Source: Facebook

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51286842_10156956369172264_4693842897349378048_o_10156956369167264.jpg I AM A LIBERTARIAN: AGENCY THROUGH SOVEREIGNTY RECIPROCITY TRUTH DUTY THE NATURAL LAW OF TORT AND MARKETS IN EVERYTHING.

That is the operational definition of libertarianism. Every other claim is a lie.Daniel JordanI am confused, I agree with the line about the operational definition of being a libertarian. And I agree that Rothbards school of thought which frames all forms of regulations of the commons are only going to undermine our civilization if actually allowed to happen the way he pushed for. But the line where Libertarianism is listed with these other ideologies…do you mean Rothbardianism?

It seems to me that other old school guys like Hayek and Friedman who came later, they understood quite well that a strong rule of law is absolutely necessary for liberty. Rothbard called Friedman a shill of the state :DFeb 1, 2019, 6:27 PMGenevieve MalandraI’m laughing at Friedman as a shill of the state. We sarcastically call these people, “soverign citizens.” They are the “stop signs are fascist” crew 🤣🤣🤣🤣Feb 1, 2019, 6:41 PMDaniel JordanAnd Rothbard was a complete piece of shit who said that parents are not obligated to provide for their own children.Feb 1, 2019, 6:42 PMGenevieve MalandraI mean there are some very good people at Mises who are cultural conservatives and realize that culture and economics are in dynamic interplay. However, I think the core ideology is very naive and almost ridiculous.Feb 1, 2019, 6:44 PMDaniel JordanWithout a modern understanding of genetics and evolution its not hard to understand why guys like Friedman (my favorite Libertarian thinker) were totally okay with open borders so long as entitlements were shrunk to a minimum.

And while Mises was a genius in his day, he could not capitulate to the one thing of reason that Keynes pushed for, elimination of the gold standard. I am no fan of Keynes but people deserve credit where it is due. Mises has nothing on Rothbard however in terms of personal deficiencies. More a product of his day, and like many great thinkers they come to a horizon of sorts where they can’t see past their long held beliefs which morph into dogma.

I think having operational definitions of what sovereignty is and what its corresponding packaged responsibilities are help to essentially evolve Libertarian ideas into something more functional and encompassing for a society to use.Feb 1, 2019, 6:53 PMCurt DoolittleFriedman was following strategy and advocating for his people to useful idiots at the expense of the host people.

Just like the christians.Feb 1, 2019, 7:29 PMCurt Doolittle(Hayek was a libertarian. Mises and Rothbard were Libertines.Feb 1, 2019, 7:31 PMGenevieve MalandraI don’t think all Christians do that at all. The conservative evangelicals are the only ones fighting the culture war right now and succeeding. The liberal mainline Protestants are the worst, I agree. I was raised a mainline Protestant and I attend a conservative Church now. These people are fierce defenders of western civilization. Look at Bolsonero and Ted Cruz, Mike Pence. All evangelicals.Feb 1, 2019, 7:31 PMCurt DoolittleChrstianity (judaism) used the same arguments the same form of argument and the same strategy, which was to undermine western civilization from below. It was successful.

