Source: Original Site Post

(FB 1551981350 Timestamp) by Philip Clark Curt how would propertianism handle complex things in society like 1. Alcohol, Drugs 2. Pornography 3. Abortion 4. Death penalty Other controversial stuff that have some negative side effects to society that’s legal to some degree in the US right now. I know this is diving deep into the weeds and there’s way bigger problems to solve before hand. This would be an interesting video for John Mark to do a video. —Answer— I’ve answered all of these before but lets condense them here:

1. ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
   GIVEN
   a) Family and Commons (conservatism/capitalization) take priority over individual satisfaction (hedonism/consumption) – this is the inverse of ‘individualism’ and returns us to ‘familialism’ – intergenerational production instead of temporal consumption.
2. PORNOGRAPHY
   There is no right to anything in public other than quietly walking down a public way or ‘necessary way’ (hedgerow) staring at your feet and keeping your mouths shut.

b) Alcohol and drugs are no one’s business unless externalized into the commons. c) Unfortunately they are frequently externalized into the commons. Therefore the question of alcohol and drugs are empirical (outputs) not blanket (inputs). And therefore a local community decision – not a universally decidable question. But that does not mean that we cannot define a point of demarcation. We can: d) Technically speaking you are no longer human (rational) when not in control, unable to perform due diligence, exposing others to hazard, and therefore have no rights in the commons, because you cannot engage in reciprocity. Therefore you lose your sovereignty because you no longer can demonstrate it. I really don’t know why you have the right to be drunk or stoned in public, and I know for certain you can’t claim the right to disconnect (heroin) or trip (hallucinate) in public. What you do on a boat, in the wilderness, or in your home, is up to you. Unfortunately this takes most of the joy out of recreational drugs. That said, if no one can tell, no one can tell. e) it is very hard to i) claim recreational use is a bad, ii) claim therapeutic use is a bad, iii) claim self medication in modernity is a bad, UNLESS iv) instead of self medication we provide both conditions non-hostile to mindfulness and provide mindfulness training (Stoicism etc) to the same degree that devotion does (continuous repetition and enforcement), and insurance (medical care, charity) to one another in case we fail and self medication is the only coince. (IMO, suicide should be an option, since all must have the right of exit.) f) The line of demarcation is crossed at (v) externalization of addiction. There can be no ‘right to addiction’. Empirically speaking, we should provide death sentences for addicts, or those engage in crime to finance addiction, or those who sell drugs to those who are addicts or engage in grim to finance addiction. (“The Duerte Rule”). We are currently running an experiment in Pornography. This experiment appears to a) suppress sexual frustration due to easy masturbation, b) dramatically reduce male sex drive and competitiveness (producing docility), c) produce sexual dysfunction in males, c) reduce sex crime, d) but feed extreme deviants (pedophiles, etc) – since novelty is part of the excitement that generates sexual stimulation we must run to extremes. There is no evidence that the human body (nudity) is a bad thing in public – probably just the opposite. There is evidence that infidelity may follow the degree of nudity in public (I can’t be sure of this). There is some evidence that limiting the range of pornography (which the industry does fairly well) might be of a benefit. There is some evidence that studio quality ‘romantic porn’ is not only not bad but instructive. There is plenty of evidence men are losing the skills (patience) taught to my generation during the 70’s. Ergo, if it’s not in public, and meets propertarian criteria, it is a matter of choice. It it externalizes into the public then it’s a violation. This is an empirical statement, and nothing else is decidable. I would recommend a park-like public since online access in private is universally available.

1. ABORTION
   Search my site for my works on abortion. Net is that it’s undecidable. And therefore a matter of local choice.

2. DEATH PENALTY
   The experiment with eliminating the death penalty has been a failure – a catastrophic one, and in our constitution I have corrected this to some degree and given license to restore even lynching.

So the only difficult question here is drugs. The rest are pretty simple.