Mar 23, 2020, 2:01 PM OWNING The concept of ‘own’ cannot come into existence without others to compete with you for control of something, and as such as a means of enforcement by self, or others, justifying retaliation. Without others: |ACTIONS| I know of something or not > I act to bear a cost of it or not > I take physical control of it or not > i defend it or not > i engage in reciprocal defense of others or not (Property Ownership) > we construct institutions of defense or not (Rights Title). So, interest, where interest = born a cost. |INTEREST| potential interest > demonstrated interest > demonstrated possession > demonstrated defense > demonstrated reciprocal defense (property, ownership) > demonstrated institutional defense (property rights, title). You can demonstrate an potential interest, demonstrated interest, possession, independent of others. You can only demonstrate defense, property-ownership, rights-title with others. I mean. that’s a proof. In other words, that’s a set of series that fully disambiguate all dimensions, and prevents the use of sophistry (deceit) by conflation. We retroactively apply the terms rights property ownership given that we habituate the terms under our laws. But these terms are dependent on those laws and institutions – produced with others. Notice how I use “demonstrated” – meaning actions. Notice how I don’t use ‘ideals’ (Platonisms) without defining them operationally as how they came into being. You see? P uses this technique of disambiguation by operationalization, and serialization. This transforms what we call ‘logic’ into a system of measurment.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Testimony
Mar 23, 2020, 2:02 PM
—“Once I realized that military/defense is 1) a collective service and 2) provides value by seemingly preventing its own necessity, the libertarian bubble popped.”—Bobo Laremy
CD: military services is also an unsubstitutable good, so no you can’t pay someone to do it for you.
-
Testimony
Mar 23, 2020, 2:02 PM
—“Once I realized that military/defense is 1) a collective service and 2) provides value by seemingly preventing its own necessity, the libertarian bubble popped.”—Bobo Laremy
CD: military services is also an unsubstitutable good, so no you can’t pay someone to do it for you.
-
“Economic Crisis: Curt, What About Strategic Industries Like Boeing Going Under?
Mar 23, 2020, 2:40 PM
—“I hope you are well Curt. Can I ask, where does P stand on redistributing or Nationalizing corps like Boeing? Obviously it’s a question of Nation Security to have warplanes and such. I don’t like the propping up where the corps have no fear of loss though. Can’t we take it over, keep the jobs, keep it producing as-is, but extract all the old profits from the Losers? I’m sure you have an answer, so I’m not trying to start any shit here. I’m interested.”— Twitter
EASY ANSWER
- Management and investors must pay for their folly not force the people to pay for their folly.
If the management and investors fail to manage the company and it can survive by taking a loan, that’s the answer.
If management and investors fail to manage the company so that it can survive shocks, and it must be bought back by the state (nationalized) and the investors wiped out, then resold once recovered, at a profit, then that’s the answer.
If it is a strategic industry then the state should be an inactive majority investor, and sell off only a minority interest to investors. Why? Private companies make FAR better use of capital.
Why state interest? If you look at how the russians and chinese produce military technology it is an industry better managed. American advantage is only in that we spend more on training and on practicing individual initiative and manoeuvre in combat, are more empirical in our training, and we are more loyal to each other than other peoples. I hav not studied the russian procurement process but I know it is far better than ours. They don’t appeal to congress. Our congress interferes all the time. We have many hands in the pie during every stage. we have too many people involved and not enough soldiers testing iterations of the equipment. The russians give one man responsibility for a program. That is probably enough a set of changes to fix most of it. My great-x uncle jimmy doolittle did a postwar evaluation of the pentagon for the president and was not terribly critical. I do not know what I would find if I did the same. The clinton military change and the obama undermining of the military did severe damage to the trustworthiness of the officer classes – but that is still repairable.
-
“Economic Crisis: Curt, What About Strategic Industries Like Boeing Going Under?
Mar 23, 2020, 2:40 PM
—“I hope you are well Curt. Can I ask, where does P stand on redistributing or Nationalizing corps like Boeing? Obviously it’s a question of Nation Security to have warplanes and such. I don’t like the propping up where the corps have no fear of loss though. Can’t we take it over, keep the jobs, keep it producing as-is, but extract all the old profits from the Losers? I’m sure you have an answer, so I’m not trying to start any shit here. I’m interested.”— Twitter
EASY ANSWER
- Management and investors must pay for their folly not force the people to pay for their folly.