We escaped it. Period. End of story.Feb 1, 2019, 7:33 PMDaniel JordanI don’t think that Friedman really gave a shit about ‘his people’ more than others. I would not assign to malice what can much more easily be ascribed to ignorance. He really genuinely advocated for what he believed would be beneficial on the whole to everyone.Feb 1, 2019, 7:34 PMCurt DoolittleJudaism, Chrstianity, Islam => Marxism, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism(judaism), Postmodernism, feminism(christianity), Islam Islamism.Feb 1, 2019, 7:34 PMCurt DoolittleDaniel Jordan We do not know what we do. WE simply identify patterns in what cognitive group differences result in:” a conspiracy of common intersts.Feb 1, 2019, 7:35 PMGenevieve MalandraWell yes, I see what you are saying if you are comparing leftism to a religion. It is. However, the more conservative sects of the Judeo-Christian tradition are not the problem at all, they are most of your conservative voters who keep better people in office.Feb 1, 2019, 7:35 PMGenevieve MalandraI would not compare Islam to Judeo-Christian system as someone who has read the Koran a few times and was raised studying the Bible. Islam is its own beast and what we need to be doing is correcting Islamic people when they keep trying to tack on. They don’t read the same book. The Koran is sooo different. I think it is your interpretation of Christianity. However, I do see how religion poses a danger more generally because of its lack of scientific nature. It’s up to interpretation by the group harnessing it.Feb 1, 2019, 7:39 PMGenevieve MalandraAll 3 Abrahamic religions declare the man the head of the household and create distinct/separate roles for man and woman. It’s clearly patriarchy. I don’t see how you get feminism from Christianity unless you are talking about these lame brain universalists who sing kum ba yah at church and think that is Christianity. However, if you follow the rules you believe in patriarchy like I do.Feb 1, 2019, 7:41 PMJerry HengeholdHow else would you have people agree and consent, except by written contract spelling out every conceivable nuance ? Are you claiming that contracts should be void, and thus ownership should never be taken at face value? Should ownership always be “at play” and never settled?People should be allowed to break their word? And what better way do you propose that people are held accountable to their word, except for by signing contracts?Feb 1, 2019, 7:59 PMCurt Doolittle^Who are you addressing?Feb 1, 2019, 8:14 PMHeather JoiI almost passed out reading this in my head.Feb 1, 2019, 8:29 PMJerry HengeholdI am addressing you sir. Should there be no limits to “might makes right”, in our own conscience? Shouldn’t we abide by our own word?Feb 1, 2019, 8:52 PMCurt Doolittlei cant turn that into a question or argument. what is it that you think yu are arguing against. and then i will show you how your good moral bias makes you a libertarian rather than socialist “useful idiot” for our enemies.

what does rothbardianism permit that is immoralFeb 1, 2019, 9:06 PMJerry Hengehold”Rothbardianism”is a term so vague, that it’s attackers can simply shift their definitions without detection.

Could you please provide a definition for “rothbardianism”Feb 1, 2019, 9:16 PMCurt DoolittleHow the hell, can that be ‘vague’? Isn’t that dishonest?Feb 1, 2019, 9:45 PMJerry HengeholdOK fine you’re right.

One last question: in what respect can the white underclass be considered “High Trust”?Feb 1, 2019, 9:55 PMIgor RogovWell written it is not. 🙂 If Rothbardianism isn’t libertarianism, how the next statement could start with Rothbardian Libertarianism? And the last one muddles waters even further, declaring Feminism and Libertarianism as something of the same class?Z

Perhaps it may sound OK in beerhall, when the audience had more than five drinks.Feb 1, 2019, 10:33 PMCurt Doolittleyou are too rigorous my friend, but not reading carefully. it is correct, but open to misinterpetation. ;)Feb 1, 2019, 10:35 PMDaniel JordanI’d say that legally even allowing parents to neglect necessities of life to their children is immoral.Feb 1, 2019, 11:55 PMMichael Carbonaro“The only different between Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Libertarianism, and Neo-conservatism, is the social class whose traditions it seeks to undermine through exploiting the high trust of those people in those traditions by **baiting into moral hazard** and appropriating ‘useful idiots’ in propagandizing these moral hazards, in order to defend these intellectual frauds from justifiable criticisms that they are racists acting for racist purposes in racial interests.”

I agree completely! How are these social groups “baiting” people into into moral hazards? Why, they are making arguments and talk of tradition, or preference, or even a “strong emotion” they embody and that we ought to embody. Morals they call it, but what they claim is a hazard! They don’t follow the real good, but the real bad. They don’t like high trust, but their own, ever hazardous ethics!

Eventually, they get a following. Now they embody that moral hazard above themselves and follow it like a guiding light in the piercing darkness. The leaders give off to the ‘useful idiots’ simple, basic ways of embodying their moral hazards, the ones they they themselves love! They propagandize them! Now they go towards their destiny of following a moral hazard they believe because they prefer it over others, convinced by the “arguments” or claims, and learn to defend, as you said, their “intellectual frauds from justifiable criticism.” Not to mention, since these hazardous folk do not take to kindly to racial interests that don’t match their own, that they will not tolerate certain races or racially charged interests. What a bunch of hazardous bigots!

