COOPERATION < NON-COOPERATION < PREDATION
Cooperation is only valuable if it is more valuable than non cooperation. Non cooperation is only valuable if it is more valuable than predation. If cooperation is no longer valuable then non-cooperation must be possible. If the state or some other organization prohibits non-cooperation, then predation is preferable to forced interaction, and forced cooperation.
After all. That is what slavery means.
Source: Original Site Post
-
But when to Revolution men bend their will, How soon they find fit, instruments
But when to Revolution men bend their will, How soon they find fit, instruments of ill. Revolution Comes! #Trump #NewRight #Conservative -
But when to Revolution men bend their will, How soon they find fit, instruments
But when to Revolution men bend their will, How soon they find fit, instruments of ill. Revolution Comes! #Trump #NewRight #Conservative -
How Would An Anarcho-capitalist System Prevent A Monopoly Of Power? Is It A Concern In The First Place?
Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is every possibly sovereign. So a person with property begs for liberty with is property by permission the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust total prohibition on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form.
Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds and thieves.
https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-system-prevent-a-monopoly-of-power-Is-it-a-concern-in-the-first-place
-
How Would An Anarcho-capitalist System Prevent A Monopoly Of Power? Is It A Concern In The First Place?
Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is every possibly sovereign. So a person with property begs for liberty with is property by permission the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust total prohibition on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form.
Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds and thieves.
https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-system-prevent-a-monopoly-of-power-Is-it-a-concern-in-the-first-place
-
(in response to a request for technology review)(from elsewhere) My particular a
(in response to a request for technology review)(from elsewhere) My particular audience expects me to write about (a) artificial intelligence (b) the future of programming languages (c) digital currency and shares, (d) organizational management, and (e) the software development consulting business. They are a very high level audience, and would find it ‘odd’ or ‘disingenuous’ if I was to review and share what they would consider ‘basic’ or ‘entry level’ information. So it’s not in either of our interests. Good luck in your efforts. -
(in response to a request for technology review)(from elsewhere) My particular a
(in response to a request for technology review)(from elsewhere) My particular audience expects me to write about (a) artificial intelligence (b) the future of programming languages (c) digital currency and shares, (d) organizational management, and (e) the software development consulting business. They are a very high level audience, and would find it ‘odd’ or ‘disingenuous’ if I was to review and share what they would consider ‘basic’ or ‘entry level’ information. So it’s not in either of our interests. Good luck in your efforts. -
Speech is a low bar for ‘human’
Speech is a low bar for ‘human’. -
Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.
I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public? -
Speech is a low bar for ‘human’
Speech is a low bar for ‘human’.