Theme: Coercion

  • Boiling The Revolutionary Frog

    [C]ontrary to popular imagination, the frog does eventually realize that the water is boiling. Apparently, like the frog, humans eventually realize that their tax, regulatory, and legal policy are killing them. But only when its too late. Our civilization is about to boil. And I’m going to add salt to the water. http://english.caixin.com/2014-04-22/100669023.html

  • Untitled

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-cost-of-crimes-in-us.html?m=1


    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-06 06:09:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM VS THE CENTRAL LIBERTARIAN FALLACIES (worth repeatin

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM VS THE CENTRAL LIBERTARIAN FALLACIES

    (worth repeating)

    –Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a replacement for the fallacy of immaculate conception we call natural law. And High trust society is a replacement for the fallacy of aggression as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of a state. Propertarianism is the explanation why.—


    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-04 14:56:00 UTC

  • POWER ISN’T GOOD OR BAD, ITS WHETHER ITS DEFENSIVE OR OFFENSIVELY EMPLOYED. I wa

    POWER ISN’T GOOD OR BAD, ITS WHETHER ITS DEFENSIVE OR OFFENSIVELY EMPLOYED.

    I was very cognizant of power at a very young age. Probably because of a chaotic home life. So while I prefer peace, contemplation and beneficial competition, I don’t have the mind of an equalitarian, because I don’t like submission, begging or pleading. So I never looked for consensus as an objective. I don’t like extraction. So I never looked for dominance as an objective. So I looked for the power to defend myself as an objective.

    If you use violence to institute property rights, taht violence is a virtue. If you use violence for the purpose of free riding, that’s an evil. If you use submission to buy time, that’s failure and justification of your failure.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-04 12:39:00 UTC

  • My urban weapon of choice is a ceramic coffee mug. Invisible, unexpected, ubiqui

    My urban weapon of choice is a ceramic coffee mug. Invisible, unexpected, ubiquitous, blunt, really hard and nearly unbreakable. Unpremeditated, plausibly deniable, untraceable, equivalent of brass knuckles.

    One hit wonder. Boom and down.

    Works every time.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-30 16:28:00 UTC

  • DIVERSITY PROVIDES FOR DIVIDE AND RULE WITHOUT EXTERNAL AGENTS by Alex Mark Nieo

    DIVERSITY PROVIDES FOR DIVIDE AND RULE WITHOUT EXTERNAL AGENTS

    by Alex Mark Nieora

    —“Equally it may be said that diversity is easier to govern as diversity necessarily entails fragmented and divided cultures, preferences, nationalities, languages and abilities that may lack an overarching and unifying constant between themselves. Thereby diversity provides in itself the division of divide and rule politics without even necessitating the implementation of external agents of division.”—

    BUT THE FALLACY OF RAWLS REMAINS

    –“However, diversity is also the hallmark and bedrock – the sine qua non really – of liberty and tolerance. So diversity is a challenge. It is a challenge also in regards to tolerating the intolerant. This is a dilemma that was confronted by certain legal philosophers such as John Rawls in his later work The Law of The Peoples, which addresses international politics.

    Previously in A Theory of Justice, he explains the reasons why diversity must be tolerated for not only the greater but the individual good through his concept of the original position.

    In the Law of The Peoples Rawls argues that the legitimacy of a liberal international order is contingent on tolerating decent peoples. Rawls held that decent peoples might have state religions and deny adherents of minority faiths the right to hold positions of power within the state, and might indeed organise political participation via consultation hierarchies rather than elections.

    However, he maintained that no well-ordered peoples may violate human rights or behave in an externally aggressive manner. He held peoples do not have the right to the mutual respect and tolerance possessed by liberal and decent peoples.”—

    “DECENT PEOPLE”

    I’ll define decent in Propertarian terms: those people who have suppressed all free riding from criminal to ethical to moral to conspiratorial. One is more decent than another if one suppresses more free riding than another.

    (I despise Rawls as an obscurantist. Hoppe is right. The only moral question is property.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-30 07:20:00 UTC

  • A SELF-STYLED PROVOCATEUR (Thought about this for a day before commenting, and I

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/david-hathaway/are-you-talking-to-a-agent-provocateur/FROM A SELF-STYLED PROVOCATEUR

    (Thought about this for a day before commenting, and I won’t tear the author of the post apart for his use of technique of Marxist Critique, despite it being a classic example of the method. Libertarians spent too much time with marxists and not enough time with scientists.)

    I am trying to reform libertine, rothbardian ‘ghetto’ libertarianism for the good of liberty seekers everywhere, and am absolutely, by deliberate choice, using provocation. There is no other means of attacking dogma than to force dogmatists to defend against it by direct confrontation. (Marxist Critiques or no)

    1) Thick / Humanist / Psychological / Left libertarianism is a luxury good, and it is neither scientifically or rationally formulated, remaining true to the psychological tradition of classical liberalism. We CAN form a polity under Thick libertarianism, as long as luxuries are voluntarily constructed, requiring voluntary participation, rather than mandated.

