Form: Reply

  • Is Bigamy A ‘Hangable Offense’?

    —“You speak from time to time of hanging malcontents, and bigamy in England was originally a capital crime. Could I be hung for bigamy?”— I would love to say yes just for fun. But bigamy is not a violation of natural law, but of public contract for the production of a commons. —“But if consenting adults agree to a different contract?”— If consenting adults agree to a conspiracy you mean? They simply both violate the terms of the (explicit) public contract.  By explicit, I mean written in strictly constructed natural law. (Propertarianism) —“Bottom line, though, is no violation of natural law, no hanging, right?”— Right. They can kick you outta Dodge. And they might hang you for not leaving Dodge. But in general, a contract violation is a matter of restitution. Since departure is sufficient restitution – that’s pretty much all that matters. People can make normative public contracts all they want that limit consumption. They just cannot make normative or public contracts that engage in parasitism. Limiting consumption is the purpose of commons – including the commons of property rights. (which may not be obvious).

  • Is Bigamy A ‘Hangable Offense’?

    —“You speak from time to time of hanging malcontents, and bigamy in England was originally a capital crime. Could I be hung for bigamy?”— I would love to say yes just for fun. But bigamy is not a violation of natural law, but of public contract for the production of a commons. —“But if consenting adults agree to a different contract?”— If consenting adults agree to a conspiracy you mean? They simply both violate the terms of the (explicit) public contract.  By explicit, I mean written in strictly constructed natural law. (Propertarianism) —“Bottom line, though, is no violation of natural law, no hanging, right?”— Right. They can kick you outta Dodge. And they might hang you for not leaving Dodge. But in general, a contract violation is a matter of restitution. Since departure is sufficient restitution – that’s pretty much all that matters. People can make normative public contracts all they want that limit consumption. They just cannot make normative or public contracts that engage in parasitism. Limiting consumption is the purpose of commons – including the commons of property rights. (which may not be obvious).

  • “So Curt. How is this not a new Rothbardian ideal fantasy? Ie which government s

    —“So Curt. How is this not a new Rothbardian ideal fantasy? Ie which government specifically are we speaking of taking over, and when we do, how many people do we stack like cordwood for jaywalking?”— Jonathan Page

    I can’t respond to all of that in a single comment.But I’ll jump ahead and take a guess your underlying question.

    First, natural law prohibits parasitism. Contract law allows for the construction of commons. (that’s what a contract does). The difference between public and private contract law, is that you can prohibit people from consumption and competition, whereas in the market we hope to create consumption and competition.

    So we can create commons (like the commons of property rights) that create a good (property rights) by prohibiting consumption of that which one has not obtained through homesteading. transformation, or exchange. We can create parks by allowing passage but not use.(etc). We can create all sorts of commons that one cannot socialize losses against, or privatize. As long as they are not parasitic.

    So this prohibits rents but allows investments, including informational rents and investments.

    1) Why not a fantasy?

    It can be implemented in law – easily I might add, as a set of amendments to the constitution.

    2) Which government?

    Contractualism.: Rule of natural, common, strictly constructed, judge-discovered law. intergenerational monarchy as veto(judge) of last resort. Market government by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market economy by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for reproduction (family) by voluntary exchange and legal dissent. Market for Polities – Rights of association and disassociation.

    ( Or, as we say ‘markets in everything.)

    3) Jaywalking

    Well, you know, it turns out that zero tolerance (broken window policing) by individuals and sheriffs is the optimum method of producing prosperity. And we have a lot fewer big ‘bads’ when we eliminate the small bads.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 03:44:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “Curt: What Defines Middle Class?”

    —“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella The common definition is: —“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”— I would use: ***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”*** Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it. THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive. We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified. The British and American Class Models British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states) British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money) For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation. British Elite – American Upper Middle Class (in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.) Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class. British Established middle class – American Middle Class Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26] British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27] British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27] British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27] British Emergent service sector – American lower working class The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27] British Precariat – American upper proletarian class The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers. British ???? – American Lower proletarian class British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class. PROPERTARIANISM However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion: 1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics. 2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war 3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury. The Four Middle Classes Criteria 1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable) 2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions) 3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business) 4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner) To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations). So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in. American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically. SUMMARY the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits. Cheers
  • Q&A: “Curt: What Defines Middle Class?”

    —“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella The common definition is: —“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”— I would use: ***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”*** Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it. THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN SYSTEMS The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive. We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified. The British and American Class Models British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states) British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money) For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation. British Elite – American Upper Middle Class (in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.) Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class. British Established middle class – American Middle Class Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26] British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27] British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27] British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27] British Emergent service sector – American lower working class The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27] British Precariat – American upper proletarian class The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers. British ???? – American Lower proletarian class British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class. PROPERTARIANISM However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion: 1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics. 2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war 3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury. The Four Middle Classes Criteria 1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable) 2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions) 3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business) 4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner) To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations). So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in. American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically. SUMMARY the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits. Cheers
  • Q&A: “British civilization viz a viz the ancient Greek civilization?”