But wait, there seems to be something strange here. We seem to be pointing the finger. It might be good to cross examine what we are, which is certainly not morally hazardous.

1) We believe in our created morality, so we choose to embody it and gain great feeling for this ethic, holding it above ourselves.

2) One of the groundworks is high trust, so that is our ethics.

3) From talk of our ethics, our group begins to grow.

4) The ethics goes across people, some brilliant and some new to the ideas.

5) The new, not so sure of what they have learned, excitedly spread the good news of their newly found ethics.

6) Our group becomes stronger the closer we the followers become, defending criticism and justifying the arguments and claims of the intellectual leader(s).

7) We look down upon groups with racial interests that supersedes their own interests and those groups act as bigots against them.

Alrighty, so it looks like we met non-

Wait a second.

How does this moral hazardousness not apply to us? Perhaps I didn’t hear your great ideas right.

I happily await your response.Feb 2, 2019, 4:52 AMCurt DoolittleI would respond if you produced an argument rather than a straw man.

How are moral hazards (usury, financialization, redistribution of reproduction to underclass, underclass immigration ) equivalent to internal signaling?Feb 2, 2019, 7:23 AMJames Fox HigginsLibertinism*

Looks the same, but it’s not.

I agree that this is not an excellent piece of writing, but that’s purely because of the rhythm of the prose. Not because of any internal contradiction.

Also, you’ve written your own malapropism. *Muddies the waters, not muddles. Since we’re nitpicking 😉 #reciprocityFeb 2, 2019, 8:13 AMIgor RogovIf I take “libertinism” not as a simple typing error, but as a distinct meaning, it makes even less sense. Was Rothbard waving his dick at his students or what?

Sure, I have my own share of malapropisms, but I am drunk Russian.Feb 2, 2019, 8:38 AMWilliam L. BengeAs we explore propertarian (true libertarian?) “precepts” our tests might satisfy our standards of trust for one and then more claims or principles declared to be propertarian.

The reason I mention this is to address your lack of warrantying of your claim (statement) above Michael. This can be cleared up by learning what is testimonialism, which doesnt take long. A handful of points (simple), are the conditions we must satisfy to qualify a statement as truthful (falsifiable), or not. Once learned, always learned. When we graduate this, then we’re off to the races!

So, glaring into your argument with these testimonial standards after the fact, I think you will find the content of your statement is absent any qualifying measurements. Uh-oh.

Testimonialism will demand you have those measurements. People will need to see truthfulness (of your assertions) demonstrated through internal coherence and external correspondence.

To satisfy these standards of testimonialism, you will have to observe operationalism. Once learned, always learned. When we graduate this, then we’re off to the races!

Yes, yes. This is a discipline like any other, but this one permeates all others. The discipline is called, truthfulness. ;)Feb 2, 2019, 1:06 PMMichael CarbonaroCurt I am not sure if I understand your question. You are asking me to tell you how moral hazards are equivalent to internal signaling, but what I am trying to figure out is how they *aren’t* equivalent. What makes your morals not hazardous, and how is that argumentatively proven?Feb 2, 2019, 1:08 PMMichael CarbonaroWilliam What exactly is a “quantifiable measurement?” Are we measuring how high a tree is or how moral a statement is? Because the first is mathematically, and the second is subjective.Feb 2, 2019, 1:10 PMMichael CarbonaroI am basically trying to figure out how propertarianism is the objective moral position and how every other position – such as Libertarianism, Neo-conservativism, Marxism, etc – is hazardous.Feb 2, 2019, 1:12 PMMichael CarbonaroObviously, you describe how they are “hazardous” (i.e. baiting people, social class, etc) but why are any of these things important? Why is it important or essential to have a high trust society? I don’t see anything in this paragraph that helps me understand why you are right and others are wrong.

You probably have written a great deal about this, so I hope you can tell me why your position is objective and others aren’t.Feb 2, 2019, 1:22 PMWilliam L. BengeAnd what gains are made by airing moral relativism? Morality does not exist outside of a real event, and testifying to a real event is warrantied (falsified) by measurements, which measurements take form as internally coherent and externally correspondent.

Does this suggest law better establishes what is moral? Indeed. Natural law.

