity, then Justinian’s Plague, forcible conversion, closure of the Stoic Schools, and the Muslim Invasions.
It has taken us a century to start wearing away at the second attempt at conversion – this time by pseudoscience and propagandizing: heaping undue praise, appeals to altruism by suggestion, and the use of new media for the purpose of propagandizing.
Truth is enough.
No more lies.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 09:30:00 UTC
My @Quora answer to Libertarianism: could the government be considered as a powerful landowner and could its power … https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=c8ec7eb4
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 08:10:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690446348588572672
A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.
At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.
Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies, creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts, all of whom are accountable under the common law.
So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts. And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market.
The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?” I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it. (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds
A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.
At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.
Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies, creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts, all of whom are accountable under the common law.
So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts. And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market.
The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?” I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it. (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds
ITS TIME TO DO SOMETHING NOBLE…
I think many of us were attracted to libertarianism under the assumption that we could do something noble with what we found there.
But we were wrong.
We can do something noble however.
But we must do it at the Point of a Knife, The End of a Spear, The Barrel of a Gun, and under the Gavel of the Natural Law.
We gave the world a chance to join the aristocracy. And they failed.
The experiment is over. Time to rule again.
Pick up your spear, knife, rifle and gavel.
It’s Time for us to make Law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 09:41:00 UTC
We could just get all crass and call left libertarians ‘Manginas’. But “Cucks” seems to be good enough for the beer and fries crowd. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 07:33:00 UTC
LIBERTARIAN SPECTRUM
LEFT
Libertines: free riders on the normative commons. Whining about liberty because they don’t want to pay for it, or even respect the investments of others. They want evasion, not liberty. “NAP’ers That Don’t Care.”
CENTER
Bourgeois Libertarians: Free riders on the defensive commons. Whine about not having liberty because they don’t want to pay for it. They want permission, not liberty. “NAP’ers + Excuse Making”
RIGHT
Aristocratic Libertarians (conservative libertarians): Pay the cost of liberty and possess liberty, by suppressing parasitism. They want liberty and are willing to act to possess it. “NonAggression against demonstrated property: that which causes retaliation and inhibits cooperation”.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 04:48:00 UTC
(from elsewhere)
1) The argument I have put forward is genetic pacification. Meaning that the purpose is not to change behavior but to forcibly remove people from the commons, the social order, and the gene pool, and continue the ongoing incremental suppression of aggression, and long term pacification of aggression in the world.
2) As far as I know the death penalty has little impact on certain demographics, possibly because it is statistically improbable that one will suffer it. However, through about 1900 we hung about .5-1% of people a year and the argument is that this was responsible for the genetic advantage of northern europeans everywhere they went in the world – the people who were otherwise were culled.
3) The evidence from the field, from sheriffs, from police, from prosecutors, is that the three strikes policy has been disproportionately effective. It has for example caused vast migrations between states of the organized petty crime conducted by the methamphetamine trade. And in the northwest its a common complaint that lower tolerance drives Idaho criminals into eastern Washington for example.
4) Conformity in this case is Non Aggression against Property En Toto. It is somewhat hard to argue that non-aggression is something we avoid conforming to. (If you have some other logic at hand I would love to understand it.)
One cannot create an intertemporal disincentive for the inter-temporally challenged and cognitively impaired. We can however, cull them if they engage in aggression, and if not we can pay them to behave.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 04:48:00 UTC
news out of donbas that russia leaves. more news that russians are using vk to say not to come to ukraine for killing brothers. but that it is difficult to compete with the propaganda.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 18:28:00 UTC