ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives. 2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers). 3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer. 4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof. 5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity. This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise. As Eli Says: —“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”– In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict). The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost. Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument. Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories. in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking. The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced. Thus Endeth The Lesson. Apr 23, 2018 11:43am
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Impossibility of Anarchy
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
-
The Impossibility of Anarchy
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
-
Yes we are being colonized. But The Only Enemy Is In The Mirror
THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR Never let people get away with irreciprocal judgement of others. Start complaining about others only after you have exhausted analysis of your own failings. This is what I tell to white people as well. We are unhappy because we expect others to do other than pursue their reproductive strategies – yet this in itself is illogical. The question is always, not why does a competitor harm you, but why are you too weak and incompetent to fend off a competitor? The only enemy is in the mirror. The strong and capable have no enemies because they have defended against those enemies. 0 – Yes the asian states are (filthy) dirty places, which is why westerners must (a) get shots, (b) are told “not touch anything that isn’t you”, and (c) are told not to eat or drink anything that a ‘Mohammed’s hands could touch’, and (d) india in particular but china as well produces such an extraordinary range of birth defects that are not due to inbreeding and incest – which are the cause of extraordinary birth defects in the arab and muslim worlds. 1 – yes these states are backward by nature. Hence the difference in corruption between ukraine, russia, india, and china. They are all very corrupt. 2 – Anglo revenue is from (a) reliable (non-corrupt) courts and the social and political superiority that arises from non-corrupt courts, (b) technological superiority that arises from the wealth of superior social and juridical non-corruption, (c) consumer consumption, and particularly consumer consumption of of housing. Our military is a money-losing proposition other than for preventing a non-market volatility of petroleum which has replaced agrarian territory as the most influential determinant of the wealth of advanced nation states. 3 – Anglos have made a great deal of their wealth dragging the primitive world out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, hunger, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature. Anglos have spent a great deal of their wealth (a) preventing communism, (b) and now preventing islamism, and (c) we will probably have to prevent chinese authoritarianism if we are not careful. And worse we have committed near self destruction out of foolish charitability in immigration. 4 – The question is, since we have seen chinese colonization, russian colonization, french colonization, spanish colonization, dutch colonization, and inter-african colonization, and it was possible to conquer the world or even commit genocide on the entire planet – that is the opportunity cost. In other words, you could be colonized by the chinese, russians, mongols, turks, muslims. The question is not why these people colonize you. It is why you are so weak demographically, culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, that they can? Which is what I say to white men. If we are being colonized the only reason we are colonized is because we are too weak to prevent it.
-
Yes we are being colonized. But The Only Enemy Is In The Mirror
THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR Never let people get away with irreciprocal judgement of others. Start complaining about others only after you have exhausted analysis of your own failings. This is what I tell to white people as well. We are unhappy because we expect others to do other than pursue their reproductive strategies – yet this in itself is illogical. The question is always, not why does a competitor harm you, but why are you too weak and incompetent to fend off a competitor? The only enemy is in the mirror. The strong and capable have no enemies because they have defended against those enemies. 0 – Yes the asian states are (filthy) dirty places, which is why westerners must (a) get shots, (b) are told “not touch anything that isn’t you”, and (c) are told not to eat or drink anything that a ‘Mohammed’s hands could touch’, and (d) india in particular but china as well produces such an extraordinary range of birth defects that are not due to inbreeding and incest – which are the cause of extraordinary birth defects in the arab and muslim worlds. 1 – yes these states are backward by nature. Hence the difference in corruption between ukraine, russia, india, and china. They are all very corrupt. 2 – Anglo revenue is from (a) reliable (non-corrupt) courts and the social and political superiority that arises from non-corrupt courts, (b) technological superiority that arises from the wealth of superior social and juridical non-corruption, (c) consumer consumption, and particularly consumer consumption of of housing. Our military is a money-losing proposition other than for preventing a non-market volatility of petroleum which has replaced agrarian territory as the most influential determinant of the wealth of advanced nation states. 3 – Anglos have made a great deal of their wealth dragging the primitive world out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, hunger, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature. Anglos have spent a great deal of their wealth (a) preventing communism, (b) and now preventing islamism, and (c) we will probably have to prevent chinese authoritarianism if we are not careful. And worse we have committed near self destruction out of foolish charitability in immigration. 4 – The question is, since we have seen chinese colonization, russian colonization, french colonization, spanish colonization, dutch colonization, and inter-african colonization, and it was possible to conquer the world or even commit genocide on the entire planet – that is the opportunity cost. In other words, you could be colonized by the chinese, russians, mongols, turks, muslims. The question is not why these people colonize you. It is why you are so weak demographically, culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, that they can? Which is what I say to white men. If we are being colonized the only reason we are colonized is because we are too weak to prevent it.
-
Simplify Education and Increase Socialization
Roughly speaking, about 1/4 of people should go through STEM university training, and the rest should graduate high school able to work. The problem is that we teach nonsense after 6th grade. Roughly half of all educational hours are wasted. In my understanding we should enter people into the workforce between 12 and 14 given their rate of maturity, and teach life tools a few hours a day: money, accounting, economics, basic contracts. In fact, it’s very interesting that we teach all the sciences OTHER than the one that is most important: COOPERATION. Instead of cooperation we teach SUBMISSION. If we were to do this we would extend work lives, and reverse infantilization, as well as all but eliminate the difficulty entering the work force. We would have vast programs of teaching-in-the-workplace at very low wages, and produce the highest skilled people in the world. We could have fully socialized people, a more competente work force, have children in our late teens and twenties, and far lower costs.
-
Simplify Education and Increase Socialization
Roughly speaking, about 1/4 of people should go through STEM university training, and the rest should graduate high school able to work. The problem is that we teach nonsense after 6th grade. Roughly half of all educational hours are wasted. In my understanding we should enter people into the workforce between 12 and 14 given their rate of maturity, and teach life tools a few hours a day: money, accounting, economics, basic contracts. In fact, it’s very interesting that we teach all the sciences OTHER than the one that is most important: COOPERATION. Instead of cooperation we teach SUBMISSION. If we were to do this we would extend work lives, and reverse infantilization, as well as all but eliminate the difficulty entering the work force. We would have vast programs of teaching-in-the-workplace at very low wages, and produce the highest skilled people in the world. We could have fully socialized people, a more competente work force, have children in our late teens and twenties, and far lower costs.
-
Abrahamism = authoritarianism (submission) + Pilpul + fictionalism
Abrahamism = authoritarianism (submission) + Pilpul + fictionalism. It is a criticism of technique, not content. Gods serve as a system of calculation (decidability) by most primitive means (anthropic comparison). Monopoly, authority, justificationism(lying), polymoralism, and fictionalism are very different from markets, reciprocity, truth, and law. Abrahamism is hostile to civilization. Which is why jews cannot produce trust, capital, and hold territory and have been repeatedly pushed to near extermination, muslims could use surplus population to conquer, destroy, and rule, but immediately declined into mysticism, dysgenia, tribalism, and poverty, and christianity drove the west into ignorance and poverty from which they only escaped by the reintroduction of scandinavian pagans, germanic law, and greek thought. The lessons of the Syrians (Byzantines) that were used to canonize christianity are very simple: 1 – Extirpate hatred from the human heart. 2 – Extend kinship love to non kin (Exhaust interpersonal Forgiveness) 3 – Devote time effort and wealth to interpersonal charity. 4 – Use political intolerance for those who do otherwise. Personal tolerance political intolerance. And by the science we know that this produces maximum possibility for integration and cooperation. There is nothing else to be learned. Nothing. ZERO.
-
Abrahamism = authoritarianism (submission) + Pilpul + fictionalism
Abrahamism = authoritarianism (submission) + Pilpul + fictionalism. It is a criticism of technique, not content. Gods serve as a system of calculation (decidability) by most primitive means (anthropic comparison). Monopoly, authority, justificationism(lying), polymoralism, and fictionalism are very different from markets, reciprocity, truth, and law. Abrahamism is hostile to civilization. Which is why jews cannot produce trust, capital, and hold territory and have been repeatedly pushed to near extermination, muslims could use surplus population to conquer, destroy, and rule, but immediately declined into mysticism, dysgenia, tribalism, and poverty, and christianity drove the west into ignorance and poverty from which they only escaped by the reintroduction of scandinavian pagans, germanic law, and greek thought. The lessons of the Syrians (Byzantines) that were used to canonize christianity are very simple: 1 – Extirpate hatred from the human heart. 2 – Extend kinship love to non kin (Exhaust interpersonal Forgiveness) 3 – Devote time effort and wealth to interpersonal charity. 4 – Use political intolerance for those who do otherwise. Personal tolerance political intolerance. And by the science we know that this produces maximum possibility for integration and cooperation. There is nothing else to be learned. Nothing. ZERO.
-
Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)
(It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm