–“The story of [the Empire’s] ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple [the color of the robes of the Roman magistrates, ie: THE LAW]. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered [the citizens both] alike (each other,) formidable to their sovereign, and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine [Christianity]; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.”— Edward Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”, Chapter 38 IT ALL BEGINS AND ENDS WITH OUR MILITIA, AND OUR MILITIA BY THEIR LAW, AND THEIR LAW BY EXCEPTIONLESS INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Then and Now.
England started the industrial revolution with crucible steel. America supplied cheap labor to european inventions just like china is supplying cheap labor to western inventions. The second scientific and technological revolution happened in post-prussian germany in the later 1800’s and was truncated by the war, with the russians (equipment and tools) and americans (scientists) the primary beneficiaries of the german revolution.
-
Then and Now.
England started the industrial revolution with crucible steel. America supplied cheap labor to european inventions just like china is supplying cheap labor to western inventions. The second scientific and technological revolution happened in post-prussian germany in the later 1800’s and was truncated by the war, with the russians (equipment and tools) and americans (scientists) the primary beneficiaries of the german revolution.
-
The Failure of Libertarian Property Definition
by Eli Harman via Brandon Hayes Libertarians have a theory of legitimate private property originating in original appropriation and subsequent exchange. This is sometimes called “Intersubjectively Verifiable Property” (IVP) which means “property people can agree who owns” and it basically limits the scope of “legitimate” property to personal, private, property. But people will intuit assaults on or theft of common and intangible property as a loss and they will retaliate against it. So if the purpose of property rights, norms, and regimes, is to minimize conflicts by codifying who owns what, and consequently, who may do what, where, and why, then libertarian IVP fails as a property regime and a property norm, because there are whole categories of conflict it does not address nor prevent because it does not codify property rights in things that people value (with good reason) and conflict over, but actually licenses parasitism, theft, destruction, and free-riding in these domains by prohibiting retaliation against it.
-
The Failure of Libertarian Property Definition
by Eli Harman via Brandon Hayes Libertarians have a theory of legitimate private property originating in original appropriation and subsequent exchange. This is sometimes called “Intersubjectively Verifiable Property” (IVP) which means “property people can agree who owns” and it basically limits the scope of “legitimate” property to personal, private, property. But people will intuit assaults on or theft of common and intangible property as a loss and they will retaliate against it. So if the purpose of property rights, norms, and regimes, is to minimize conflicts by codifying who owns what, and consequently, who may do what, where, and why, then libertarian IVP fails as a property regime and a property norm, because there are whole categories of conflict it does not address nor prevent because it does not codify property rights in things that people value (with good reason) and conflict over, but actually licenses parasitism, theft, destruction, and free-riding in these domains by prohibiting retaliation against it.
-
Libertarianism’s Self Destruction
by Luke Weinhagen (better than I have said it) (brilliant) The way (my revelation) hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error. (CURT: Luke, this is, the … it’s, pricelessly stated. nice work.)
-
Libertarianism’s Self Destruction
by Luke Weinhagen (better than I have said it) (brilliant) The way (my revelation) hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error. (CURT: Luke, this is, the … it’s, pricelessly stated. nice work.)
-
The Key To Understanding Propertarianism
KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM by Luke Weinhagen Understanding this: —-“There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).”—- … and developing the skill to accurately identify these categories, makes everything Propertarianism is exploring understandable and in context. Where I’ve had misses in comprehension has consistently been where I’ve mis-categorized one or more of those three as another in whatever relation is being explored.
-
The Key To Understanding Propertarianism
KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM by Luke Weinhagen Understanding this: —-“There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).”—- … and developing the skill to accurately identify these categories, makes everything Propertarianism is exploring understandable and in context. Where I’ve had misses in comprehension has consistently been where I’ve mis-categorized one or more of those three as another in whatever relation is being explored.
-
Ghengis Khan vs Crusoe
GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let you live, (b) keep your things (c) let you remain free of slavery (d) Let you keep a portion of your production? It’s the inverse of the Crusoe’s Island thought experiment. Historically, the model that we evolved with, is an evenly distributed but scarce population preying on one another to obtain territory, women, and goods. How do you develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the historical (existential) rather than pessimistic (Kahn) or optimistic (Crusoe) models? Genghis Khan <———- Steppe ———> Crusoe