(Just wanted to let you know that some followers were giving you respect today for the quality of your thinking. -cheers)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 17:59:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
by Bill Joslin Sovereignty ensures Autonomy – in that autonomy I’m defining as a
by Bill Joslin
Sovereignty ensures Autonomy – in that autonomy I’m defining as agency free of imposition from another agent – whereby property en toto provides commensurability of measurement and autonomy provides decidability in commons creations and constraints on rule via negativa – restrict commons and rule from anything which inhibits development of agency in the polis – measured by our best empirical methods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 17:57:00 UTC
-
by Jací Eugène Esteban –“Curt Doolittle’s craft of word usage is not something
by Jací Eugène Esteban
–“Curt Doolittle’s craft of word usage is not something that should be used to slight him. Curt is aware that his arguments take place on the Internet, and as such, his opponents are granted the liberty to counter his claims with a quick Google search, but his opacity makes this difficult, leaving his opponent to retort only with preexisting knowledge. If he has to use words without synonyms or make up his own phrases, he will do it to avoid semantic arguments. Sometimes, we get it. Sometimes, we don’t, but it still stands that his style is unrivalled. The only thing it obfuscates is his accessibility.”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 16:24:00 UTC
-
ANOTHER BREAKTHROUGH DAY Struggling over the past … I dunno month? Religion. T
ANOTHER BREAKTHROUGH DAY
Struggling over the past … I dunno month? Religion. The Method. Then acquisitionism/personality. Then banking (almost done with banking by the way).
Keep coming back to personality because it’s bothered me for so long. I mean, I know causality is acquisition. I knew there were only two primary personality traits.
I had already solved the moral biases as public and private “property”.
But today I figured it out. And it was obvious in retrospect. Now I have to fit the traits and subtraits in (variables). which requires quite a few dimensions.
I just applied propertarian method (writing sequences) and the answer became obvious immediately.
Anyway.
I don’t have the energy to celebrate right now but it’s worth celebrating.
Not that too many people are going to like the answer. It’s just that its so obvious that it’s impossible to avoid.
(Steps in the Prey Drive)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 14:47:00 UTC
-
@ Jared Howe Describe the means by which a voluntary polity can organize, form,
@ Jared Howe
Describe the means by which a voluntary polity can organize, form, persist in competition with competing polities.
I know you can’t. Because all you have is faith.
Now, you can’t falsify an algorithmic statement using claims of logical positivism. You can’t falsify an algorithmic statement by claims of correspondence without causation. You can’t state that causality is beyond us and still claim such a polity is possible.
So either you can provide an algorithmic or at least praxeological testable description of the means by which a voluntary polity can organize, form and persist in competition with competing polities or you’re just committed not to reason(internal consistency), not to science(external correspondence), not to possibility (engineering) but to faith.
Libertinism, Anarcho capitalism, the NAP, Rothbardianism, Hoppe’s ‘libertarian communes’, are all impossible UNLESS you can describe a sequence under which such a polity is possible.
BUT YOU CAN’T.
If you can’t do it you’re just another marxist talking trash.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 14:20:00 UTC
-
#Trump All it would take is a Bannon to say “Come Save Our President.” D.C. Woul
#Trump All it would take is a Bannon to say “Come Save Our President.” D.C. Would cease to exist in under seven days. Then NYC & It’s over.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 13:42:00 UTC
-
The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expan
The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expand the sentence you will falsify NAP.
“the method of decidability by which we avoid conflict and insure cooperation is to restrict our actions to those that do not aggress against…. (what)?”
You see. the reason libertarians disagree is because they can’t define ‘what’. So they use ‘Principle’ as a means of avoiding answering the question. Why? Because if you answer the question of ‘what’ you find that you end up with classical liberalism not with libertarianism or anarchism. Why? BEcause otherwise it is impossible to form, hold, and preserve a polity in competition with other polities.
Try it. You can’t do it. I know more about the libertarian fallacy than anyone living. And the way to test (praxeological test) the NAP or libertarian ideology is to ask the sequence of steps necessary for the formation, holding, and persistence from competition of such a polity.
In other words, *create a model*. And the reason people don’t do that, and the reason there are not ‘advanced literatures’ on libertarianism, is because it’s not possible. Period. End of story.
There are no conditions under which the formation of an anarchic polity is possible. The best one can do is rule of law by natural law and severely limit mandatory investment in the commons to that which we call a minimal state. Even then, open immigration and the NAP fail – the litmus test is blackmail. And that’s even before we get to trade policy and immigration, and financialization, and the problem of free riding on the commons of competing polities, and the fact that such libertarian polities always attract such malcontents that they drive out the good, and draw the ire of ‘traditional’ polities.
I put a stake in rothbard’s heart but that vampire of nonsense that foolish young men seem so attracted to, always seems to find an artery-of-idiocy to bite into.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 13:32:00 UTC
-
RESTORING ORIGINAL INTENT: VOTING AS VETO by Bill Joslin The vote then, as a mea
RESTORING ORIGINAL INTENT: VOTING AS VETO
by Bill Joslin
The vote then, as a means of preventing polis retaliation, could serve as a post hoc veto run every few years. You don’t vote in a governor general or management team but rather vote them out. This eliminates the parasitic incentive to persuade the polis to get a vote and inverts this toward performance. If you want to keep the job then you must perform. If you don’t perform you get voted out. Negativa vote (veto) which aligns more closely to the Anglo inception (vote provides a last non-violent step to oust tyrants before rebelling)… It ensures bottom-up feedbacks to top-down controls. Just a thought.
Appointed into position by peers, ousted by peers or polis. If the polis is discontent they can lobby for a vote of no confidence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 12:10:00 UTC
-
WE KEEP RETRYING TO RESTATE MONOPOLY CHRISTIANITY – WHEN THAT’s THE PROBLEM IN A
WE KEEP RETRYING TO RESTATE MONOPOLY CHRISTIANITY – WHEN THAT’s THE PROBLEM IN AND OF ITSELF
I see is an attempt to state the via-negativa of natural law as a via-positiva moral norm. Which is important, as incentives, because we all like to feel good about ourselves, and congratulate ourselves on moral actions, and create a cycle of positive reinforcement for doing so. So it’s nice to have a via-positiva method of pedagogy because learning the negative (what not to do) does not inspire us with options (opportunities) and it is opportunities for action that we all seek. It is only judges that seek opportunities to prevent and resolve conflicts. Hence science and law on the via-negativa, and history, literature, myth, religion, occult, and pseudoscience and god knows what else on the other end.
The only thing I know how to do is work back from transcendence and create room for many via-positivas for each ‘class’ of ability or each ‘age’ of maturity, while preserving the via negativa so that every narrative contains a competition. I think this is the problem between modern moral systems of thought and the ancient: being in competition with the gods demons is a good thing. Monopoly via-positiva, no matter how comforting seems to lead to universal disaster no matter where it is applied.
The only reason china isn’t still superior to the west is that the mongols hit them at just the wrong time. But you can’t say that about any other group in the world. only two got it right. And europeans and chinese both got it right.
But the ancients got it most right. We are just now, despite our near defeat by the second abrahamiazation of the west under jewish marxism and french postmodernism, restoring the intellectual condition Rome was in in 100AD – without our sciences and technology.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 12:07:00 UTC
-
THE EXPLANATION OF DEFLATIONARY GOVERNMENT By Bill Joslin If we deconflate commo
THE EXPLANATION OF DEFLATIONARY GOVERNMENT
By Bill Joslin
If we deconflate commons management from law (remove rule by legislation – remove the use of the Monopoly on force backing legislation) – and return to pure Nomocracy, there would be no use for voting.
Judicial supremacy accountable to a a judge of last resort (governor general) and deflate legislation to nothing more than a management team held accountable to law. Here are the rules here is the budget, get to work.
Those management teams could be elected, but I don’t know why, they should be hired- literal employees. They don’t pass laws, they administer budgets and negotiate deals.
Because of conflation between church (social conformity – social conservation) and state (monarchs which enforced church law) our governments believe they are in the business of social engineering.
With conflation of commons management and law, our politicians sell the power of law (cartel protections) and the commons.
Combined with the presumed ‘right’ to social engineering, democracy functions as a means to manufacture consensus in selling these products… The tendency then is to engineer society toward support for these corruptions either toward consumption (the left) or exploitation (libertarians).
Culture and social change are natural forces – human nature expressed. Trying to control nature results in supressive and oppression. Culture changes constantly – let it, let nature takes its course but provide constraints.
Society and culture provides the enriched society needed for the development of the individual – the development of agency in a human.
By grounding law in creation and preservation of agency, rule of law provides the proper constraints to preserve the enriched environment.
It’s simply this.
***No imposition on autonomy in all forms.***
Impositions on culture and society which interfere with the development of agency of the polis would be against the law.
Undue constraints on culture (Puritanism) would constitute damages to those conditions and thus against the law.
Pomo assaults on reason and identity would pose damages against those conditions and thus against the law.
This allows optimal social adaptability and cohesion simultaneously.
***Property in toto does not capture this intangible – no imposition on agency in all its forms (property in toto included) does.***
One law – many resolutions – no need to write laws ever.
Patriotism (ownership incentive) becomes a necessary pillar in the conditions for developing agency in the polis as it stands as the appreciation and protection for the conditions as a whole.
-Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 11:15:00 UTC