by Luke Weinhagen The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically, libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error. (via Brandon Hayes)
Theme: Commons
-
Libertarianism Survives/exists by Miscategorizing Relations.
by Luke Weinhagen The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically, libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error. (via Brandon Hayes)
-
Density Income and Taxation
Once you start thinking the equilibrium between density and the discount on opportunity, versus sparsity, and the premium on the commons, you understand that value judgements of the urban vs suburban, vs rural people. The lower density the more responsibility for commons and the more costly are opportunities. Whereas the higher density the lower responsibility for commons and the lower cost of opportunities. Hence why density determines value judgements regarding the private and common.
-
Density Income and Taxation
Once you start thinking the equilibrium between density and the discount on opportunity, versus sparsity, and the premium on the commons, you understand that value judgements of the urban vs suburban, vs rural people. The lower density the more responsibility for commons and the more costly are opportunities. Whereas the higher density the lower responsibility for commons and the lower cost of opportunities. Hence why density determines value judgements regarding the private and common.
-
by Luke Weinhagen The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by m
by Luke Weinhagen
The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically, libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error.
(via Brandon Hayes)
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 10:32:00 UTC
-
The American electoral system makes us vote given our responsibility for the com
The American electoral system makes us vote given our responsibility for the commons. If we restored property it would fix most. if we restored male head of household it would restore all.
once you start thinking the equilibrium between density and the discount on opportunity, versus sparsity, and the premium on the commons, you understand that value judgements of the urban vs suburban, vs rural people.
The lower density the more responsibility for commons and the more costly are oppportunities. Whereas the higher density the lower responsbility for commons and the lower cost of opportunities.
Hence why density determines value judgements regarding the private and common.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 22:35:00 UTC
-
Only the british old parliamentary system (houses were large juries accepting or
Only the british old parliamentary system (houses were large juries accepting or rejecting proposals put forth by the monarchy/administration ) produced a market for commons between the classes. Had additional lower houses been added classical liberalism wouldnt have been needed.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:21:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993148747940016128
Reply addressees: @AjArrival @TheAustrian_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433
-
NOMOCRACY = Rule of Law , Must = Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity. Howe
NOMOCRACY = Rule of Law , Must = Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity. However, markets for comons must exist, because commons must exist for a polity to survive competition in the market for territory.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:19:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993148360960995329
Reply addressees: @AjArrival @TheAustrian_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433
-
Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.
-
Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.
SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.