[T]he only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism. We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence. a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism. Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization. Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile. It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty. Or lose it forever.
Theme: Coercion
-
The only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny. They only means
The only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny. They only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism.
We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence.
a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism.
Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization.
Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile.
It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty.
or lose it forever.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 04:58:00 UTC
-
BUT IMPALING IS MORE EFFICIENT Pretty good technique, for small numbers. But, I’
http://vidmax.com/video/107779–GRAPHIC-Ukranian-anti-seperatists-crucify-a-Russian-then-lit-the-cross-on-fire-GOOD. BUT IMPALING IS MORE EFFICIENT
Pretty good technique, for small numbers. But, I’ll go with impaling for large numbers. Crosses require two pieces of wood after all.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-27 12:59:00 UTC
-
(worth repeating) Ukraine does not need a big mechanized military, but universal
(worth repeating)
Ukraine does not need a big mechanized military, but universal training on the swiss model; near universal small arms; to fill the armories with RPGs, and to focus on training soldiers with mobile artillery, including air defense, and to keep the army limited to very good special forces that rotate training of the civilians. If ukraine has this and six nuclear weapons they will be a free people. Russia is a one-city country. The centrality is its weakness. Nuclear arms guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty. special forces and a militia (which ukrainians are culturally disposed to anyway) will make occupation of the country literally impossible.
The central point being that large mechanized infantry is not necessary for the defense of ukraine. Large vehicles and concentrated forces are just targets.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 10:00:00 UTC
-
THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE (north sea libertarian liberty) The only
THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE
(north sea libertarian liberty)
The only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.
The state provides just these services:
…1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
…2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
…3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
…4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.
The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
…1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
…2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
…3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.
A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.
Fukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.
The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.
As advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
…1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
…2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
…3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
…4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
…5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
…6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law.
…7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.
The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.
Insurance of one another and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
www.propertarianism.com
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 06:31:00 UTC
-
LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRA
http://c4ss.org/content/37046ROD LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRATIONAL, AND AN IMMORAL JUSTIFICATION OF PARASITISM
The argument against the NAP is that it is irrational for one to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect property rights – which themselves are the terms of cooperation – unless the suppression of aggression against one includes the total prohibition of aggression against all that I have paid for with non-aggressive actions.
NAP, under intersubjectively verifiable property preserves all forms of deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking while prohibiting retaliation for deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking. And it is non-rational to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect for property of *any* kind, while deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking (in fact, all acts of aggression against that which one has non-aggressively acted to obtain) are not prohibited by the agreement to cooperate.
Why this entirely irrational Rothbardian justification we call the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property (physical things) has survived is almost inconceivable until we recognize loading, framing, overloading, suggestion and cognitive biases plague both our arguments and our evaluation of them. And the fact that the argument itself persists, despite its irrationality, is in itself evidence of the necessity of prohibiting aggression through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion.
For anarchic property rights to come into existence they can only exist as a mutual prohibition on aggression against all one has obtained through non-aggression.
The American people have staked an electoral signage at every election booth: “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”
Liberty always has been, and only can be, the result of a total prohibition on aggression against all that one has obtained without aggression, the requirement for truthful speech, a requirement for warranty of one’s speech, and the requirement that we profit only from contribution to productivity.
These are the minimum criterion under which cooperation is rational and the common organic, polycentric law is sufficient in scope to provide a means for the resolution of differences that demand for the state is eliminated.
As far as I know this is the end of the argument and Rothbardian ethics, and the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property is a closed issue left open only as a desperate appeal by those with no new solution to the problem of the practical achievement of liberty.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 03:37:00 UTC
-
THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS DETERMINES THOSE THAT FOLLOW I tend to turn liberta
THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS DETERMINES THOSE THAT FOLLOW
I tend to turn libertarianism on its ear: The first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.
The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed instead as the default starting point.
Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not killing you is advantageous.
Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.
Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin.
So a political order is only preferable if not individually, familially or tribally destructive.
But this is why Hoppe is wrong. Argumentation is a legal question, not one of incentives. It presumes cooperation, rather than illustrating that cooperation is a compromise between the weak and the strong. Cooperation is unequally beneficial. For the weak, a gain; for the cunning, a loss of deceit; and for the strong a barrier requiring sufficient boon to be overcome.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 06:26:00 UTC
-
ITS MURDER. ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN
ITS MURDER. ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN ACT OF MURDER.
If you take action to end a life, regardless of what stage, you end a life. That is all there is to it. There isn’t anything else do debate. The debate is only whether we hold people accountable for ending lives.
