LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day. If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish. The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes. To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers. Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay. This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism). (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.) Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it. The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment. As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations. Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it. There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.
Theme: Commons
-
Response: Method To Verbal Attacks
THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.
-
Response: Method To Verbal Attacks
THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.
-
Stay with Arguments To The End
STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet) Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image. YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT [–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’. (a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works… (b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why? (c) Because it damages the informational commons. (d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo. (e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law. Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns. So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*. The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption. And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan. Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire. But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons. Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait. Why? Because the ego lies. You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours. Cheers.
-
Stay with Arguments To The End
STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet) Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image. YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT [–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’. (a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works… (b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why? (c) Because it damages the informational commons. (d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo. (e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law. Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns. So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*. The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption. And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan. Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire. But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons. Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait. Why? Because the ego lies. You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours. Cheers.
-
The Demands of Sovereignty
THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***
-
The Demands of Sovereignty
THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***
-
THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesse
THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY
***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 14:00:00 UTC
-
STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the pa
STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END
(nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet)
Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image.
YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT
[–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago
For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism
IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’.
(a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works…
(b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why?
(c) Because it damages the informational commons.
(d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo.
(e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law.
Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.
So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*.
The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption.
And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan.
Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire.
But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons.
Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait.
Why? Because the ego lies.
You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 11:39:00 UTC
-
THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF T
THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS.
I teach everyone the same strategy:
1) return ridicule or criticism,
2) restate the central argument
3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct.
4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition.
Ergo, (in response to ad hom)
1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument.
2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms.
3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face.
4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind.
See how that works? See?
Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences.
However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument.
And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers.
To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life.
The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-12 11:04:00 UTC