Let me help you. Religions provide wisdom, and governments provide laws. If your religion conflates wisdom with law it is not a religion but a form of government masquerading as a cult. Ergo, if your religion contains laws it is a competitor to, not a compliment to, a government. As such it can be regulated, prohibited, and warred against if necessary.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 20:28:00 UTC
THE GREATER GOOD????
We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continually saturated with lies as to possible ‘greater goods’ and impossible greater goods. And it turns out that all successful appeals to ‘greater goods’ are in fact, merely pretenses for parasitism.
Because we are forever ignorant, we cannot know goods, or truths, only bads or falsehoods. As such the greater good can only be obtained by removal of known bads: the natural common law of torts. The demand for reciprocity. And the punishment of offenders.
By this (via-negativa) removal of bads, only voluntary market-produced goods can be brought into existence, in any form, whether as material goods, services, or information for consumption or as material goods, services or information for direct investment, or for material goods, services, or information for the production of commons as an indirect investment.
By profits from the (via-negativa) removal of bads, and the production of the voluntary organization of production of private, semi-private, and common goods, services, and information, we are then able to insure one another against the vicissitudes of nature.
In the literature we find:
1) Totalitarianism of the underclass socialists to use discretion to organize production and perform discretionary redistribution of proceeds as a means of aggressive transition of people from a state far behind competitors; This approach requires existential information to make use of, and is indifferent to the demographic quality, and absence of market economy.
2) The progressive ‘representational’ use of pareto optimums to justify forcible redistribution and the expansion of the dead weight of the underclass (Rawlsian social democracy) as a means of using population to defeat competitors. This approach requires existential market economies to make use of reduced production of information.
3) And we find the conservative ‘aristocratic’ use of Nash equilibriums (classical liberalism/contractualism under natural law) to justify meritocracy and voluntary cooperation and eugenic reduction of the dead weight of the underclasses as means of remaining ahead of competitors. This approach requires existentially reduced lower classes, existential market economies, and existential high trust within that economy to function.
4) To support these three literatures we find three branches of economics:
a) the “Saltwater and Discretionary School”.
b) The “Freshwater and Rule of Law School”
c) The “German/Austrian Political Economy School”
I can answer further questions about political models, demographic demands, and the supposed wisdom of crowds, but you wouldn’t believe how much of the totality of political thought is contained in those few paragraphs.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 14:50:00 UTC
—“The world’s first murderer stands before a common law court. No applicable statute or precedent. How is law made?”—
By Natural Law: reciprocity.
The violation of reciprocity by aggression against life, body, mate, kin, property, interest.
In history, common law developed to prevent reciprocity (retaliation), because of retaliation cycles. (Feuds)
States imposed uniform laws once people came into conflict between groups. And if one ‘group’s punishments were too different from the others retaliation cycles would ensue (Feuds).
—“Can you define reciprocity?”—
Reciprocity is just the promise of doing unto others only as one would have done unto you; and not doing unto others that which you would not have done unto you.
But once this is broken how do we restore a condition of reciprocity? We do so by restitution.
–“Does restitution necessitate capital punishment?”–
Technically it is impossible to perform restitution for murder except with capital punishment.
However, in most cases it is possible to pay a high price for murder. And people generally have been forced to pay a high price depending upon the status of the killer and killed.
but, in the end, the real reason we use capital punishment is because if someone will break the last rule, the one-rule, of not murdering, then they must be eliminated from the group.
—“Standardization means that a superior authority is set?”—
Not sure what you mean. Not authority, but decidability.
Natural law is decidable. It’s perfectly decidable in all cases, everywhere, at all times, between all people. We can define restitution regardless of opinion or preference of members – in order to maintain ‘the peace’ (the rewards of cooperation).
Natural law means people can’t prey upon each other. That is different from a standard. As far as I know that’s a truth. It’s just science. We don’t get to choose.
Two people or parties can settle their differences however they want as long as the settlement of differences does not export harm or risk to others. but if we are asked or forced to resolve a conflict, we can do so by natural law regardless of our individual opinions.
—“If natural law means we can’t prey on each other, is it not a priori? Or is it empirically discovered as a function of the rewards of not preying?”—
Well you know asking that question is fallacious. The apriori is simply a trivial case of the empirical, and the empirical merely a trivial case of the scientific.
It’s observable, it’s logical, it’s possible, it’s demonstrable, and it’s thoroughly demonstrated – and moreover it’s actually impossible to contradict rationally. (You can’t even try to contradict it without confirming it.)
I mean, we are part of the physical universe, despite our ability to outwit it on a regular basis through the use of sense, perception, memory, prediction, reason. If an organism tolerates parasitism and predation why does it do so? If an organism can cooperate, and cooperation produces extraordinary returns, and parasitism disincentivizes cooperation, and deprives an organism of returns, then what adaptation must an organism evolve in order to preserve cooperation?
Just what we see: altruistic punishment (costly retaliation). Because even though retaliation is costly, the cumulative parasitism is much more costly, and possibly deadly.
Any organism that can cooperate and becomes dependent upon cooperation cannot survive significant non-cooperation.
However, some minimum of non-cooperation is necessary in order to preserve the incentive to preserve the instinct to punish parasites.
