PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ARGUMENTATION ETHICS
The difference between Anglo Propertarian Ethics and Marxist Argumentation Ethics is the difference between the threat of killing you for fraud, and the nicety of non-contradiction before a third party.
Aristocratic Sovereign Strength: Propertarianism : deeds
Weak Middle Class Begging for Liberty: Argumentation : words.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 07:59:00 UTC
—“Suppression of local war by global intervention is the surest way to sustain hostilities. Just shy of boiling over but never solved. Because war and local politics are natural, but globalism and superpower are superhuman in scale.” — Steve Lacasse
Excellent
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-10 07:41:00 UTC
There is no alternative to the use of violence to secure dominion over territory, resources, trade routes, laws and institutions. The incentive to exit is not high enough to compensate for the incentives to bear costs in high investment commons communities. period.
Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Prosperity(consumption) are the product of the organized use of violence to obtain, hold, and construct a sovereign order in competition with nonsovereign orders.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-09 21:53:00 UTC
He who can kill people and destroy things controls people and controls things. He merely chooses to exercise control or not exercise control.
We must merely choose to control.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-09 20:13:00 UTC
War isn’t an extension of politics. War is the natural state of man. Politics is a means by which we limit it.
Whence politics evolves into a natural state, resistance, rebellion and war are the means by which we limit it.
War and Politics equilibrate one another.
(h/t Erich Maria de Villiers )
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-08 05:54:00 UTC
Clausewitz had it backward. War isn’t an extension of politics. War is the natural state of man. Politics is a means by which we limit it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-08 01:09:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784561326588919809
Clausewitz had it backward. War isn’t an extension of politics. War is the natural state of man. Politics is a means by which we limit it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-07 21:09:00 UTC
Whenever gain takes precedence over imposition of costs Whenever profit takes precedence over commons. Whenever financial markets take precedence over culture. Whenever law takes precedence over family. Whenever government takes precedence over industry. Whenever state takes precedence over tribe. Whenever empire takes precedence over nation.
Whenever gain takes precedence over imposition of costs Whenever profit takes precedence over commons. Whenever financial markets take precedence over culture. Whenever law takes precedence over family. Whenever government takes precedence over industry. Whenever state takes precedence over tribe. Whenever empire takes precedence over nation.
Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives. Why? Because of loss aversion. Given that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them. The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two-dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.