—“I have to say the notion of full accounting for costs — including eating up the commons — has got to be among your most powerful ideas. “—Michael Churchill
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-09 21:16:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126596896569548800
THE DIFFERENCE
Kinship Capitalism is the result of Full Accounting in The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Predatory, parasitic capitalism is the result of selective accounting of voluntary transactions.
😉
Full Accounting.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-09 17:32:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126540367916986369
IT MATTERS: TERMS
Separate RULE (judiciary), from INSURER (military and treasury) from GOVERNMENT (Production of Commons).
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-07 20:18:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125857335539167232
(FB 1541951913 Timestamp) THE EXPERIMENT IS OVER AND THE JURY IS IN The jury is in. Monarchs produce better commons. the fewer the people in politics the better. The more powerful the law in resisting the king, a government, or each other, and the more powerful the militia in resisting all above, the better. Liberalism in the sense of rule of law won. Monarchy in the sense of production of commons won. Fascism in the sense of state nationalism, ethnocentrism, state capitalism, and intolerance for competition on other than economic means, won. Why? it’s the optimum decision making structure because it is the optimum means of accommodating differences in knowledge and incentives.
(FB 1541951913 Timestamp) THE EXPERIMENT IS OVER AND THE JURY IS IN The jury is in. Monarchs produce better commons. the fewer the people in politics the better. The more powerful the law in resisting the king, a government, or each other, and the more powerful the militia in resisting all above, the better. Liberalism in the sense of rule of law won. Monarchy in the sense of production of commons won. Fascism in the sense of state nationalism, ethnocentrism, state capitalism, and intolerance for competition on other than economic means, won. Why? it’s the optimum decision making structure because it is the optimum means of accommodating differences in knowledge and incentives.
(FB 1542494547 Timestamp) Understanding the white counter-narrative: we compete by high quality commons – that is our civilizational strategy. In urban density, where we not only have to domesticate our own underclasses over whom we have “some” status signal leverage, but vast immigrant underclasses, over whom we have “no” status signal leverage, we are forced to flee to lower density to produce those high quality commons. As density increases opportunity cost decreases and consequently opportunity deprivation by signaling is decreases. So normative degeneration is endemic in urban areas – because it’s affordable – while normative degeneration in less urban areas is intolerable. Meanwhile these underclasses whether kin or not, consume those accumulated commons like locusts, leaving Baltimores, Detroits, NY’s, LA’s and Oaklands in their wake. And because we have no right of DISASSOCIATION we cannot organize to resist their consumption of those commons we produce. The more dense the population the more the commons is “someone else’s problem”. The more sparse the population the more the commons is my problem. Hence urban demand for authority and rural demand for sovereignty. Once you ‘see it’ you can’t ‘unsee’ it. We are producing commons that attract wild animals, and we are forbidden by the state-academy-financial-sectors from depriving them of customers to feed on the commons we create – that none of them can. They think they’re creating something. But they are just speed-consuming the accumulated common capital of western civilization with every breath they take. The only solution is the restoration of voluntary disassociation and the markets will do the rest.
(FB 1542396784 Timestamp) —I’m sure there is a solution that can “protect the commons” and provide an efficient and cost-effective solution. My understanding is that passenger flights are required to carry USPS, where the private companies must own their own planes. Curt Doolittle maybe you can chime in a propertarian solution to this problem?”—@[572309326:2048:Bryan Nova Brey] The problem is the cost of government employees. The service is also supported by spam mail none of us want (or need, in the age of the internet). All political services can be provided by libraries (forms etc). All shipping better provided by private agencies. Selling it whole yet requiring all domestic postcards, and ‘letters’ at a subsidized price would solve the problem. Insuring the private postal service and ups and anyone else for that matter, the way we insure banks (insurer of last resort) in the case of national emergency is adequate.
(FB 1542494547 Timestamp) Understanding the white counter-narrative: we compete by high quality commons – that is our civilizational strategy. In urban density, where we not only have to domesticate our own underclasses over whom we have “some” status signal leverage, but vast immigrant underclasses, over whom we have “no” status signal leverage, we are forced to flee to lower density to produce those high quality commons. As density increases opportunity cost decreases and consequently opportunity deprivation by signaling is decreases. So normative degeneration is endemic in urban areas – because it’s affordable – while normative degeneration in less urban areas is intolerable. Meanwhile these underclasses whether kin or not, consume those accumulated commons like locusts, leaving Baltimores, Detroits, NY’s, LA’s and Oaklands in their wake. And because we have no right of DISASSOCIATION we cannot organize to resist their consumption of those commons we produce. The more dense the population the more the commons is “someone else’s problem”. The more sparse the population the more the commons is my problem. Hence urban demand for authority and rural demand for sovereignty. Once you ‘see it’ you can’t ‘unsee’ it. We are producing commons that attract wild animals, and we are forbidden by the state-academy-financial-sectors from depriving them of customers to feed on the commons we create – that none of them can. They think they’re creating something. But they are just speed-consuming the accumulated common capital of western civilization with every breath they take. The only solution is the restoration of voluntary disassociation and the markets will do the rest.
(FB 1542396784 Timestamp) —I’m sure there is a solution that can “protect the commons” and provide an efficient and cost-effective solution. My understanding is that passenger flights are required to carry USPS, where the private companies must own their own planes. Curt Doolittle maybe you can chime in a propertarian solution to this problem?”—@[572309326:2048:Bryan Nova Brey] The problem is the cost of government employees. The service is also supported by spam mail none of us want (or need, in the age of the internet). All political services can be provided by libraries (forms etc). All shipping better provided by private agencies. Selling it whole yet requiring all domestic postcards, and ‘letters’ at a subsidized price would solve the problem. Insuring the private postal service and ups and anyone else for that matter, the way we insure banks (insurer of last resort) in the case of national emergency is adequate.
(FB 1542651949 Timestamp) INHERENT RIGHTS (IDEALS) VS INHERENT DEMAND AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (REALS) by Luke Weinhagen (important concept) —“Commons: Every single thing you pay for by either action, inaction,or forgone opportunity for discount or gain”— This is another area where much of the west is operating with a categorization error in place. We have been categorizing the concept “natural rights” as an INHERENT quality of each individual, not something that has a COST. We should be categorizing it as an available property, with a cost to gain interest in. A commons. Because of its relationship to reciprocity. natural rights is the root commons. All other commons extend from the foundation that natural rights creates and are limited by the breadth of those rights. One must, and can only, purchase interest in that commons through the demonstration of reciprocity and sovereignty. Failure to police this root commons, and extending it to everyone (categorization error – natural/available to all, not inherent/granted to all), creates a vulnerability (extends agency status to parasites) and exposes every derivative commons to parasitism. No correction downstream can remove this vulnerability, they are become attempts at compensation for that original flaw, just more imposed costs. (if I am understanding [Curt] correctly, this one is going to make heads explode when the correction is put in place – though the only other outcome is system collapse)