ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives. 2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers). 3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer. 4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof. 5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity. This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise. As Eli Says: —“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”– In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict). The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost. Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument. Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories. in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking. The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced. Thus Endeth The Lesson. Apr 23, 2018 11:43am
Theme: Coercion
-
The Impossibility of Anarchy
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
-
The Impossibility of Anarchy
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
-
GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let
GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE
What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let you live, (b) keep your things (c) let you remain free of slavery (d) Let you keep a portion of your production?
It’s the inverse of the Crusoe’s Island thought experiment.
Historically, the model that we evolved with, is an evenly distributed but scarce population preying on one another to obtain territory, women, and goods.
How do you develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the historical (existential) rather than pessimistic (Kahn) or optimistic (Crusoe) models?
Genghis Khan <———- Steppe ———> Crusoe
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:43:00 UTC
-
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY
1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and
2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and;
3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons.
4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.
In other words:
You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it.
Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.
We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse.
And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 11:47:00 UTC
-
ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN any
ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON
1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives.
2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers).
3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer.
4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof.
5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity.
This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise.
As Eli Says:
—“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”–
In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).
The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost.
Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument.
Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.
In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.
As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories.
in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking.
The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced.
Thus Endeth The Lesson.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 11:43:00 UTC
-
Power Exists, Not Rights. Rights Must Be Exchanged And Enforced With Power.
THERE EXIST NO RIGHTS Rights do not exist between peoples. Power exists. Rights are exchanged between kin for the purpose of cooperation in the pursuit of wealth and power. Everything else is just religious wishful thinking – the kind of thinking that makes people poor.
-
Power Exists, Not Rights. Rights Must Be Exchanged And Enforced With Power.
THERE EXIST NO RIGHTS Rights do not exist between peoples. Power exists. Rights are exchanged between kin for the purpose of cooperation in the pursuit of wealth and power. Everything else is just religious wishful thinking – the kind of thinking that makes people poor.
-
THREE MEANS OF COERCION 1 – Violence(established male, conservative) competition
THREE MEANS OF COERCION
1 – Violence(established male, conservative) competition of the group (of brothers). Conserve Capital.
2 – Remuneration (ascendant male/libertarian) Produce Capital.
3 – Gossip (female, socialist) competition of her offspring. Consume Capital.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-21 14:49:00 UTC
-
There is Only One Natural Law
There is only one natural law, and that is reciprocity. That law is empirically evolving at all times in that branch of law we call tort. That tort law evolves by incremental suppression of parasitism by new discoveries of ir-reciprocity that violate the one law of reciprocity. The principle problem in tort history is the failure to define property as property-in-toto, and this problem has been caused by the Ruler’s interest in preventing defectors as well as defeaters, while at the same time collecting fees for doing so. Like regulating an economy via money supply, we have a very hard time finding a measurement that provides us with decidability that produces no even worse externalities. The answer in both cases is markets, rule of law, and universal standing in matters of the commons, such that the governor is not necessary as other than a judge of last resort. The west invented rule without government for the same reason we invented law without discretion: the consequence of a voluntary militia of equal sovereigns is the only decidability that is possible is tort (reciprocity).