This testimonialism (which utilizes operationalism) safeguards all from falling prey to woo-woo or even the traps of human bias. We are left vulnerable if we end up at wishful thinking, and by whatever course or series of errors.Feb 2, 2019, 1:24 PMMichael CarbonaroWilliam “Does this suggest law better establishes what is moral? Indeed. Natural law.”

Wait I am confused. In the first paragraph, are you admitting that morality is not something that is tangible and not a “real event?” If so, then why are you suggesting that moral is better with “natural law,” even though ultimately this implies a subjective preference?Feb 2, 2019, 1:27 PMMichael CarbonaroIt’s like if I said, “I wish everyone believed that murder is wrong, but luckily natural law makes that established!” Er, we are still left with a problem.

If a society that uses natural law believed that, let’s say, “Prostitution is good,” then it would be supported and upheld in natural law. Is there anything wrong with a society doing this?Feb 2, 2019, 1:29 PMWilliam L. BengeI do not own nor create moral relativism, though I do state moral relativism is a strategy that does exist. It is generally recognized externally (sources can cited) as real and my application reflected this condition in my statement, thus we have internal coherence. Also, my statement was neutral toward moral relativism, not an endorsement of it nor condemnation.

My statement suggested there is little to be gained by airing moral relativism and for the reasons I proceeded to then share.

Natural law of reciprocity satisfies morality demands? Yes. A series of laws provides a canon for reciprocity and adjudication. A new precedent revises the canon.

The woo-woo run amuk we presently observe in the west, is no good for anyone except those creating harm (theft by deception), and even those persons (thieves, liars) are at risk of loss by system-wide catastrophic collapse.Feb 2, 2019, 1:44 PMWilliam L. BengeAh, I see. Well, building case law is non-trivial and does not, cannot, amount to the dog chasing the tail? We note the term propertarianism? For most of us probably those who come to mind when we hear property discussed is “Smith, Hume and Locke.”

From those years ago, we are making headway to more fully establish and mature these truths, to achieve a solid defense and offense for same. We have achieved this.

To more specifically respond in summary:

Property is sacrosanct. Morality is absorbed by the law. Law protects what is property.Feb 2, 2019, 1:58 PMWilliam L. BengeNow if you can grasp the points of this thread, you’ve been spared hours of study. Which time cost can be paid maybe later, eventually.

Does any of this make sense?Feb 2, 2019, 2:04 PMIgor RogovTrey Lindsey No. It is a grave mistake to lump anarcho-capitalist into an immoral camp of libertines. Moreover, the anarcho-capitalism (rather carelessly, I should say) assumes the moral “positive” of the sum of human transactions (based on Rothbard belief in theory of utilitarian nature of morality) and therefore stresses out that more of a free market and less government regulation (as an extension of more freedom and less slavery ) is morally sound and economically profitable at the same time.

Totally ignoring the religious precursors of modern capitalism I must add (I am not exactly with Weber, he is historically inaccurate, yet has very sharp observations ).

Yet anarcho-capitalism totally relies on a sound moral judgement of every participant, henceforth its optimistic outlook.Feb 2, 2019, 5:49 PMCurt Doolittle—“If a society that uses natural law believed that, let’s say, “Prostitution is good,” then it would be supported and upheld in natural law. Is there anything wrong with a society doing this?”—

Natural law is what it is. You can violate it. But then you are not goverend by rule of law under natural law. You’re just making shit up. Which is fine.

JUDGEMENT

prostitution is a productive, symmetric, voluntary exchange. The question is one of externalities. IOW: if it’s visible in the commons it’s a violation. If it’s not visible in the commons (ints in your bedroom) then it isn’t a violation. Everything else is a crime in and of itself. Street Prostitution tends to draw crime. Call girls don’t. (so much). Bordello’s not so much. Bar girls not so much. But what happens in a bedroom is not a matter for the law.Feb 2, 2019, 9:52 PMBill JoslinFeminism, Pomo, Libertines, Anarcho-caps all operate on the presupposition of radical individualism as a moral goodFeb 3, 2019, 4:23 PMBill JoslinCurt Doolittle ( damage to the institution of marriage, an externality of prostitution?)Feb 3, 2019, 4:28 PMBill JoslinMicheal is equating Natural law to a consensus of sort in the absence of our definition (which ours results in a method of measurement not mode of interpretation)Feb 3, 2019, 4:57 PMWilliam L. BengeInteresting, Bill Joslin. As in, Marriage; a vested property (recite type and qualification, confirmation) we can propose as properly benefiting from insurance of the last resort (state interjection), thus must be embedded in some way into general negativa.

