Form: Argument

  • FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS (read it and weep) ***Democracy and diversit

    FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS

    (read it and weep)

    ***Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies.

    In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history.

    It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without.

    So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.***


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 09:24:00 UTC

  • FIAT MONEY? It’s not that it’s a good thing. It’s that you can’t compete without

    FIAT MONEY?

    It’s not that it’s a good thing. It’s that you can’t compete without it.

    Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, nitrocellulose, gunpowder, are not ‘a good thing’ in any sense like copper, bronze, iron, and steel are good things.

    But once extant one must master them or be mastered by them. Fiat money must be mastered or you will be mastered by those who master it.

    Fiat money is not ‘money’ but a money substitute – a form of token, consisting of tradable shares in the organization we call the state.

    Just as one used to buy tickets for rides at the amusement park so that the ride-owners would not evade their fees, we buy fiat money so that all commerce in the market is burdened by fees.

    We cannot chose NO MARKET to participate in (state) so we are left with choosing the markets available. And if we tried to create a libertarian polity without funding that market we would be defeated by any number of forces internal and external.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 08:15:00 UTC

  • “As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must

    —“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 14:27:00 UTC

  • Um. Grow Up. We Want The Warlords To Rule. The Entire Militia of Them. 😉

    But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? mises.org GROW UP – WE **WANT** WARLORD RULE – THE MILITIA https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Warlords MUST take over. That’s the whole point. The question is only their number. A militia of warlords constitutes a distributed dictatorship under which only markets governed by natural law are possible. Anarchism? A lot of optimistic bullshit. Go live in Ukraine. in Belarus. In Russia (at least outside of moscow or st Petersburg.) Ukraine (the borderland) is where Jewish separatism of Rothbard was envisioned, under the protection of lithuanian, or polish, or russian empires, allowed financial and commercial gangsterism, while prohibiting physical retaliation. It was a system of organized predation upon the people just as today’s financialism consists of organized predation upon the people while preventing juridical defense from it, and physical retaliation against it. And that’s Ukraine today. The pretense of order. But 40+ Gangsters (warlords) we call Oligarchs (Private Property Rulership) with enough money and arms to (a) stack and buy the courts, (b) stack and buy the government, who have their own militaries, and who cannot be displaced, because they can too easily turn the rest of ukraine into a civil war zone like the east, leaving the only option Russian invasion and enforced order – which was exactly the plan all along. The reason ukraine is weak, is that it has no militia. Period. Rothbardianism consists of nothing but optimistic juvenile platitudes sold to reproductively, socially, economically uncompetitive males, as a wishful separatist movement, so that they might beg not to contribute to a commons that makes the market order possible, and instead, may parasitically exploit it without contribution. ie: separatism. Rothbardian ghetto ethics of intersubjectively verifiable property There is only one source of liberty: the organized use of violence to obtain, hold, and advance territory, resources, population, institutions, and capital – by a militia of sufficient scale that they cannot be opposed by any cost effective means, or by any concentration of power. How is that possible: only under genetic, cultural, and institutional homogeneity. PERIOD. How do you create liberty (permission)? As a byproduct of creating sovereignty in fact. How do you create sovereignty in fact? By organizing a corporation (franchise) of warriors – all of whom obtain a share (dividend) from the market produced by their distributed dictatorship of individual rule. But those warriors must be kin or to prevent organization by other than kin selection. A genetically and culturally homogenous population in the ruling class – the militia – must exist for liberty to exist. Sorry. Thats western history in a nutshell. Rothbard was just a commons marxist (Free Rider) just like Marx was a private property free rider. Just as the Neocons are a political market free riders. Monarchy and nobility (aristocracy) didn’t oppress. They domesticated the animal man. And clearly failed to domesticate the borderlands – where parasitic separatists allied with the state to prey upon the people, while preventing their retaliation against them. So grow up. Libertarianism is for boys. Men fight. they take. They rule. They profit from rule. They profit from rule by the incremental suppression of every means of profit possible other than productive, fully informed warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality in the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services, and information, and production of commons, institutions, and political orders. Men fight. Boys beg from mommy and daddy authority of whatever scale they must. Men are sovereign in fact. Boys have a little pretense of liberty by permission. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON

  • Um. Grow Up. We Want The Warlords To Rule. The Entire Militia of Them. 😉

    But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? mises.org GROW UP – WE **WANT** WARLORD RULE – THE MILITIA https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Warlords MUST take over. That’s the whole point. The question is only their number. A militia of warlords constitutes a distributed dictatorship under which only markets governed by natural law are possible. Anarchism? A lot of optimistic bullshit. Go live in Ukraine. in Belarus. In Russia (at least outside of moscow or st Petersburg.) Ukraine (the borderland) is where Jewish separatism of Rothbard was envisioned, under the protection of lithuanian, or polish, or russian empires, allowed financial and commercial gangsterism, while prohibiting physical retaliation. It was a system of organized predation upon the people just as today’s financialism consists of organized predation upon the people while preventing juridical defense from it, and physical retaliation against it. And that’s Ukraine today. The pretense of order. But 40+ Gangsters (warlords) we call Oligarchs (Private Property Rulership) with enough money and arms to (a) stack and buy the courts, (b) stack and buy the government, who have their own militaries, and who cannot be displaced, because they can too easily turn the rest of ukraine into a civil war zone like the east, leaving the only option Russian invasion and enforced order – which was exactly the plan all along. The reason ukraine is weak, is that it has no militia. Period. Rothbardianism consists of nothing but optimistic juvenile platitudes sold to reproductively, socially, economically uncompetitive males, as a wishful separatist movement, so that they might beg not to contribute to a commons that makes the market order possible, and instead, may parasitically exploit it without contribution. ie: separatism. Rothbardian ghetto ethics of intersubjectively verifiable property There is only one source of liberty: the organized use of violence to obtain, hold, and advance territory, resources, population, institutions, and capital – by a militia of sufficient scale that they cannot be opposed by any cost effective means, or by any concentration of power. How is that possible: only under genetic, cultural, and institutional homogeneity. PERIOD. How do you create liberty (permission)? As a byproduct of creating sovereignty in fact. How do you create sovereignty in fact? By organizing a corporation (franchise) of warriors – all of whom obtain a share (dividend) from the market produced by their distributed dictatorship of individual rule. But those warriors must be kin or to prevent organization by other than kin selection. A genetically and culturally homogenous population in the ruling class – the militia – must exist for liberty to exist. Sorry. Thats western history in a nutshell. Rothbard was just a commons marxist (Free Rider) just like Marx was a private property free rider. Just as the Neocons are a political market free riders. Monarchy and nobility (aristocracy) didn’t oppress. They domesticated the animal man. And clearly failed to domesticate the borderlands – where parasitic separatists allied with the state to prey upon the people, while preventing their retaliation against them. So grow up. Libertarianism is for boys. Men fight. they take. They rule. They profit from rule. They profit from rule by the incremental suppression of every means of profit possible other than productive, fully informed warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality in the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services, and information, and production of commons, institutions, and political orders. Men fight. Boys beg from mommy and daddy authority of whatever scale they must. Men are sovereign in fact. Boys have a little pretense of liberty by permission. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON

  • Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just sayi

    Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just saying there is no rule of law, and lying has replaced violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 18:37:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853678791637561344

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Who is going to decide who is using true or false speech? The right? The left? Bad idea mate.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416

  • There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error,

    There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism + deceit.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 18:36:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853678615086714881

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Who is going to decide who is using true or false speech? The right? The left? Bad idea mate.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853624836094140416

  • There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error,

    There is zero reason we cannot require warranty of due diligence against error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism + deceit.

    Either reciprocity=morality and is therefore fully testable, or you’re just saying there is no rule of law, and lying has replaced violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:38:00 UTC

  • No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostraciz

    No. Then in my mind, we use force to perform restitution, punish(harm), ostracize(remove), or kill those who do not limit their actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs either directly or by externality against that which others have obtained an interest by the same means. People will not happily cooperate, they will cooperate because it is profitable for those who enforce such cooperation to enforce it, and profitable for people who are the victims of involuntarily imposed costs, and unprofitable for those who even attempt to impose costs. In other words: rule of law, under natural law, the scope of property being demonstrated by acts reciprocity.

    Now, go ahead and try to refute that, and I’ll eat you for lunch like pringles with beer.

    I don’t do pseudoscience, or pseudorationalism, or idealism, or supernaturalism. I do science.

    Now try it. Go a head. Lets see if you can hold your own without lying, prevaricating, or straw manning. ;)

    btw: I never said the state is a market. I said the state is an error of corporatism. But that commons are necessary for the competitive existence and persistency of a polity capable of producing liberty. So, how can one produce commons while preserving rule of law, while preventing the rise of discretionary rule (a state)? I can answer that question. You cannot. You cannot because you allowed the problem to be framed as impossible – and developing excuses to pretend it wasn’t necessary, rather than solving the problem, or simply admitting you could not – as rothbard could not – solve the problem.

    Read more

    Reply

    I don’t use a state. I use nothing but private property and rule of law, under natural law.

    How will you create the commons of property rights if commons are ‘invalid’?

    Well, someone would have to sue the mises institute for fraud, damages, etc. Which I assume would occur. But there is no ‘state’ to take action in the absence of private suit against those who distribute falsehoods.

    Reply

    Funny. I though my ”whole thing’ was to eliminate jewish marxism, jewish libertinism, jewish neo-conservativsm, anglo french and german pseudorationalism and pseudoscience, and restore empirical (truthful) government and a market between the classes using multiple houses of representatives chosen by lot.

    But then with a name like (((Rose))) I suppose you are just another liar doing what liars do – whether lying by intent, whether culturally indoctrinated into lying, or whether genetic predisposition to lying. 😉 (bait)

    Here is how to translate Rose: “I want a way to steal. I want to steal private production (jewish socialism), I want to steal commons production (jewish l ibertarianism) or I want to steal political production (jewish neoconservatism).

    Conservatives just want to stop you from stealing. Anglo Libertarianism just want to stop you from stealing even a little – even including stealing by their own.

    –“We”–

    We are the people who fight, kill, ostracize, punish, perform restitution upon parasites upon the polity, upon the commons, or upon the private production of people like ‘us’. And if you wish to engage in political, institutional, normative, informational, commercial, or interpersonal parasitism, we will force restitution, punishment, ostracization, murder, or war upon you. IN which case we will happily exterminate people like you who continue to advocate methods of parasitism. ;)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 14:09:00 UTC

  • And we can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims

    And we can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims. There is no reason not to in political speech also.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 11:38:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853573303268782080

    Reply addressees: @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392


    IN REPLY TO:

    @gmiller

    SJW logic: offensive speech is a form of violence, so is not #1A-protected. Also, violence is a form of free speech, so is #1A protected. https://t.co/6VBuO1FgQb

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392