Sure you can hire out your military service. But you can’t hire out your life. You can only externalize the risk to your life at a large discount. So how about this: you’re welcome to hire out your service, but if your mercenary is killed we kill you and take your stuff and give it to his family?
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 07:06:00 UTC
[U]nfortunately you ‘aren’t’ anything other than a bag of mostly water, and rights only exist when they have been created by an act of promise or contract.
As such you may DEMAND, or WANT to be treated as the owner of your body, and therefore are seeking CUSTOMERS for your offer, and those customers will offer you the same deal in exchange – albeit with differing degrees of warranty. But until that point you ‘have’ no ‘right’. You cannot. It cannot be made to exist without the action of exchange.
So if you are willing to fight hard enough that you raise the cost of your subjugation to the point at which those who prefer to subjugate you prefer to engage in the reciprocal exchange of rights to self, life, mind, and body, then you may per-chance, obtain that property right in exchange for your offer of that property right.
But until you raise the cost of your subjugation such that it is more profitable to give you a right to your self, life, mind and body, it is absolutely demonstrable – empirically, logically demonstrable – that you do NOT in fact, possess such a right.
Nonsense appeals to ‘rights’ like nonsense appeals to pseudoscience are the modern equivalent religious comforts and promises of life after death. They are just nonsense appeals to make you feel comfortable as a slave with some hope of savior by technology, democracy, Arthur, Jesus, or God.
Nonsense is for children who fear monsters under the bed, those who need comfort on their death beds, slaves who much suffer without relief, and the lazy and cowardly who fear to act. Use of nonsense words means one is a child, lost to life, lazy or coward.
The only right you possess is the one you obtain in exchange. And that which you receive in exchange, like that which you obtain by homesteading, is only yours because you act to defend it with your life.
Wishes are free. Words are cheap. Actions are dear.
Freedom is purchased by strong arms and pointed weapons.
Everything else is nonsense-words.
Leave the false prophecy of the Libertines behind. Come to Aristocracy. We know better: Violence and time are the only wealth you were born with. Spend them wisely.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
[U]nfortunately you ‘aren’t’ anything other than a bag of mostly water, and rights only exist when they have been created by an act of promise or contract.
As such you may DEMAND, or WANT to be treated as the owner of your body, and therefore are seeking CUSTOMERS for your offer, and those customers will offer you the same deal in exchange – albeit with differing degrees of warranty. But until that point you ‘have’ no ‘right’. You cannot. It cannot be made to exist without the action of exchange.
So if you are willing to fight hard enough that you raise the cost of your subjugation to the point at which those who prefer to subjugate you prefer to engage in the reciprocal exchange of rights to self, life, mind, and body, then you may per-chance, obtain that property right in exchange for your offer of that property right.
But until you raise the cost of your subjugation such that it is more profitable to give you a right to your self, life, mind and body, it is absolutely demonstrable – empirically, logically demonstrable – that you do NOT in fact, possess such a right.
Nonsense appeals to ‘rights’ like nonsense appeals to pseudoscience are the modern equivalent religious comforts and promises of life after death. They are just nonsense appeals to make you feel comfortable as a slave with some hope of savior by technology, democracy, Arthur, Jesus, or God.
Nonsense is for children who fear monsters under the bed, those who need comfort on their death beds, slaves who much suffer without relief, and the lazy and cowardly who fear to act. Use of nonsense words means one is a child, lost to life, lazy or coward.
The only right you possess is the one you obtain in exchange. And that which you receive in exchange, like that which you obtain by homesteading, is only yours because you act to defend it with your life.
Wishes are free. Words are cheap. Actions are dear.
Freedom is purchased by strong arms and pointed weapons.
Everything else is nonsense-words.
Leave the false prophecy of the Libertines behind. Come to Aristocracy. We know better: Violence and time are the only wealth you were born with. Spend them wisely.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
QUESTION: If we contain Russian barbarism, then who will contain American barbarism?