    2) Aristocratic Egalitarian / Scientific libertarianism is necessary and sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is both rationally and scientifically formulated. We CAN form a polity under aristocratic egalitarianism.

    3) Thin / Ghetto / libertine / Brutalist libertarianism is necessary but INSUFFICIENT for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is rationally but not scientifically formulated. And furthermore, would be the target of conquest and oppression by all nearby polities.

    We CANNOT form a polity under rothbardian, ghetto, libertinism.

    So this particular provocateur is doing his moral duty in the pursuit of a state of liberty. I do not care whether we choose luxuries or not. But we have no option to choose a libertine / Ghetto / Thin polity. It is irrational to construct one on transaction costs alone. It is unsurvivable given external hostility to all groups who have demonstrated ghetto ethics: (Gypsies and pre-modern Jews the most common examples).

    Cheers.

    An admitted Provocateur.

    PS: The revolution in Ukraine would not have been possible if it were not for the risks taken by the Right Sector. Most people (like rothbardians) are free riders. They won’t participate until there isn’t any risk.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/david-hathaway/are-you-talking-to-a-agent-provocateur/


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 05:51:00 UTC

  • Eli on Violence

    Eli on Violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-27 16:14:00 UTC

  • A MONTH OF BRIBES: UKRAINE So we paid a bribe friday to a policeman. Saturday to

    A MONTH OF BRIBES: UKRAINE

    So we paid a bribe friday to a policeman. Saturday to a policeman. Today to an immigration officer. And a month ago to a customs officer. The policemen were men. The other two were women. The women cost $400 each and the policemen $20 each. To arrange the bribes took another $400.

    Mind you. In immigration, we bribed people to simply do their jobs. In the other cases we bribed them to do their jobs rationally. But none of these bribes are to evade crime. They are bribes to minimize corruption.

    If the common law and universal standing were in place, we could sue these people. But there is no rule of law in Ukraine or russia.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-26 04:37:00 UTC

  • A.E.L. PRINCIPLES 1) Property rights are obtained by entering into a contract fo

    A.E.L.

    PRINCIPLES

    1) Property rights are obtained by entering into a contract for reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of violence to defend it.

    2) Property is that which humans demonstrate as their property: that which they act to obtain by homesteading or voluntary exchange, with

    the expectation of possession. (See categories of property below)

    3) Voluntary Exchange: Moral and ethical exchanges are defined as voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of negative externality.

    4) Morality is objective and is prohibition on the transgression of the property of another : the necessary prohibition on free riding for any cooperative organism. We evolved these instincts, and our extreme intolerance for ‘cheating’ out of necessity, and these instincts remain. (see criminal, unethical, and immoral propositions below)

    5) The law must sufficiently mirror known morality at any given time to suppress demand for an authority to suppress immoral actions, or the violence that results from immoral actions. While criminal and ethical standards are universal and objective, moral prohibitions consist of (a) necessary prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs, (b) ritual and signal costs that members of a polity are use for signaling commitment, and which should not be enforced by law, but can be enforced by ostracization, (c) errors that are not reducible to free riding, and cannot be enforced by law, nor should they be enforced by ostracization.

    6) Transaction costs of immoral and unethical behavior increase with a decrease in capacity to defend against them. Therefore it is not rational to expect people to choose a voluntary polity in the absence of a state without sufficient suppression of transaction costs to compete with the costs of the state that does suppress either the immoral and unethical behavior, or the violence that results from immoral and unethical behavior. AS such the moral and ethical standard embodied in the common law, necessary for a polity is determined by the relative transaction costs and opportunities of different polities. Since the highest trust polities demonstrate both the most suppression of unethical and immoral actions, as well as the highest velocity of risk, production and trade, it is an empirical question as to the level of suppression of unethical and immoral action that is required to maintain a competitive polity. But in no case will people rationally choose an unethical polity, and they never have. The opposite is true: unethical polities have been the victims of conquest, oppression and genocide.

    CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY

    Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:

    I. Several (Personal) Property

    – Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    – Physical Body

    – Actions and Time

    – Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    – Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    II. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

    Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    – Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    – Children (genetic reproduction)

    – Familial Relations (security)

    – Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

    – Racial property (racial ties)

    – Status and Class (reputation)

    III. Institutional (Community) Property

    Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    – Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    – Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

    IV. Artificial Property

    Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?”

    – Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    – Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)

    – Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    FORMS OF INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER

    1-Direct Interpersonal

    – Murder

    – Violence

    – Destruction

    – Theft

    – Theft by Fraud

    – Theft by Fraud by omission

    2 – Indirect Interpersonal

    – Theft by Impediment

    – Theft by Externalization

    3 – Indirect Social

    – Theft by Free riding

    – Theft by privatization

    – Theft by socialization

    4 – Conspiratorial Social

    – Theft by Rent seeking

    – Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism

    – Theft by Extortion

    5 – Conquest

    – Murder, Destruction and Theft by War

    – Immigration

    – Conversion


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 16:53:00 UTC