No, not any sort of gd family court, no.

Somewhere we already covered the type of property this qualifies as. Anyway, some sidenotes.Feb 3, 2019, 4:59 PMBill Joslin(There are private practices which impact public health – such as infidelity in marriage, 30 yo men dating 16 yo girls etc – occurences in the bedroom which results in retalitory actions in public, or long term impacts on relationships etc)Feb 3, 2019, 4:59 PMBill Joslinmarriage being a contract and a property… but on a societal level (normative) also a common property. Infidelity and prostitution impose upon the societal function of these commons (normative damage – political unit etc)Feb 3, 2019, 5:03 PMBill Joslin(break-dwn of the political unit etc – break up of the family and fatherless children so on and so on)Feb 3, 2019, 5:04 PMWilliam L. BengeDiscreet application of law. Ex. I wont be cited for drinking coffee or munching potato chips though driving distracted is unlawful, except, at an officers discretion I can be cited and fined if the officer is already detaining my travel to issue a warning or another different citation.Feb 3, 2019, 5:08 PMIgor RogovIsn’t it obvious that feminism, libertinism and anarcho-capitalists argue for radically different sorts of individualism? Rothbard was arguing for full individual responsibility and self-ownership, libertinism was all about pursuit of pleasures and feminism is really hard to define beyond whims and caprices of an immature girl at odds with her own biological nature and society at large. To lump them all together does not help anything, it looks more like a radical failure in classification.

Say, feminists are totally at odds with anarcho-capitalist idea of full individual responsibility, as it is always collective men to blame for every woman’s faults.Feb 3, 2019, 5:20 PMBill JoslinIgor Rogov Its not a failure of classification – they all belong under the category of radical individualism, then under that category the sub-categories you outlined. The superordinate of “radical individualism” which they all share is the outcome of atomization and errosion of social cohesion and they share in the opportunity to consume social normative properties without contribution – precisely because they are radically individualistic, no matter what variations of it they expressFeb 3, 2019, 5:41 PMWilliam L. Benge”Micheal is equating Natural law to a consensus of sort in the absence of our definition (which ours results in a method of measurement not mode of interpretation)”

Smart read, my man… I was most definitely infering positive and negative externality come to bear for Michael’s need to a) demonstrate measurements to b) warranty his claim, ie prove it has been rigorously tested and stands free of error and negative externality so far as it is possible (for him) to do.

The “if I want” or “a consensus of people want” he hypothesized also provides zero warranty hypothetically.

Not wisdom, is the point.

Allowing this sort of deficit is like a tight-rope walker who, instead of rescheduling his stunt, ignores the dangers of the approaching blustery thunderstorm for the reason he has an umbrella as part of his act.

In the stuntman’s case, nature will make quick work of truncating excess, and one genetic line becomes reduced in an instant.

Many things are possible and decidable but not advisable.

Finally, because a feature in an evolving legal canon is refinement and perfecting of the body of law, gaps and leeway’s become closed over time.

“The law caught up with us.” Retroactively applied too? Unknowable.

Anyway, we see the def saving value of measurement (for warranty of claim) in terms of personal peace and security, imo.Feb 3, 2019, 5:42 PMIgor RogovSuperordinate to anarcho-capitalism is not radical individualism, as it assumes that every individual is fully responsible to the collective marketplace and totally prohibits the use of force or coercion. Radical individualism could be ascribed to some brands of feminism, yet feminist individual is assumed as a member of “sisterhood” collective force battling a conspiratorial patriarchy. Etc.