ANSWER: Well that is not an honest statement right? It posits a false moral equivalency rather than the truth that each party is half-right. Moreover, it is easier to correct the half-right anglo island dweller political ideology, but very difficult to correct half-right russian-steppe low trust and pervasive corruption.
The answer of course is to close borders, and bring capital to people rather than people to capital, and cause internal reformation through capitalism, trade, and prosperity, rather than export of cancerous low trust behavior to higher trust countries, and buildup of land, sea, and air, state-militaries.
So, if you mean, who will correct American perception of the value of extending democracy – which requires a high trust society – rather than just limiting protecting property rights (borders, human rights/liberty, capitalism/property rights)? Then that is an honest question.
If you mean that you think that the world will naturally adopt borders (common property), human rights(mind and body), and capitalism (private-property), that is possible. But then again, we cannot have any of these things unless we insure others and they insure us – by intervention when asked.
Russia is correct in its criticism of american ideological error in failing to understand the importance of authority in heterogeneous low trust polities with complex borders. More primitive people require more authoritarian governments. More advanced peoples require less authoritarian governments. Democracy is a luxury good of advanced, high trust homogenous societies with absolute nuclear families. I
As far as I know the USA largely plays sheriff, and is incorrect only in the sense that (a) we do not require Europe(Germany) to carry its own water, (b) we are wrong that democratic governments are superior to authoritarian governments.
Why? Because democratic and authoritarian governments are mere reflections of the demands of homogeneity-high trust and diversity-low trust societies, not reflections of good intentions.
We are also wrong in that we should support the formation of more governments into smaller polities to solve problems due to artificial or legacy borders that prevent the formation of higher trust polities. So we should support secession. The problem is that if we support secession that will be also supported at home and the ability of the government to finance playing sheriff to the world will dissipate even more quickly.
My preference is to increase awareness of the fallacy of borders/democracy and the importance of property/liberty, and to advocate separatism and secessionism at home so that we may incrementally lose the ability to project wars.
I suspect the opposite will happen: that new redistribution of economic power will cause existing large states to attempt to expand privilege (influence) and control (rents) and that the world will continue on its present course toward Huntington’s conflict.
Libertines should try to keep in mind that the purpose of the cosmopolitan movement was to retain Jewish separatism, identity, law, ethics, morality and custom, while justifying their expansion into any and all economies and walks of life, without paying the high costs of land-holding that host populations constantly pay and whose narratives place upon them so many obligations. And we also forget that that the purpose of the anglo-puritanical movement was religious anti-statism using the same jewish model, but that by divorcing it from militialism, and associating itself with more easily seduced women and socialists, that the puritanical movement could overtake academy and state and create the Cathedral.
The way to change this state of affairs, which I argue in propertarianism – I think fairly persuasively – is to return to cost, science and action from cost-evasion, belief and verbalism, and make each of us accountable for the rights that we must pay for in order to possess them.
Learn: Jury, Testimony, Law, Property-en-toto, and Evolutionary Strategy. The reliationship between family structure and trust; and between homogeneity and borders and trust. The relationship between trust and economic velocity. The relationship between the evolution of free riding, the rate of evolution of law, trust and economic velocity.
The relationship is between homogeneity, property, family, law, truth, trust and economic velocity.
Curt Doolittle
(H/T to William T Houston for the inspiration).
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 03:49:00 UTC
Why can’t we just say we’re anti-representational, anti-majoritarians? I’m pro anything that’s voluntary and moral. If it’s involuntary and immoral then I’m not.
Majority rule is demonstrably immoral and involuntary.
Contracts don’t require ‘rule’. They require incentives and exchanges.
It’s not like we can’t produce commons contractually.
In fact, I think the evidence supports the argument that we would create more commons contractually. It’s just that the Cathedral and the bureaucracy couldn’t parasite upon us. But that would be a good thing now wouldn’t it?
What is the difference between unproductive priests and shamans, and unproductive overpaid bureaucrats, professors and academic administration workers?
Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-11 12:16:00 UTC
[T]he manner of theft is immaterial. Either the court provides a means of remedy for a theft, or we are free to use violence to obtain remedy for the theft. The court does not grant what we may do. It holds provision only over those conflicts which it agrees to resolve via property rights. See Burke —-“In a state of nature, it is true, that a man of superior force may beat or rob me; but then it is true, that I am at full liberty to defend myself, or make reprisal by surprise or by cunning, or by any other way in which I may be superior to him. But in political society [, outside of the state of nature], a rich man may rob me in another way. [And] I cannot defend myself; for money is the only weapon with which we are allowed to fight [in political society]. If I attempt to avenge myself, the whole force of that society is ready to complete my ruin.” -– Edmund Burke Ergo, political society fails, and juridical society succeeds.
[T]he manner of theft is immaterial. Either the court provides a means of remedy for a theft, or we are free to use violence to obtain remedy for the theft. The court does not grant what we may do. It holds provision only over those conflicts which it agrees to resolve via property rights. See Burke —-“In a state of nature, it is true, that a man of superior force may beat or rob me; but then it is true, that I am at full liberty to defend myself, or make reprisal by surprise or by cunning, or by any other way in which I may be superior to him. But in political society [, outside of the state of nature], a rich man may rob me in another way. [And] I cannot defend myself; for money is the only weapon with which we are allowed to fight [in political society]. If I attempt to avenge myself, the whole force of that society is ready to complete my ruin.” -– Edmund Burke Ergo, political society fails, and juridical society succeeds.
[W]e Don’t Need To Further Research Property – it’s Settled Science.
1) Property that we consider ours, is that which we bear costs to obtain or bear costs if we lose.
2) Property that is necessary within a cooperative kinship group is determined by that which is necessary to prevent free-riding.
3) Property that we demonstrate to others that we consider ours, is determined by what one is willing to defend.
4) Property rights demonstrated by others are limited to the property that others are willing to defend on our behalf.
The question then, is not what is property, but how willing are we to defend the property that we demonstrate.
We don’t need to invent property – or a limit to it.
We need to adjudicate disputes over what we demonstrate to be property ourselves, among our cooperatives and kin, from those who we must defend it from, and those who we ask to help us in that defense.
Every other argument is merely an attempt to gain a discount through verbal deception.
(Punish The Wicked)
[W]e Don’t Need To Further Research Property – it’s Settled Science.
1) Property that we consider ours, is that which we bear costs to obtain or bear costs if we lose.
2) Property that is necessary within a cooperative kinship group is determined by that which is necessary to prevent free-riding.
3) Property that we demonstrate to others that we consider ours, is determined by what one is willing to defend.
4) Property rights demonstrated by others are limited to the property that others are willing to defend on our behalf.
The question then, is not what is property, but how willing are we to defend the property that we demonstrate.
We don’t need to invent property – or a limit to it.
We need to adjudicate disputes over what we demonstrate to be property ourselves, among our cooperatives and kin, from those who we must defend it from, and those who we ask to help us in that defense.
Every other argument is merely an attempt to gain a discount through verbal deception.
(Punish The Wicked)
CHEAPER FOR THE STRONG TO GIVE PEOPLE PROPERTY RIGHTS
[P]roperty exists prior to codification in a constitution. So does promise, prior to the institution of contract. A constitution is merely an agreement for reciprocal insurance of the terms of property and contract.
It so happens that allocation of property rights determines the incentives possible, and the incentives determine the degree of market participation – how many hands make the work light – and therefore the cost of providing individuals with incentives.
It’s just cheaper for the strong to give everyone property rights – so long as none of the weak band together to extract from the strong under platonic justification via those self-same rules.
This is the same reason that Slavery is illogical as well as immoral: assuming the prior slaves respect property rights and do not form a government of extraction, then it is merely cheaper and easier to have one’s slaves as vendors and customers.