—“The inescapable fact that Carl Scmitt pointed out is that the rule of law nevertheless requires a sovereign to declare it the rule.”— Rik Storey
And the inescapable fact that a militia is nevertheless required to demand it of him.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 13:07:00 UTC
***We only possess rule of law if in the production of commons we produce a market, that we select them from, not a monopoly, that we are subject to.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 12:46:00 UTC
—“The only people who would be interested in living in a private law society are those people who follow the NAP, i.e., libertarians. So there won’t be any vigilantes, criminal in general, or left- or right-wingers living in a private law society, period.”–David
The opposite will occur david. Because ‘arbitrary law’ societies cannot compete against highly redistributive polities where one loses a greater percentage of his income to taxation but gains disproportionately higher income and consumption. This is why anarchism fails: commons are necessary to compete for lower opportunity and transaction costs. Libertarians (rothbard) could not figure out how to solve the problem of voluntary commons and by consequence, free riding, and the ostraciziation of free riders. But that is just an admission of failure, not a success. It is a choice of a political LUDDITE. Unable to solve the present problem attempts to destroy the source of his ability to make the choice.
We know this through demonstrated preference. People do NOT go join ‘libertarian’ outposts. Because the total cost is far higher than the total gain.
‘Arbitrary law’ societies attract people for whom the cost of parasitism upon the productivity of others is less than they can obtain from parasitism upon the productivity of others.
And they only last as long as some group doesn’t choose to destroy them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 09:18:00 UTC
—A militia billing itself as a security force is vowing to protect the Second Amendment. The Three Percent Security force, named after those who fought in the American revolution (It’s said – only three percent of the colonists fought against the king’s tyranny) says they’re preparing to “uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They train like a military, “basic infantry man skills, everything from communications to combat lifesaving medical first aid.”—
three percent is much more than we need today
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 18:11:00 UTC
(dear dimwit of the moment) (from elsewhere)
But (a) I didn’t justify monarchy, i justified Christian Monarchy under Natural Law. (b) I didn’t justify feudalism. (c) I have no idea what you mean by royalism but it’s extremely unlikely I justified it. (ergo, straw men, not arguments)
And (d) Natural Law as I use the term is not an abstraction but a rigorous definition: the limit of our actions to productive, fully in formed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property-in-toto, limited to productive externalities. Or conversely, the prohibition of the imposition of costs upon property-in-toto. Where property in toto refers to demonstrated property not authoritarian declaration, or rational justification definitions of property. Or what you might call the initiation of ‘aggression’ against property-in-toto; whereby we preserve and expand the incentive to cooperate, and refrain from initiating the incentive to retaliate. (An adult version of the half truth we call the non aggression principle) (Ergo, straw man, not argument)
From what I see in just a few of your comments, and which is obvious from the chain of reasoning that you depend upon, you rely on sentimental rather than operational definitions of terms. This is a form of pseudoscientific argument applied to economic, political, and legal sciences.
If you define your terms precisely you will be unable to make the arguments you think you do.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 10:18:00 UTC
RE: Supremes to Decide if Foreigners Have Constitutional Rights. They may be granted human rights, but not constitutional PRIVILEGES. #Trump
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-22 01:11:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834208836152066049
RE: Supremes to Decide if Foreigners Have Constitutional Rights. They may be granted human rights, but not constitutional PRIVILEGES. #Trump
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-21 20:11:00 UTC
DIRECT ECONOMIC (EMPIRICAL) DEMOCRACY
If we are to use representatives at all, they should be chosen by lot for a single year, and held accountable for their actions by rule of law.
As far as I can tell, direct economic democracy either by proportion or by equal share, where one’s votes may NOT be proxied, will produce (a) the most educated and aware population, and (b) the least corrupt government, as long as (c) all statements must be ‘scientifically’ truthful by the terms i’ve defined elsewhere.
The dominance of single houses independent of classes the dominance of parties, the use of representatives, and the cheapness of lobbying representatives rather than the voters, are all malincentives.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 14:14:00 UTC
End Legislation from the bench forever! Strict construction, original intent. #Trump
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 02:38:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829882302075379712
The court has jurisdiction over internal disputes in the civic domain. None in the military or international. Clip The Court’s Wings #Trump
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 01:29:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829864908808388609