Source: Facebook

—“I’ve read enough of your text to brand you a promotor of a “new” governmental rule which bridge s the gap between authoritarianism and a classic monarchy.”—

No, it restores and extends both (a) monarchy (houses for each class), and (b) rule of natural law by (c) restoring markets and replacing majority assent with default assent and universal legal dissent.

As a tongue in cheek bit of humor I’ve also labelled it “market fascism”, which, while a contradiction in terms, draws attention to the fact that if we grant protection to the informational commons, it’s actually impossible to legally criticize this form of government – although entirely possible to criticize actions within it.

–“You didn’t actually create Propertarianism itself,”–

Yes the TERM was extant but almost never used. And the concept of the ‘reduction of all rights to statements of property rights’ existed. And that is why, at the time, i also registered ‘propertarians.com’ and created a site at that address to show the sequence from stoics > locke > rothbard > hoppe > doolittle to demonstrate how long it had taken to solve the problem of a category of commensurability in social science like we had created with prices more narrowly in economics. I abandoned that project because of the effort to create that particular narrative, and because I no longer wanted to be associated with Rothbard because of his ghetto(levantine) ethics.

I created that set of ideas I’ve called ‘Propertarianism’, and I intentionally used the term (which was derogatory). We debated quite a bit about continuing to use it once we discovered testimonialism in epistemology, and again when we Sovereignty was the cause of western civilization, but by then the brand had stuck. So I went with the advice of retaining Propertarianism.

My insights into the Propertarian concept can be reduced (largely) to (1) demonstrated property: “Property in Toto”, and the subsequent demonstration that Moral Foundations Theory can be restated as property rights – thereby explaining our varying moral intuitions about the distribution of interests in ‘property’; and (2) that those interests function as a distribution of perceptual, cognitive, knowledge, advocacy, and labor. There are other insights but these are the two most important. (3) And that as I’d originally intended, it was possible to restate in scientific terms Hoppe’s (tragic) use of kantian justificationary rationalism, and Rothbard’s use of Jewish (immoral) law and the technique of “Pilpul”, and Mises (tragic) failure to understand his discovery of economic ‘intuitionism’/’operationalism’ and instead creating a pseudoscience – and in doing so ‘complete’ the promise of the propertarian method, thereby ‘completing’ the creation of a universal method of commensurability in social science.

There are a few dozen of these insights that arise as a consequence, but these are the the primary ones that the rest derive from.

Today I use the term Propertarianism to refer to the entire framework of The Laws of Nature – which is the correct descriptive name of the project, and what i will publish under.

It includes:

1 – Metaphysics of Action

2 – Testimonial Truth – the completion of the scientific method.

3 – Propertarian Ethics – the completion of ethical commensurability

4 – the natural law of sovereignty

5 – market government under natural law of sovereignty

6 – group evolutionary strategy (group competition)

7 – A restatement of psychology, sociology, politics, and group evolutionary startegy in propertarian terms.

8 – Aesthetics (Truth, Beauty, and Commons[goodness] )

You might note that the statistical anomaly in my writing is the word ‘commons’ and that I focus on creating commons and normative commons, and high trust normative commons in particular as the competitive strategy of western civilization.

–IQ—

Well I don’t make that claim right? I state (often) that demonstrated intelligence consists of at least four categories, one of which is ‘wants’, and that as far as I can tell, after 140 or so it’s more a matter of effort and time than intelligence. And that in practice, success (and wealth) is more an effort of character than of ability. And that, demonstrably, most wealth is created by the middle class (people of slightly above average intelligence) because most wealth is created by the construction and sale of small and medium businesses.

Creating concepts is however, fairly rare. There are not too many of them in history (See both Murray and Adler). And in my experience, I’ve spent most of my life on this problem – although I worked nearly full time on it for only about ten years.

That seems to be what all the data indicates: it takes about a decade to master a field sufficiently to provide an insight into it.

— foe —

Sorry man. In the end, violence and truth rule over parasitism, excuse making and gossip. You and yours have only liberty by permission. It’s our permission. It’s revokable. Why? Because you and yours have always failed. Because while you can master gossip and ridicule like women, you cannot climb the ladder to truth and violence.

You industrialized lying. And you’re just another parasitic liar.

And we are, within the next few decades going to use that violence and truth and law to impose violence upon those who industrialized, and continue to practice, lying.

Man is too important a creature to leave to undomesticated animals that must lie and succor upon others to survive.

😉

http://selfadoration.com/cold-blooded-vengeance-exposing-curt-doolittles-and-libertarianisms-inner-thug/8159#comment-9960