—“So I guess my real question is this: do you draw a distinction between justly acquired property and unjustly acquired property? If not, aren’t you just making a convoluted defense of the “might makes right” argument?”— NATHANIEL I’m going to try to answer two questions. (a) might-makes-right (b) justly acquired property (a) might does not make right, but one cannot make right without might. What makes right is voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation requires non-imposition of costs against that which one has acquired without the imposition of costs. (b) we impose no costs when we acquire property by discovery(homesteading), transformation, or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same constraint upon the imposition of costs. (c) What separates high trust propertarianism from low trust libertarianism, is the scope of property is not artificial in Propertarianism. It’s what’s necessary for a voluntary polity to form and persist. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
Source: Original Site Post
-
Demarcation between Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Male Insurance) and Pathological Altruism (Female Insurance)
Curt Doolittle I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding respect for property in exchange for the franchise of Liberty. David Mondrus “aristocratic egalitarianism” vs “pathological altruism”. The demand of respect for property in exchange for liberty is the difference. Curt Doolittle Let me think about that because it is insightful. Hmmm. Is that the origin? Yes? Damn. Yes. David Mondrus The altruism demands nothing in return. It supplicates to the needy saying in essence “love us, we’ll give you whatever you want”. The ultimate female strategy. Curt Doolittle Yes. And now you’ve synthesized the female by free-riding upon the male. Nice. David Mondrus But that is in essence female. Free riding males is their survival strategy. After all, rape is better than death, esp if it’s couched in socially acceptable terms like “stealing the bride” (the “-stans” now), or dowry (selling the bride) India.
-
Demarcation between Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Male Insurance) and Pathological Altruism (Female Insurance)
Curt Doolittle I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding respect for property in exchange for the franchise of Liberty. David Mondrus “aristocratic egalitarianism” vs “pathological altruism”. The demand of respect for property in exchange for liberty is the difference. Curt Doolittle Let me think about that because it is insightful. Hmmm. Is that the origin? Yes? Damn. Yes. David Mondrus The altruism demands nothing in return. It supplicates to the needy saying in essence “love us, we’ll give you whatever you want”. The ultimate female strategy. Curt Doolittle Yes. And now you’ve synthesized the female by free-riding upon the male. Nice. David Mondrus But that is in essence female. Free riding males is their survival strategy. After all, rape is better than death, esp if it’s couched in socially acceptable terms like “stealing the bride” (the “-stans” now), or dowry (selling the bride) India.
-
The Competition Between Truth And Lies
EUGENIC (truth) vs DYSGENIC (lies) Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?) -
The Competition Between Truth And Lies
EUGENIC (truth) vs DYSGENIC (lies) Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?) -
Ok. So yes. There are a few philosophers I’d recommend.
OK. SO PHILOSOPHERS? THERE ARE SOME. Aristotle (almost-science)(structure of philosophy) Bacon (empiricism) Locke (property as unit of commensurability) Smith(econimics) Hume (epistemology) Jefferson(constitutional construction), Darwin(evolutionary processes), Durkheim(sociology), Haidt (social psychology) Pareto(economic sociology), Spencer (operationalism), Hayek(law is our social science) and Nietzsche(aesthetics) These men create a pretty good corpus. But they didn’t solve the problem of truth, and didn’t unite science philosophy law morality and politics (social science). And except for Hayek did not grasp that empirical, discovered, non-conflated, common law was the origin of our civilization’s achievements.
-
Ok. So yes. There are a few philosophers I’d recommend.
OK. SO PHILOSOPHERS? THERE ARE SOME. Aristotle (almost-science)(structure of philosophy) Bacon (empiricism) Locke (property as unit of commensurability) Smith(econimics) Hume (epistemology) Jefferson(constitutional construction), Darwin(evolutionary processes), Durkheim(sociology), Haidt (social psychology) Pareto(economic sociology), Spencer (operationalism), Hayek(law is our social science) and Nietzsche(aesthetics) These men create a pretty good corpus. But they didn’t solve the problem of truth, and didn’t unite science philosophy law morality and politics (social science). And except for Hayek did not grasp that empirical, discovered, non-conflated, common law was the origin of our civilization’s achievements.
-
Every Tribe Can Transcend Under Aristocracy
( reminder. I don’t do racism. I do truth and activism. What are you gonna do? I don’t care what others do that defeats you. What are you going to do so that you aren’t defeated? )
-
Every Tribe Can Transcend Under Aristocracy
( reminder. I don’t do racism. I do truth and activism. What are you gonna do? I don’t care what others do that defeats you. What are you going to do so that you aren’t defeated? )
-
Asking A Different Question: How Do We Scale Our Ability To Reason?
Sep 17, 2016 1:43pm So here is the central issue:
++Voluntary exchange++ vs –Decidability by law– ++Positive epistemology++ vs –negative epistemology– So rather than reason how we might do something as individual thinkers I ask HOW CAN WE CALCULATE SOMETHING by voluntary exchanges within the constraints of natural law. In other words, how do we scale the ability to reason?