If the management and investors fail to manage the company and it can survive by taking a loan, that’s the answer.
If management and investors fail to manage the company so that it can survive shocks, and it must be bought back by the state (nationalized) and the investors wiped out, then resold once recovered, at a profit, then that’s the answer.
If it is a strategic industry then the state should be an inactive majority investor, and sell off only a minority interest to investors. Why? Private companies make FAR better use of capital.
Why state interest? If you look at how the russians and chinese produce military technology it is an industry better managed. American advantage is only in that we spend more on training and on practicing individual initiative and manoeuvre in combat, are more empirical in our training, and we are more loyal to each other than other peoples. I hav not studied the russian procurement process but I know it is far better than ours. They don’t appeal to congress. Our congress interferes all the time. We have many hands in the pie during every stage. we have too many people involved and not enough soldiers testing iterations of the equipment. The russians give one man responsibility for a program. That is probably enough a set of changes to fix most of it. My great-x uncle jimmy doolittle did a postwar evaluation of the pentagon for the president and was not terribly critical. I do not know what I would find if I did the same. The clinton military change and the obama undermining of the military did severe damage to the trustworthiness of the officer classes – but that is still repairable.
-
The European Social Order
Mar 23, 2020, 2:45 PM In a universal military you get a trophy for doing your duty, meaning you get RESPECT for doing your duty even if its cleaning toilets. This is what is different. This is a huge difference. Status is available to everyone. You do not get a trophy unless you are fastest. You get a ribbon for competing to be fast. The original olympics – everyone ran. The mob-races are part of this game. We are not equal in ability. We are not equal in potential. We are not equal in achievement. We are ONLY EQUAL IN FULFILLING OUR DUTY. And if one does his duty he is due respect. And if one does not do his duty he is due disrespect or punishment.
-
The European Social Order
Mar 23, 2020, 2:45 PM In a universal military you get a trophy for doing your duty, meaning you get RESPECT for doing your duty even if its cleaning toilets. This is what is different. This is a huge difference. Status is available to everyone. You do not get a trophy unless you are fastest. You get a ribbon for competing to be fast. The original olympics – everyone ran. The mob-races are part of this game. We are not equal in ability. We are not equal in potential. We are not equal in achievement. We are ONLY EQUAL IN FULFILLING OUR DUTY. And if one does his duty he is due respect. And if one does not do his duty he is due disrespect or punishment.
-
(((libertarians))) are almost more of an impediment to P-type progress than leftists
Mar 23, 2020, 3:26 PM by NJ Gregory It’s paradoxically bizarre because (((libertarians))) are almost more of an impediment to P-type progress than leftists… Because leftists we can just shove out of the way. But the libertarian sect needs more effort and “red pills” to be woken up. Libertarianism is a kind of a political cop out, kind of fence sitting. (CD: it’s the reason for libertarianism: escaping cost of the commons. free riding.)
-
(((libertarians))) are almost more of an impediment to P-type progress than leftists
Mar 23, 2020, 3:26 PM by NJ Gregory It’s paradoxically bizarre because (((libertarians))) are almost more of an impediment to P-type progress than leftists… Because leftists we can just shove out of the way. But the libertarian sect needs more effort and “red pills” to be woken up. Libertarianism is a kind of a political cop out, kind of fence sitting. (CD: it’s the reason for libertarianism: escaping cost of the commons. free riding.)
-
Libertarians
Mar 23, 2020, 3:29 PM by Gearóid Walsh It’s sort of like the masculine adolescence period before the arising of paternal feelings for the commons. But there is some feminine baked in there too.
1) Naive true belief in whatever social myth of the given one grows up with ->
2) Individualist, anarchist rebellion, criticism of authoritarianism ->
3) Paternalistic reconstruction and recovery of all the above, engagement with it despite its pitfalls (revealed through the anarchist “thought experiment”) We can allow people their developmental phase but we need elders to limit the externalities and snap people out of it as quickly as possible.