I advocate a world that ostracizes, punishes, or kills those who behave parasitically on the production of others, whether produced by private, kin, or common, and whether life, physical, institutional, normative, or informational.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Paganism Is, Like Natural Law, Simple
PAGANISM There is very little to understand about nature worship. There is very little to understand about ancestor worship. There is very little to understand about hero worship. These are exercises in sacredness: non consumption and ritual demonstration of reciprocity (gifts, observances) Evil religions emerged when we adopted corporatism instead of kinship and nationalism. And we did that in only because of war, conquest, and empire. Yet all our advancements seem to occur in the periods BETWEEN empires. The corporate empire is evil, the kinship nation sacred. Empires violate natural law unless all they impose is natural law: nationhood.
-
Paganism Is, Like Natural Law, Simple
PAGANISM There is very little to understand about nature worship. There is very little to understand about ancestor worship. There is very little to understand about hero worship. These are exercises in sacredness: non consumption and ritual demonstration of reciprocity (gifts, observances) Evil religions emerged when we adopted corporatism instead of kinship and nationalism. And we did that in only because of war, conquest, and empire. Yet all our advancements seem to occur in the periods BETWEEN empires. The corporate empire is evil, the kinship nation sacred. Empires violate natural law unless all they impose is natural law: nationhood.
-
The Diseconomies of Scale
—“At what point do diseconomies of organizational scale kick in or is this a flawed frame?”—Lee Tucker That is the entire question as far as I am concerned. If we take an empirical look, the scale increases with available information systems, and the homogeneity of the population. But in simple terms, a city = a market, and a market must serve a demographic and a demographic must exploit a niche in the regional or world market. So as far as I can tell there is some ratio between population, density, iq, and homogeneity, institutiona means of distributing/collecting information necessary for decidablity, and relative productivity (purchasing power) that should tell us the optimum size. the value of scale kicked in with gunpowder and the high cost of total war. (napoleon). HOwever, with nuclear weapons, that value disappears, so as far as I can tell, 5-10M, and that is up from what looks like 2-3M in the last century, simply because of the complexity of goods and services produced, and longer lifetimes (in other words more people does not translate to more people productiely employe) . So population can increase without affecting the systems of production. Conversely, lets look at competition: a bigger city with more assets can endure shocks over longer periods of economic reorganization, by spending down those assets.
-
The Diseconomies of Scale
—“At what point do diseconomies of organizational scale kick in or is this a flawed frame?”—Lee Tucker That is the entire question as far as I am concerned. If we take an empirical look, the scale increases with available information systems, and the homogeneity of the population. But in simple terms, a city = a market, and a market must serve a demographic and a demographic must exploit a niche in the regional or world market. So as far as I can tell there is some ratio between population, density, iq, and homogeneity, institutiona means of distributing/collecting information necessary for decidablity, and relative productivity (purchasing power) that should tell us the optimum size. the value of scale kicked in with gunpowder and the high cost of total war. (napoleon). HOwever, with nuclear weapons, that value disappears, so as far as I can tell, 5-10M, and that is up from what looks like 2-3M in the last century, simply because of the complexity of goods and services produced, and longer lifetimes (in other words more people does not translate to more people productiely employe) . So population can increase without affecting the systems of production. Conversely, lets look at competition: a bigger city with more assets can endure shocks over longer periods of economic reorganization, by spending down those assets.
-
Q. What is Propertarianism? In A Word: Reciprocity.
Apr 15, 2017 4:32pm Q: “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” What is Propertarianism? A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law. What is Natural Law? A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics. What do you mean by ethics? The law of cooperation and conflict resolution. What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?Reciprocity. WHAT IS RECIPROCITY? In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality. —“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. WHERE IS THE NAME PROPERTARIANISM FROM? Why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism? We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation. Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Q. What is Propertarianism? In A Word: Reciprocity.
Apr 15, 2017 4:32pm Q: “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” What is Propertarianism? A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law. What is Natural Law? A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics. What do you mean by ethics? The law of cooperation and conflict resolution. What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?Reciprocity. WHAT IS RECIPROCITY? In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality. —“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. WHERE IS THE NAME PROPERTARIANISM FROM? Why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism? We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation. Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Um. Grow Up. We Want The Warlords To Rule. The Entire Militia of Them. 😉
But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? mises.org GROW UP – WE **WANT** WARLORD RULE – THE MILITIA https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Warlords MUST take over. That’s the whole point. The question is only their number. A militia of warlords constitutes a distributed dictatorship under which only markets governed by natural law are possible. Anarchism? A lot of optimistic bullshit. Go live in Ukraine. in Belarus. In Russia (at least outside of moscow or st Petersburg.) Ukraine (the borderland) is where Jewish separatism of Rothbard was envisioned, under the protection of lithuanian, or polish, or russian empires, allowed financial and commercial gangsterism, while prohibiting physical retaliation. It was a system of organized predation upon the people just as today’s financialism consists of organized predation upon the people while preventing juridical defense from it, and physical retaliation against it. And that’s Ukraine today. The pretense of order. But 40+ Gangsters (warlords) we call Oligarchs (Private Property Rulership) with enough money and arms to (a) stack and buy the courts, (b) stack and buy the government, who have their own militaries, and who cannot be displaced, because they can too easily turn the rest of ukraine into a civil war zone like the east, leaving the only option Russian invasion and enforced order – which was exactly the plan all along. The reason ukraine is