Theme: Commons

  • SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self own

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:41:00 UTC

  • THE SOLUTION TO MISMANAGEMENT OF THE COMMONS by Ely Harman If resources (power,

    THE SOLUTION TO MISMANAGEMENT OF THE COMMONS

    by Ely Harman

    If resources (power, territory, capital, subject population) are being mismanaged, then entrepreneurs of violence can profit by taking them over and putting them to more productive or sustainable uses.

    Hostile takeover.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 07:55:00 UTC

  • The purpose of mother(the church) is the family(insurance), the purpose of the a

    The purpose of mother(the church) is the family(insurance), the purpose of the academy is occupational training, the purpose of the government is commons production, the purpose of the military is military training and defense, the purpose of the monarchy is the production of excellence. When we confuse these roles we get the obvious consequences: overreach in each.

    The Peter Principle applies to institutions: we rise to the level of our incompetence.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 19:07:00 UTC

  • “The only way to defeat intolerance (of civilisation, meritocracy, commons) is b

    —“The only way to defeat intolerance (of civilisation, meritocracy, commons) is by being even more intolerant of deceit and non-reciprocal costs.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 13:53:00 UTC

  • Militia > Sovereignty > Rule of Law by Reciprocity > Markets In Everything > Mer

    Militia > Sovereignty > Rule of Law by Reciprocity > Markets In Everything > Meritocracy (aristocracy) > Multi-Houses of Classes for Production of Commons > Eugenic Reproduction > The Institutionalization of Agency and therefore the domestication and evolution of the animal man.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-28 15:22:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979015795647840257

  • OK. REPEATING THE BASICS: If you have rule of law of reciprocity, then you must

    OK. REPEATING THE BASICS: If you have rule of law of reciprocity, then you must as a consequence produce markets in everything, which will include markets for commons, which will include charity (subsidy) among kin.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-27 19:33:00 UTC

  • 2) Question Part Two: So, why isn’t it the next evolutionary consequence, to pre

    2) Question Part Two: So, why isn’t it the next evolutionary consequence, to preferentially ‘speciate’ so that we produce commons that suit our desires? Why is ANY monopoly a good? The only monopoly good I know of is scientific (operational) truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 00:52:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975535363132358659

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212


    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/973617420366643212

  • One cannot have the fruits of western civlization’s continuously evolutionary ma

    One cannot have the fruits of western civlization’s continuously evolutionary markets in all aspects of life (associative, cooperative, reproductive, productive, commons, political, and military), without the CAUSE of those markets: ….


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:15:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975405324415963137

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975403475793301504


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @sapinker When Judaism, Christianity, and Islam produced the Dark Age by the replacement of the Trial of Achilles the Agrarian Aristocrat with the trial of the Pastoralist Underclass Slave, they did so by false promises. The most obvious is Islam’s demand for respect without being earned.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975403475793301504


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @sapinker When Judaism, Christianity, and Islam produced the Dark Age by the replacement of the Trial of Achilles the Agrarian Aristocrat with the trial of the Pastoralist Underclass Slave, they did so by false promises. The most obvious is Islam’s demand for respect without being earned.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975403475793301504

  • 4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflat

    4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 14:50:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975021495566159873

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975018569451778049


    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/975018569451778049

  • Voting as an alternative to revolution (tossing out the government of the common

    Voting as an alternative to revolution (tossing out the government of the commons) is an excellent idea, as long as (a) this does not affect the monarchy and the military, and (b) as long as it is not asymmetric among the classes. In other words, those who have greater responsibilities and those who have lesser responsibilities must both agree. The real problem of democracy was (a) women and (b) underclasses and (c) vast immigration of underclass (including the catholics who are white.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 13:06:00 UTC