I have no problem with murder. I just call it murder. Whether we punish murderers or not is a choice. But the choice to punish murderers has no factual impact on whether one committed an action to end a life, regardless of whether it’s an embryonic life, or a centenarian in a coma on life support. If you act, you change state, and if you change state by your actions, you are the cause of the consequences.
I am OK with murder. I am ok with abortion-murder. I am ok with all murder really. We don’t do enough murdering as far as I can tell. Murder is underrated. Murder often produces goods. Murder quite often can produce exceptional goods. I can think of lots of good that can be done with murder.
But that’s different from feminist deceit. Feminist deceit is just a means of stealing. Because that’s the central proposition of feminism, just as the central proposition of socialism, and the central proposition of postmodernism: theft.
So, abortion is murder. You want to murder your fetus so that you aren’t responsible for paying for it in time, care, money and opportunity. I want to murder adults so that I don’t have to pay for them. I probably want to murder you so that I don’t have do pay for you. The world would probably be better if all parasites were murdered. So it’s murder. And let’s not lie and say it isn’t murder. It’s just murder. It’s plain and simple. Murder.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 16:22:00 UTC
-
REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT. The non-aggress
REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT.
The non-aggression principle is a fallacious distraction specifically developed in order to permit deceit. True, one must not aggress, but that statement is meaningless without stating what it is we fail to aggress against.
Under the NAP, as advocated by both Rothbard and Hoppe, and perpetuated by Block, the test of aggression is merely intersubjectively verifiable property. Under this fallacy, they argue that man SHOULD not retaliate, and must not retaliate, or he will be brought to court for his retaliation.
But this test permits parasitism, and as Block advocates, even blackmail. And man retaliates against blackmail. We cannot explain away that man retaliates against blackmail. It is praxeologically irrational that man not retaliate against blackmail.
The common law provides a means for preventing retaliation – and in large part that was solution that provided its origin: *to preserve cooperation by providing a means of retaliation, without the necessity of appeal to authority.*
The test of demand for authority is that we must not aggress against anything that humans will retaliate against. And humans will retaliate against property-en-toto, not merely intersubjectively verifiable property.
Rothbard attempted to preserve Levantine immorality. He attempted to preserve the opportunity to deceive. He attempted to preserve the ability to profit from unproductive activity. Rothbard attempted to preserve evasion of payment for the commons. Rothbard attempted to prohibit the construction of commons. Yet western high trust – the source of our universal economic advantage, the source of our science and reason, the source of rule by law and jury, is entirely dependent upon our ability to construct normative and material commons by prohibiting all human action that is parasitic, and even that which is unproductive.
Conversely, without truth-telling, the common law, the jury, the normative commons, and total prohibition on the imposition of costs, wherein all possible disputes can be resolved under the law, without an authority, then, in such a condition, demand for the authoritarian state increases with the degree of those impositions that are not satisfied by law. As such, Levantine morality (immorality), de facto, praxeologically, without exception, increases demand for the state. Ergo, NAP is a source of demand for the state, not one of elimination of it. And we see this wherever Levantine low trust ethics are practiced.
When you use the term NAP, you are invoking primitive, Levantine immorality. Instead, if you wish liberty, we must not impose costs upon one another. And our law must prohibit the imposition of costs upon one another. This eliminates demand for the state.
Only by eliminating demand for the state, can we diminish it.
The fallacious counter argument is that competition itself imposes costs upon others. But it imposes opportunity costs only. And without those opportunity costs, we cannot construct the voluntary organization of production that we unfortunately refer to as “capitalism”.
So abandon the fallacy of non-aggression as one of the formal, logical, and moral reasons for the failure of libertarianism since Rothbard seized control of it from westerners, by the same means employed by the Marxists, socialists, postmodernists and neocons: mere saturation of the subject with repeated fallacies: loading, framing and overloading.
Speak the truth. Impose no cost. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil. To do otherwise is to attempt to use deceit to purchase liberty at a discount, rather than to construct it by bearing the cost of doing so.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 12:47:00 UTC
-
MALINCENTIVES IN POLICE WORK Stop and Frisk doesn’t bother me. Drunk Driving Sto
MALINCENTIVES IN POLICE WORK
Stop and Frisk doesn’t bother me. Drunk Driving Stops don’t bother me. Answering questions doesn’t bother me.
Rent seeking, parasitism, confiscation, ignorance of the law, and physical violence bother me.
Malincenives bother me. And they should bother everyone. People follow incentives. You cannot ask someone in any capacity not to follow incentives.
It’s unscientific. It’s immoral. And honestly, it’s idealistic, ignorant and stupid.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 05:23:00 UTC