Dec 11, 2019, 12:13 PM Every Man A Sheriff Truth before face Duty before Self Excellence before Adequacy Production before Consumption Home before Reproduction Heroism, Paternalism, Sky Worshipping, Militaristic, Expansionist, Sovereign, Reciprocal, Contractual, Entrepreneurial, Markets in Everything. The rest of mankind is Demonstrably Unfit. Superiority is demonstrated by the evidence. Our one weakness is Christian tolerance Which is but a means of obscuring Cowardice and Convenience. We are raiders, Vikings, pirates, conquerors, and the rest are unfit for our way of Law. When we stopped dueling over insolence, beating the young for their insolence, and putting women in stocks for their insolence, we de-facto licensed insolence, ignorance, sophism, undermining, indiscipline, and our ability to capitalize behavioral, normative, and genetic commons.
Theme: Commons
-
Rights
Jan 24, 2020, 6:34 PM
—“Rights are an insurance, insurance is a service, some services can be commons, some commons are necessary, rights among them.”—Martin Štěpán
(flawless)
-
Rights
Jan 24, 2020, 6:34 PM
—“Rights are an insurance, insurance is a service, some services can be commons, some commons are necessary, rights among them.”—Martin Štěpán
(flawless)
-
Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons
Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/monogamy-as-competitive-normative-commons/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 00:01:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266520169322602498
-
Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons
Feb 22, 2020, 11:35 AM by Alain Dwight Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups. Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age. It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine. These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion. It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.
-
Monogamy as Competitive Normative Commons
Feb 22, 2020, 11:35 AM by Alain Dwight Sex transactions outside of monogamous, familial structures can constitute a damage against monogamy, stable families, and investment in children as social norms, which is the optimum strategy for some groups. Arguably, it’s the best overall strategy since the groups who have done this, have become the dominant force on the planet – and to the degree that status is challenged, we are slipping into a dark age. It’s still possible other strategies could work. In any case, imposing a cost on normative commons will be met with retaliation, our choice is if that retaliation is at a disorganized street level or in an organized institutional level. I suggest both, as I prefer to have people bear their own costs as opposed to free riding on commons that they choose to undermine. These normative commons provide such a competitive advantage that it’s questionable if any groups that fail to offer sufficient defense/retaliation will even continue to exist or forward any of their values they claim to champion. It might be worth it to allow some elite members to operate outside monogamy but without maintaining monogamy as a norm, competitive advantage is often or always compromised.
-
Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility
Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/advanced-p-law-of-commons-responsibility/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 12:48:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266350601635540992
-
Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility
Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM
—” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory
If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.
-
Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility
Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM
—” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory
If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.
-
Pot affects the commons
Pot affects the commons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/pot-affects-the-commons/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 12:41:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266348904263663619