    Q&A: “Curt: How would you compare the merits of the British civilization viz a viz the accomplishments of the ancient Greek civilization?” The Aegean vs The North Sea Reason vs Empiricism Slave-hold Manors vs Manorialism Athens/Sparta vs England/Germany Rome vs the United States Bronze vs steel Trireme vs warship In other words, there isnt any difference. Athens and sparta exahusted each other leaving rome like england and germany exhausted each other leaving america. The question is whether we spend another thousand years trying to restore our civilization, or we do it today.

  • Q&A: “British civilization viz a viz the ancient Greek civilization?”

    Q&A: “Curt: How would you compare the merits of the British civilization viz a viz the accomplishments of the ancient Greek civilization?” The Aegean vs The North Sea Reason vs Empiricism Slave-hold Manors vs Manorialism Athens/Sparta vs England/Germany Rome vs the United States Bronze vs steel Trireme vs warship In other words, there isnt any difference. Athens and sparta exahusted each other leaving rome like england and germany exhausted each other leaving america. The question is whether we spend another thousand years trying to restore our civilization, or we do it today.

  • Q&A: Social Capital In Europe?

    Aug 24, 2016 2:23pm —“Would you also say, sir, that Europe’s Scientific and industrial Revolutions were the result of this high trust/social capital, as opposed to the prevailing narrative that colonialism = industrial/scientific revolution? It’s always been a theory of mine that social capital is what allowed Europe and Western Civilization to accelerate ahead of other Civs, which runs contrary to the Guns, Germs and Steel narrative”— Well, the tradition was there in the 700’s when the Friesians started immigrating to land in England. And Roger Bacon in 1200 started a tradition that  Francis Bacon brought to fruition in the 1500’s. Bacon had studied this contractualism and invented empiricism. And starting about the same time they started aggressively hanging vast numbers of troublemakers, and restoring the trade that would become the Hansa (Germanic) civilization. So my view is that the colonial expansion ARRESTED the growth of germanic north sea civilization, and that while there was amazing wealth generated in England, France, holland, Spain, and Portugal by this switch from north sea to Atlantic, that the reason for the division between germanic and English civilizations that culminated in the world wars, was this catastrophe we call colonialism. (Durant has the same opinion). Now, Americans speak English, but we separated from England before England split from germanic civilization. The majority of American whites are from germanic decent. And the majority of anglo whites are from pre-Germanic split. So that is why we have the language of the English and a culture more Prussian-like the germans. And in my opinion, from what I’ve seen throughout history, as far as I can tell, the industrial revolution would have occurred in northern Europe just as it nearly occurred in Athens. England blew up just like Athens for the same reason – overreach. If you have an empirical society, with enough literacy, and enough cultural capital, you will eventually produce innovations, since there is no opportunity to survive and compete by parasitism. In other words, if we create rule of law we will continue to evolve. We have no choice. It’s the societies that dont create incremental suppression through natural law that stagnate. Becuase it is too easy to develop stagnating-corruption and parasitism.

  • Q&A: Social Capital In Europe?

    Aug 24, 2016 2:23pm —“Would you also say, sir, that Europe’s Scientific and industrial Revolutions were the result of this high trust/social capital, as opposed to the prevailing narrative that colonialism = industrial/scientific revolution? It’s always been a theory of mine that social capital is what allowed Europe and Western Civilization to accelerate ahead of other Civs, which runs contrary to the Guns, Germs and Steel narrative”— Well, the tradition was there in the 700’s when the Friesians started immigrating to land in England. And Roger Bacon in 1200 started a tradition that  Francis Bacon brought to fruition in the 1500’s. Bacon had studied this contractualism and invented empiricism. And starting about the same time they started aggressively hanging vast numbers of troublemakers, and restoring the trade that would become the Hansa (Germanic) civilization. So my view is that the colonial expansion ARRESTED the growth of germanic north sea civilization, and that while there was amazing wealth generated in England, France, holland, Spain, and Portugal by this switch from north sea to Atlantic, that the reason for the division between germanic and English civilizations that culminated in the world wars, was this catastrophe we call colonialism. (Durant has the same opinion). Now, Americans speak English, but we separated from England before England split from germanic civilization. The majority of American whites are from germanic decent. And the majority of anglo whites are from pre-Germanic split. So that is why we have the language of the English and a culture more Prussian-like the germans. And in my opinion, from what I’ve seen throughout history, as far as I can tell, the industrial revolution would have occurred in northern Europe just as it nearly occurred in Athens. England blew up just like Athens for the same reason – overreach. If you have an empirical society, with enough literacy, and enough cultural capital, you will eventually produce innovations, since there is no opportunity to survive and compete by parasitism. In other words, if we create rule of law we will continue to evolve. We have no choice. It’s the societies that dont create incremental suppression through natural law that stagnate. Becuase it is too easy to develop stagnating-corruption and parasitism.

  • (listening to propertarian podcast 5 – domestication) Damn Butch, you’re a great

    (listening to propertarian podcast 5 – domestication)

    Damn Butch, you’re a great host and speaker. You make me look good. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-16 12:10:00 UTC