https://propertarianism.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/is-bigamy-a-hangable-offense/Conspiracy to circumvent a public normative contract is not a hangable offense, but it is certainly cause to invoke voluntary disassociation and your removal from the polity.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 02:04:00 UTC
Aug 24, 2016 11:35am The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.
Aug 24, 2016 11:35am The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.
Aug 24, 2016 12:11pm BOURGEOISE? NO – LOGISTICS OF WAR I get accused of bourgeoise values all the time, and I always think it’s childish, or ignorant. Generals conduct strategy and that means logistics. The last mile, for today, may depend on the character of men. But all the miles behind them, and all the yesterdays and tomorrows depend upon the logistics: production and supply lines. A dangerous, happy, well-fed soldiery capable of defeating an enemy is equipped and supported by a happy, produdtive, well fed, population competitively defeating in economics and intellectual means their competitors, just as the soldiers their competitors. I tend to think of ‘last-mile-ers’ as children: well-intentioned, passionate, but ignorant and naive. My own values are classical, intellectual, and perhaps a bit effete. I do not seek to win the great wars by my values. Nor by the elation of the throng. But by cool headed plans and execution of them, with discipline over many years.
Aug 24, 2016 12:11pm BOURGEOISE? NO – LOGISTICS OF WAR I get accused of bourgeoise values all the time, and I always think it’s childish, or ignorant. Generals conduct strategy and that means logistics. The last mile, for today, may depend on the character of men. But all the miles behind them, and all the yesterdays and tomorrows depend upon the logistics: production and supply lines. A dangerous, happy, well-fed soldiery capable of defeating an enemy is equipped and supported by a happy, produdtive, well fed, population competitively defeating in economics and intellectual means their competitors, just as the soldiers their competitors. I tend to think of ‘last-mile-ers’ as children: well-intentioned, passionate, but ignorant and naive. My own values are classical, intellectual, and perhaps a bit effete. I do not seek to win the great wars by my values. Nor by the elation of the throng. But by cool headed plans and execution of them, with discipline over many years.
As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs. But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us. As far as I know we can kill Soros.
As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs. But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us. As far as I know we can kill Soros.
Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.
Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.