weak, is that it has no militia. Period. Rothbardianism consists of nothing but optimistic juvenile platitudes sold to reproductively, socially, economically uncompetitive males, as a wishful separatist movement, so that they might beg not to contribute to a commons that makes the market order possible, and instead, may parasitically exploit it without contribution. ie: separatism. Rothbardian ghetto ethics of intersubjectively verifiable property There is only one source of liberty: the organized use of violence to obtain, hold, and advance territory, resources, population, institutions, and capital – by a militia of sufficient scale that they cannot be opposed by any cost effective means, or by any concentration of power. How is that possible: only under genetic, cultural, and institutional homogeneity. PERIOD. How do you create liberty (permission)? As a byproduct of creating sovereignty in fact. How do you create sovereignty in fact? By organizing a corporation (franchise) of warriors – all of whom obtain a share (dividend) from the market produced by their distributed dictatorship of individual rule. But those warriors must be kin or to prevent organization by other than kin selection. A genetically and culturally homogenous population in the ruling class – the militia – must exist for liberty to exist. Sorry. Thats western history in a nutshell. Rothbard was just a commons marxist (Free Rider) just like Marx was a private property free rider. Just as the Neocons are a political market free riders. Monarchy and nobility (aristocracy) didn’t oppress. They domesticated the animal man. And clearly failed to domesticate the borderlands – where parasitic separatists allied with the state to prey upon the people, while preventing their retaliation against them. So grow up. Libertarianism is for boys. Men fight. they take. They rule. They profit from rule. They profit from rule by the incremental suppression of every means of profit possible other than productive, fully informed warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality in the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services, and information, and production of commons, institutions, and political orders. Men fight. Boys beg from mommy and daddy authority of whatever scale they must. Men are sovereign in fact. Boys have a little pretense of liberty by permission. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON
-
Um. Grow Up. We Want The Warlords To Rule. The Entire Militia of Them. 😉
But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? mises.org GROW UP – WE **WANT** WARLORD RULE – THE MILITIA https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Warlords MUST take over. That’s the whole point. The question is only their number. A militia of warlords constitutes a distributed dictatorship under which only markets governed by natural law are possible. Anarchism? A lot of optimistic bullshit. Go live in Ukraine. in Belarus. In Russia (at least outside of moscow or st Petersburg.) Ukraine (the borderland) is where Jewish separatism of Rothbard was envisioned, under the protection of lithuanian, or polish, or russian empires, allowed financial and commercial gangsterism, while prohibiting physical retaliation. It was a system of organized predation upon the people just as today’s financialism consists of organized predation upon the people while preventing juridical defense from it, and physical retaliation against it. And that’s Ukraine today. The pretense of order. But 40+ Gangsters (warlords) we call Oligarchs (Private Property Rulership) with enough money and arms to (a) stack and buy the courts, (b) stack and buy the government, who have their own militaries, and who cannot be displaced, because they can too easily turn the rest of ukraine into a civil war zone like the east, leaving the only option Russian invasion and enforced order – which was exactly the plan all along. The reason ukraine is weak, is that it has no militia. Period. Rothbardianism consists of nothing but optimistic juvenile platitudes sold to reproductively, socially, economically uncompetitive males, as a wishful separatist movement, so that they might beg not to contribute to a commons that makes the market order possible, and instead, may parasitically exploit it without contribution. ie: separatism. Rothbardian ghetto ethics of intersubjectively verifiable property There is only one source of liberty: the organized use of violence to obtain, hold, and advance territory, resources, population, institutions, and capital – by a militia of sufficient scale that they cannot be opposed by any cost effective means, or by any concentration of power. How is that possible: only under genetic, cultural, and institutional homogeneity. PERIOD. How do you create liberty (permission)? As a byproduct of creating sovereignty in fact. How do you create sovereignty in fact? By organizing a corporation (franchise) of warriors – all of whom obtain a share (dividend) from the market produced by their distributed dictatorship of individual rule. But those warriors must be kin or to prevent organization by other than kin selection. A genetically and culturally homogenous population in the ruling class – the militia – must exist for liberty to exist. Sorry. Thats western history in a nutshell. Rothbard was just a commons marxist (Free Rider) just like Marx was a private property free rider. Just as the Neocons are a political market free riders. Monarchy and nobility (aristocracy) didn’t oppress. They domesticated the animal man. And clearly failed to domesticate the borderlands – where parasitic separatists allied with the state to prey upon the people, while preventing their retaliation against them. So grow up. Libertarianism is for boys. Men fight. they take. They rule. They profit from rule. They profit from rule by the incremental suppression of every means of profit possible other than productive, fully informed warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality in the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services, and information, and production of commons, institutions, and political orders. Men fight. Boys beg from mommy and daddy authority of whatever scale they must. Men are sovereign in fact. Boys have a little pretense of liberty by permission. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON
-
It All Begins With A Militia
SOVEREIGNTY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM: IT STARTS WITH THE MILITIA **Rule of Law, by Natural Law, with Universal Standing, and Universal Applicability: A contractual corporation consisting of a distributed dictatorship of sovereign militia (men). ** A constitution of natural law creating a distributed private government, each member with one share ownership, purchasable by reciprocal insurance of all other members. With an independent judiciary, and and a hereditary monarchy providing a judge of last resort. Under such a corporation, under such a form of management, under such a contract, we have only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality, in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production private of goods, services, and information, commons of goods, services, and information, and the production of polities themselves, ad the means by which to cooperate. Government without discretion. Rule of Law between men, not over men. ( I have to substitute ‘militia’ for men, or the entire chain of reasoning is lost. )