WHAT I’M SAYING ISN’T THAT COMPLICATED. IT”S THE OPERATIONALIZATION, ADVOCACY, AND DEFENSE OF IT THAT’S COMPLICATED. Michael Churchill Curt you’ve argued that you want the US to have multiple legal frameworks via devolution of power from the national to the state level. Isn’t that a sort of acceptance of different strokes for different folks? Curt Doolittle Different production of commons. one legal (truthful) law. But yes. Hey. I’m a libertarian. do what you fucking want. Just let me live with my people as I want. Michael Churchill Okay that’s what I thought you’d say. Makes sense. Think i fully understand the core thesis of Propertarianism now. (Also thanks for that elevator pitch description of it a bit earlier.) Curt Doolittle I”m sayin’ just this: Restore the monarchies, rule of law, multi-house government, and the militia, but with strictly constructed natural law that is as inviolable as mathematics. The whole ‘trick’ is in that law. It’s that law I spent all the time on.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Reciprocity just makes it preferable to cooperate rather than engage in predation.
t’s not that Reciprocity is good for all of us – even though it is. It’s just that it’s the only condition under which it’s not more profitable, preferable, logical to kill you, take you things, and enslave your women and children. Personally, I kind of prefer the whole kill, take, and enslave thing, but for the good of the women among my kin, I realize they will be happier in a complex, prosperous, cooperative society.
-
Reciprocity just makes it preferable to cooperate rather than engage in predation.
t’s not that Reciprocity is good for all of us – even though it is. It’s just that it’s the only condition under which it’s not more profitable, preferable, logical to kill you, take you things, and enslave your women and children. Personally, I kind of prefer the whole kill, take, and enslave thing, but for the good of the women among my kin, I realize they will be happier in a complex, prosperous, cooperative society.
-
The Grand Sequence
THE GRAND SEQUENCE Oath, Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, Beauty OATH: THE FULLY ARTICULATED OATH I shall not lie, cheat, steal, cause others to bear unwanted cost, or the commons to suffer loss, nor shall I tolerate those who do, nor leave them unpunished by censure, restitution, imprisonment, banishment, or death. TRUTH: TESTIMONY Identity (Categorically consistent) Internally (Logically) consistent Externally Correspondent (Empirically Consistent) Existentially Possible Parsimonious (fully accounted, parsimonious, limits) Moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfers) Beautiful (craft, aesthetic, moral, resources) SOCIAL SCIENCE: Physical Law Natural Law, Family, Market for Commons, Regional Nobility, Monarchy, Nationalism. — GERMAN SUCCESS AND ANGLO FAILURE German success is reducible to the oath under nationalism. Anglo failure to the abandonment of the oath for market universalism: greed.
-
The Grand Sequence
THE GRAND SEQUENCE Oath, Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, Beauty OATH: THE FULLY ARTICULATED OATH I shall not lie, cheat, steal, cause others to bear unwanted cost, or the commons to suffer loss, nor shall I tolerate those who do, nor leave them unpunished by censure, restitution, imprisonment, banishment, or death. TRUTH: TESTIMONY Identity (Categorically consistent) Internally (Logically) consistent Externally Correspondent (Empirically Consistent) Existentially Possible Parsimonious (fully accounted, parsimonious, limits) Moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfers) Beautiful (craft, aesthetic, moral, resources) SOCIAL SCIENCE: Physical Law Natural Law, Family, Market for Commons, Regional Nobility, Monarchy, Nationalism. — GERMAN SUCCESS AND ANGLO FAILURE German success is reducible to the oath under nationalism. Anglo failure to the abandonment of the oath for market universalism: greed.
-
Because I Don’t Trust You
THINK ABOUT THIS SERIES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you?
-
Because I Don’t Trust You
THINK ABOUT THIS SERIES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you?
-
You Cannot Trust What You Cannot Measure – That’s not Trust, but Faith
Apr 17, 2017 12:29pm You cannot trust what you cannot measure. If you cannot measure it you are acting not on trust but on faith. And faith is not a way to govern, but a way to hide the extraction of rents before the opportunity is lost.
-
You Cannot Trust What You Cannot Measure – That’s not Trust, but Faith
Apr 17, 2017 12:29pm You cannot trust what you cannot measure. If you cannot measure it you are acting not on trust but on faith. And faith is not a way to govern, but a way to hide the extraction of rents before the opportunity is lost.
-
Becker’s Use of Marginalism in Violence and Revolution
BECKER’S USE OF MARGINALISM IN VIOLENCE AND REVOLUTION (predatory gains are linear, losses to prey are exponential) —“…a simple calculation that predatory interest groups and their taxpaying victims make: what return on my investment can I get by lobbying government? Becker’s insight is that the gains to predators are linear, but the losses to prey are exponential, thereby stiffening the resistance of victims as the aggression of predators plods on without similarly increased vigor. Think of a gang of robbers taking half the crop from peasants. They then return for the second half. The gain to the gang of the second half cut is the same as in their first extortion. Yet for peasants to lose the last half of their crops means possible starvation and the certain loss of seed corn. They can be expected to resist violently…”— Violence is always extant. This of course, is why the government’s search for pareto optimums, and biology and the market’s search for nash equilibriums are so different, and why Pareto optimums are so dangerous: the state produces ‘trigger events’ by some linear increase that produces a revolution: the exponential cost is too high and war or revolution is preferable to on more incremental predation.