https://ncase.me/trust/Updated Sep 27, 2019, 10:41 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 22:41:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
“MODERN DAY FOUNDING FATHERS” —“Also since I got your attention, I have never
“MODERN DAY FOUNDING FATHERS”
—“Also since I got your attention, I have never felt relief from discovering a political theory but propertarianism is genius. You and John mark are doing amazing work, truly modern day founding fathers. So thank you for doing this. It’s restored my faith for a better tomorrow.”—The Cultural Oncologist @CultureKancer
Made my day. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 22:23:00 UTC
-
All norms tend to be suited to demarcating outsiders, the organization of produc
All norms tend to be suited to demarcating outsiders, the organization of production, and defense – across all of history. Of those I would say production, defense, outsiders is the order.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 12:21:00 UTC
-
“but when to mischief mortals bend their will, how soon we find fit those instru
—“but when to mischief mortals bend their will, how soon we find fit those instruments of ill.– Pope
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 12:18:00 UTC
-
Feminine Dysgenic Disapproval vs Masculine Eugenic Truth. Very simple really
Feminine Dysgenic Disapproval vs Masculine Eugenic Truth.
Very simple really.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 12:05:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARIANS (RULE OF LAW) One brick at a time we build the intellectual fortre
PROPERTARIANS (RULE OF LAW)
One brick at a time we build the intellectual fortress of our civilization. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 12:03:00 UTC
-
Overproduction of Outrage has decreased its purchasing power
Overproduction of Outrage has decreased its purchasing power.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 12:02:00 UTC
-
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY by Martin Stepan —“So if such a thing as via-po
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY
by Martin Stepan
—“So if such a thing as via-positiva norms do exist, is it possible for there to be violations of reciprocity by not adhering to said via positive norms? Or would this just be considered to be a violation of someone’s notion of the “the good”, and therefore intangible property if they show a willingness to defend it?”—Michael Bernard
As long as those norms remain someone’s demonstrated interest, you can violate reciprocity by subverting them. You can always go live somewhere else where they’ll have you and norms will be more to your liking.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 11:51:00 UTC
-
I’m Adding “Outrage” to GSRRM. Adding “Shifting” Shifting Blame or Cause
I’m Adding “Outrage” to GSRRM.
Adding “Shifting” Shifting Blame or Cause
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 11:49:00 UTC
-
LAW: PROPERTY MUST INCLUDE ANYTHING PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO DEFEND WITH VIOLENCE b
LAW: PROPERTY MUST INCLUDE ANYTHING PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO DEFEND WITH VIOLENCE
by Martin Štěpán
—“First, it is important to note that “property” (at least according to libertarians) is a strictly normative or legal concept. It is intended to provide a social framework by which violent conflict may be avoided, and to serve as the philosophical benchmark for adjudication if and when such violent conflict does occur.”—
Which is really all you need to know. If this is the purpose of legally recognizing property, it logically follows that we have to recognize anything that people are willing to defend with violence so that they can defend it in court instead.
So anything that follows after this and claims some kind of property isn’t genuine or legitimate and doesn’t actually consider willingness to use violence is inconsistent with the paragraph above and mere rationalization.
I still like C Chase and see he means well but he could have asked any of us before critiquing, if not Curt directly – there’s plenty of others ready to answer.
(referring to a straw man critique by chris chase)
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 11:26:00 UTC