Source: Facebook

TIPS ON WRITING PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS

USE ACTIVE VOICE

1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice”

‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language.

USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY

2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements

SO THIS

A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption.

SHOULD BE THIS

A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

“embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead:

“demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…”

CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE

We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice.

We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice.

John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor.

YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS

Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property.

Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss.

SUMMARY

Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss.

CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE

Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods.

So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.”

This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism.

“Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”