And some minimum non-cooperation is necessary to provide evolutionary routes to superiority that may be integrated into the whole.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 16:43:00 UTC
BITCH-SLAP ADVOCATES OF CAPITALISM
Bitch-slap advocates of capitalism. Property rights and markets will evolve under Rule of Law by Natural Law. Capitalism is just a cosmopolitan distraction to justify every form of parasitism possible under financialization. Financialization like Religion like Divine Right is simply another means of preying parasitically upon our people. Interest is necessary for the measurement of production, and as a means of compensating each other for the cost of producing rule of law by natural law and the markets that emerge from it. But all consumer credit under fiat money is simply theft from the people, and a means of their indentured servitude.
You were fooled. Punish those who fooled you. Forcibly produce every means of restitution possible. Back to the introduction of fiat money. All of it. Every cent. Everywhere in the world.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 08:19:00 UTC
ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
If you talk about ‘beliefs’ you’re an idiot. If you talk about convincing others, you’re only slightly less of an idiot. If you talk about power and institutions then at least you’re not an idiot. It’s all well and good to desire conditions under which we have the luxury to choose beliefs and we have the luxury to convince, but one must produce that conditional luxury. The only means of organizing a polity is by the application of power. There is only one means by which a minority can exercise power, and that is violence. With violence you can choose what beliefs people choose from, what choices are and are not available. the left does nothing but lie and propagandize and seize power incrementally and opportunistically. The right does nothing but hope and pray, and let others seize power incrementally and opportunistically. Why? Because the right will not lie, but is afraid to tell the truth. Why? Because the entire fantasy that the right has constructed since the enlightenment is complete nonsense. Man was not oppressed he was domesticated using violence, for the profit of those who domesticated him. Just like every other animal. And that our entire civilization is built upon the accumulated domestication of man for fun and profit over at least three and a half thousand years. That is the answer. So we will either continue to drag mankind out of his animal nature, violence, ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, and disease, or we will revert to the animals we see in the muslims. Our primary industry is rule. Rule or be ruled. Rule and transcend man. Or rule and be reduced once again to semitic barbarism.
VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE WHEN USED TO TRANSCEND MAN.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-26 12:07:00 UTC
MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT
1) You don’t argue with ‘liberals’, ‘progressives’, socialists, and feminists.
2) You prosecute them. You point out that they’re liars, parasites, thieves.
3) Then you beat them, deprive them of property, enslave them if you must, and kill them if necessary.
When parasitism is unprofitable it will stop.
As long as parasitism is profitable it will continue.
So:
Hit, hurt, beat, deprive, enslave, kill. We are men. We defend capital. We defend capital against all enemies familial, domestic, and foreign.
Every man militia, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a hangman.
There is only one source of truth, prosperity, sovereignty, and the conditions of liberty and freedom and subsidy:
The reciprocal insurance of natural law by ENOUGH men willing and able, to make alternatives too costly to pursue.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 11:05:00 UTC
A MILITIA IS THE ANSWER. THE MILITIA IS THE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY
—“But how is sovereignty produced? What are the necessary substrates (material) and predicaments (relations and incentives) for the emergence and sustainable continuation of sovereignty?”—Simon Ström
A condition of sovereignty, is produced by the *incentives* to produce sovereignty, which consist of a large number of men, in a militia, none of which produce or possess sufficient wealth to coerce others into the coercion of others; living in an environment where there are no capital assets of sufficient value with which to make possible sufficient wealth to coerce others into coercing others. Sovereignty is produced by a significant percentage of men, who deny power to any man or men, for any reason.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 10:44:00 UTC
WHAT I’M SAYING ISN’T THAT COMPLICATED. IT”S THE OPERATIONALIZATION, ADVOCACY, AND DEFENSE OF IT THAT’S COMPLICATED. Michael Churchill Curt you’ve argued that you want the US to have multiple legal frameworks via devolution of power from the national to the state level. Isn’t that a sort of acceptance of different strokes for different folks? Curt Doolittle Different production of commons. one legal (truthful) law. But yes. Hey. I’m a libertarian. do what you fucking want. Just let me live with my people as I want. Michael Churchill Okay that’s what I thought you’d say. Makes sense. Think i fully understand the core thesis of Propertarianism now. (Also thanks for that elevator pitch description of it a bit earlier.) Curt Doolittle I”m sayin’ just this: Restore the monarchies, rule of law, multi-house government, and the militia, but with strictly constructed natural law that is as inviolable as mathematics. The whole ‘trick’ is in that law. It’s that law I spent all the time on.
WHAT I’M SAYING ISN’T THAT COMPLICATED. IT”S THE OPERATIONALIZATION, ADVOCACY, AND DEFENSE OF IT THAT’S COMPLICATED. Michael Churchill Curt you’ve argued that you want the US to have multiple legal frameworks via devolution of power from the national to the state level. Isn’t that a sort of acceptance of different strokes for different folks? Curt Doolittle Different production of commons. one legal (truthful) law. But yes. Hey. I’m a libertarian. do what you fucking want. Just let me live with my people as I want. Michael Churchill Okay that’s what I thought you’d say. Makes sense. Think i fully understand the core thesis of Propertarianism now. (Also thanks for that elevator pitch description of it a bit earlier.) Curt Doolittle I”m sayin’ just this: Restore the monarchies, rule of law, multi-house government, and the militia, but with strictly constructed natural law that is as inviolable as mathematics. The whole ‘trick’ is in that law. It’s that law I spent all the time on.
By Eli Harman
My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points.
1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.
2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men. And the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.
3) Men and women vote differently, on average.
All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.
There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence.
For democracy can never reconcile conflicting interests of priorities. It can only privilege some, at the expense of others. And the more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build. And it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.
But we don’t have to do either.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC