—“First critical thought as a child sitting in a Roman Catholic church: Religion is government for people in deserts where there aren’t any police or judges. I’m not kidding, best thought I had as a kid. I regret to say it was as late as 12 when I realized this about religion.”— Matt Nagy
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:51:00 UTC
ENDING TRADITIONALIST AND LIBERTINE FALSEHOODS
(the middle class lies)
The source of western civilization is heroism > sovereignty > oath/jury/rule of law > markets in everything.
Upon the development of slavery (agriculture esp) the concept of freedom was developed. and freedom could be earned.
Upon the development of cities, we see a middle class seek the equivalent of sovergitny (liberty) and it evolves in the literature.
Upon the development of christian monarchies, we see the demand for liberty (preservation of local custom and rule).
Upon the rise of the middle classes we see the develoment of liberty (freedom from arbitrary rule)
Upon the rise of marxism we see the development of libertarianism (freedom from involuntary commons production)
This is “True” as far as I know, and does not allow for the conflation of terms.
What a person who is and excuse-maker does, is to try to preserve various frauds and conveniences rather than modify his arguments and language and speech to reflect the most truthful statements possible – thereby preventing further contamination of the informational commons
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:48:00 UTC
(genius)
by Bill Joslin
The left and the libertarians, by denying the legitimacy or even presence of sovereignty in the equation, demonstrate the inability to maintain responsible use of liberty. The result being a decay of agency across the whole (lies, inability to hold a territory, inconsistent – incoherent application of law etc)
I have been expressing this as changes in capital, but Bill Joslin has stated ***AGENCY AS CAPITAL***.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:39:00 UTC
CLASS LANGUAGE ARISTOCRACY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM
(important)
By Bill Joslin
Isn’t this a matter of class perspective?
Aristrocrat – Heorism-Sovereinty-oath/jury/rule of law/markets in everything
Upper middle class – Duty-oath/granted lands(property)/protection of lands (property rights)/participation in markets (liberty)
Lower Classes – Obedience/protection/production/liberty by permission
Something like that?
Libertarians (current fashion) are lower classes demanding liberty on moral grounds, libertarians of old (Nobility) demand of liberty on religious grounds… both pleading while ignoring the source of liberty?
In other words only after agency has been developed downward into the middle class can liberty be distributed downward through the classes – The same responsibility/freedom (poor words) relation I spoke of last week.
West Civ cultivates agency across scale by creating and preserving conditions required for agency to develop (protection, insurance, restitution against impositions upon agency from other actors – property being the external manifestation and thus measure of agency).
Only by demonstrating the responsibility to handle liberty (obedience/oath to sovereigns to not impose upon the property of others -rule of law) allows liberty be extended.
In this context – left and libertarians, by denying the legitimacy or even presence of sovereignty in the equation demonstrate the inability to maintain responsible use of liberty. The result being a decay of agency across the whole (lies, inability to hold a territory, inconsistent – incoherent application of law etc)
(Curt Doolittle — my point exactly. you can’t get liberty until you have a middle class and you don’t get a middle class until well after western civ has developed. BUT OMG I SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH ACCOUNTING FOR AGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:37:00 UTC
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVEYING MEANING AND TRUTH:
Full accounting.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:35:00 UTC
WHEN YOU SAY THE WEST IS LIBERTARIAN (middle class burgher) RATHER THAN ARISTOCRATIC (upper class military)…
….I’m saying that you’re using the term liberty (absent duty of
reciprocity in defense) and backdating it to sovereignty (including duty of reciprocity in defense) in order to continue the falsehood that what you call the condition of liberty is possible by other than militial reciprocal insurance by every man in the franchise without substitution, to a degree that is determined by market demands, producing commons to a degree that is determined by market demands, and that exit is to exit the duty (Payment) for returns of sovereignty.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:34:00 UTC
THE EVOLUTION OF SOVEREIGNTY > FREEDOM > LIBERTY > LIBERTINISM
1) BRONZE AGE: Tribe: Headman: Heroism+ Sovereignty as a revolt against egalitarianism >
2) LATE BRONZE AGE: Territory: Chieftain: freedom + Slavery as class structure >
3) IRON AGE: City: Republic: Middle class: permission + liberty > Revolt against Upper classes
4) STEEL AGE: Nation State: Middle class: Libertarianism: democracy and jewish separatism as a revolt against socialism/communism – the escape from payment and open exploitation of the commons).
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:29:00 UTC
THE TEST OF TRUTH VS LIES IS EASY:
Libertarianism = rights w/o obligations
-vs-
Sovereignty = only possible to posses rights in exchange for obligations (reciprocal insurance)
Libertarianism = “gimme” = Permission or gift = limited only by my willingness to exit. (pastoralists)
-vs-
Sovereignty = “fight to insure each other” = Exchange = Limited by market demand. (land holders)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:24:00 UTC
THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE TERM “LIBERTARIANISM” NOW THAT ROTHBARDIANISM IS FALSIFIED.
SOVEREIGNTY(made) !=FREEDOM(given) != LIBERTY(permitted)
“Libertarianism is….”
So, which thing are you talking about?
Sovereignty?
The earning of freedom (freeman)
The liberty of the freed slave?
The liberty of license to retain local laws?
The liberty of taking license with norms?
The Liberty of the french – political equality?
The Liberty of the English – permission from the crown
The Libertarian of the American – against marxism
The Libertarian of the Rothbardian – against commons.
One asks permissions from god and permissions from the government. A sovereign simply *IS* sovereign because his agency cannot be imposed upon by a third party.
Which of those two are the origins of western civilization?
Liberty, or sovereignty?
HISTORY OF TERMS:
—“At first of persons; of communities, “state of being free from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control” is from late 15c.
The French notion of liberty is political equality; the English notion is personal independence. [William R. Greg, “France in January 1852” in “Miscellaneous Essays”]”—
—“Political sense of “person advocating the greatest possible liberty in thought and conduct” is from 1878. As an adjective by 1882. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971. Related: Libertarianism (1849 in religion, 1901 in politics).”—
THESE ARE PERMISSIONS – NOT SOVEREIGNTY
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The abrahamic use of half truths and terminological appropriation to grant meaning and authority or gravity or persuasive power to that which does not possess it.
So. If as true, the political philosophy of libertarianism > anarcho capitlism was in fact invented by rothbard as the Rothbardian’s claim, then I have killed libertarianism (and I think that’s settled.)
If you want to do as hayek did, and use the word libertarian to refer to classical liberalism. Well, that’s a part of the democratic revolution against aristocracy and the church by the middle class, as part of the enlightenment.
If you want to recast the middle class pursuit of liberty by permission as an imitation of the origional sovereignty of western civilization, that might convey ‘meaning’ out of ‘ease’ but is is not TRUE.
If you want to claim the basis of western civlization is LIBERTY AND LIBERTARIANISM that is simply false. It’s not even logically possible.
HEROISM > SOVEREIGNTY > THE OATH/THE JURY/RULE OF LAW > MARKETS IN EVERYTHING
That is the sequence and I can find no falsification of it.
What I find is a lot of traditionalists trying to state falsehoods to preserve their malinvestments.
THIS IS WHY I REQUIRE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE: TO DEFEAT THE ABRAHAMIC TECHNIQUES OF DECEPTION.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:02:00 UTC
The market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott.
“Every man is his own legislature”
in other words, just as international law is governed by reciprocity today, individuals can govern one another by reciprocity in the market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott.
They must just produce commons sufficient to defend themselves from the market of others who would institute a different order other than the sovereign.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 13:33:00 UTC