Anarchists vs Libertarians vs Sovereigntarians
I think we agree on what constitutes aggression. I think we disagree about the scope of property against one can aggress, and the responsibilities we bear for the Commons.
Source: Original Site Post
-
“Reciprocity or War” There exist no ‘goods’ or ‘truths’ outside of reciprocity.
“Reciprocity or War” There exist no ‘goods’ or ‘truths’ outside of reciprocity. All else is preference not good or truth. -
“Reciprocity or War” There exist no ‘goods’ or ‘truths’ outside of reciprocity.
“Reciprocity or War” There exist no ‘goods’ or ‘truths’ outside of reciprocity. All else is preference not good or truth. -
Return To Rule By Rule Of Law, Markets In Everything, And The Continuous Evolution Of The Animal Man.
We are the masters of the first asset: violence. Violence like any asset can be put to good, or to ill. We can return to the continuous domestication and husbandry of humans, animals, machines, and this earth – if not the universe. And in doing so evolve ourselves and man into gods. Or we can be victims of those who lack that ability. -
Return To Rule By Rule Of Law, Markets In Everything, And The Continuous Evolution Of The Animal Man.
We are the masters of the first asset: violence. Violence like any asset can be put to good, or to ill. We can return to the continuous domestication and husbandry of humans, animals, machines, and this earth – if not the universe. And in doing so evolve ourselves and man into gods. Or we can be victims of those who lack that ability. -
The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), a
The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), and peasantry(socialism), is that each starts with a very different value attached to the different choices of cooperation: predation by violence, production by cooperative exchange, flight, boycott and resistance by inclusion or exclusion from the group. Aristocracy begins with the preference for ‘taking it all now’ by violence, and profiting from the domestication of animal man; Burghers (bourgeois) assume the continuous value of trade. And dependents, serfs,slaves, and enemies, seek to circumvent the competition and conflict by demand for redistribution (insurance, and sharing) because for all intents and purposes they are otherwise powerless. I start from the premise that continuous evolution of man through continuous suppression of inferiorities, and continuous reward for excellences, is the only long term good, and that the strong and productive must have incentive to tolerate the weak and the unproductive. There is no shortage of humans, but an oversupply. People are not intrinsically valuable to one another, to mankind, or to the universe. They can only strive to be, and demonstrate that they are, by the evidence of their actions. -
The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), a
The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), and peasantry(socialism), is that each starts with a very different value attached to the different choices of cooperation: predation by violence, production by cooperative exchange, flight, boycott and resistance by inclusion or exclusion from the group. Aristocracy begins with the preference for ‘taking it all now’ by violence, and profiting from the domestication of animal man; Burghers (bourgeois) assume the continuous value of trade. And dependents, serfs,slaves, and enemies, seek to circumvent the competition and conflict by demand for redistribution (insurance, and sharing) because for all intents and purposes they are otherwise powerless. I start from the premise that continuous evolution of man through continuous suppression of inferiorities, and continuous reward for excellences, is the only long term good, and that the strong and productive must have incentive to tolerate the weak and the unproductive. There is no shortage of humans, but an oversupply. People are not intrinsically valuable to one another, to mankind, or to the universe. They can only strive to be, and demonstrate that they are, by the evidence of their actions. -
Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism. – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation. -
Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism. – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation. -
NAP: “JUST SAY NO”. Nope to N.A.P. Non imposition against borne costs of any kin
NAP: “JUST SAY NO”. Nope to N.A.P. Non imposition against borne costs of any kind, leaving only voluntary reciprocity, accumulating all possible capital, and absent incentive for retaliation (productive agrarianism) , is very different from non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property (parasitic pastoralism), which minimizes capital accumulation, and maintains incentives for retaliation over differences in investment in capital. Sovereignty by force, not liberty by begging for permission. Capital (property in toto) not just personal property. Masculine Capital Intensive, Commons intensive Civilization vs Feminine consumption in tensive, commons abandoning, pastoralism K of male and predators, vs r of female and grazers.