With the same degree of misleading “success” one may lump all of them together under one category of radical collectivism. Indeed, most of feminists are collectivists, much like communists and socialists, although they like to declare that they fight for individual freedom. Anarcho-capitalists don’t see an individual outside the collective market. See? They are all collectivists. Right? Wrong. This classification does not help anything either.Feb 3, 2019, 5:45 PMBill JoslinIgor Rogov Anacap operates on the presumption that authority isnt required as the market (the aggregate of individual action) will guide interactions versus a collective solution such as law. That is a presumption of individual action being superior to collective constraint. And coupled with the nonsensical presupposition that all people will hold to the same morality in every situation. Once one entertains that the aggregate effects of the market opens opportunity to deviate from the normative for increased gain – the whole proposition fall on its face.

Third wave feminism draws on herd mentality and will inevitable become collectivist HOWEVER the foundation of that whole leg of philosophy is based on emancipation of individuals from any social or formal categorization, formal amd normative categorization as being oppressive. The fundamental presupposition is radical individualism – which is why LGBT, social constructivsm, non-binary genders et al all share the same philisophical root as feminism.Feb 3, 2019, 6:02 PMIgor RogovBill Joslin Ancap is internally contradictory, as it prohibits the use of collective force yet assumes that the individual will act AS IF there is a threat of a force from the collective marketplace. At least at the stage when the “anarchist” individual is trained to play by the “capitalist” rules.

Feminism is really difficult to point finger at, as all the waves have morphed into a pure hatred of what the humanity IS as opposed to what a teenager girl would like it to be. Yet the collective nature of “sisterhood” is rather obvious in every wave.Feb 3, 2019, 6:06 PMBill JoslinThey’re all internally contradictoryFeb 3, 2019, 6:24 PMIgor RogovBill Joslin Yet reliance of real-life feminists on bureaucratic build-up and the police to enforce feminisation of the families (Duluth model) – could not be described as “individualist”, moreover “radical”. This sheer collectivism, at an extent that could not be seen yet anywhere except famous collectivist regimes, i.e. USSR and China.Feb 3, 2019, 6:26 PMIgor RogovNow I would offer my own, proper superordinate to an-caps, feminists and postmodernism:

They are against the healthy nature or simply unnatural, and they are trying to change the law itself to enforce all the unnatural, sick, marginal and degenerate traits.

They are against the Jus Naturale (Natural Law) as it was understood at the beginning of European civilisation.

They coincide with radically individualism only if you take as a model individual a radically depraved, deformed, degenerate and sickly human being.

Rothbardians are also unnatural, but their model of unnatural individual is more like of a saint, predestined by God himself to play by the assumed rules.Feb 3, 2019, 6:53 PMBill JoslinIgor Rogov see… I see it that radical individualism allows one to disconnect the individual from an individual’s necessary conditions – to unhook the particular from its superordinant category. This then allows one to define the individual any which way one see fit i.e. UnnaturallyFeb 3, 2019, 8:22 PMIgor RogovGot it. To be individualistic within these systems (add Soviet style socialism to the list) you have to radically curb, control, restrict, deny and remove most of the basic natural human impulses and instincts that are present in every individual.

This creates Orwellian absurd system with a “Freedom is a Slavery” being a primary slogan.Feb 3, 2019, 8:27 PMBill JoslinExactlyFeb 3, 2019, 8:28 PMIgor RogovThis is what I call a quest for Unnatural Utopian system.Feb 3, 2019, 8:31 PMBill JoslinIgor Rogov I think nature abhors utopiaFeb 3, 2019, 8:38 PMBryan Nova BreyChristian Bates I think this is the conversation you’re looking for.Feb 4, 2019, 1:43 PMIgor RogovI would think that individual human nature abhors collectivist utopia, no matter how it is constructed and enforced from above.

Utopian thinking should never be allowed to take foothold in a public sphere beyond purely literary private clubs and scholarly studies.Feb 4, 2019, 10:33 PMBill JoslinIgor Rogov I think a sacred attitude to nature would provide a balwark to utopian thinkingFeb 4, 2019, 10:36 PMIgor RogovBill Joslin Sacred attitude to the laws of nature yes. But the nature itself could not be sacred, unless we want to celebrate the lifestyle of a ‘noble savage’Feb 5, 2019, 12:52 AMI AM A LIBERTARIAN: AGENCY THROUGH SOVEREIGNTY RECIPROCITY TRUTH DUTY THE NATURAL LAW OF TORT AND MARKETS IN EVERYTHING.

That is the operational definition of libertarianism. Every other claim is a lie.