How to translate conservatism: “we were doing it right before. we’re doing it wrong now. at least we could do it right again. so lets just go back to rule of law, and the family, shall we?”
How to translate libertinism “i don’t wanna pay the costs of the commons because my self imagined status is not rewarded by that commons, even if property rights themselves are a commons.”
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-03 13:04:00 UTC
CHEAPER FOR THE STRONG TO GIVE PEOPLE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Property exists prior to codification in a constitution. So does promise, prior to the institution of contract. A constitution is merely an agreement for reciprocal insurance of the terms of property and contract.
It so happens that allocation of property rights determines the incentives possible, and the incentives determine the degree of market participation – how many hands make the work light – and therefore the cost of providing individuals with incentives.
It’s just cheaper for the strong to give everyone property rights – so long as none of the weak band together to extract from the strong under platonic justification via those self-same rules.
This is the same reason that Slavery is illogical as well as immoral: assuming the prior slaves respect property rights and do not form a government of extraction, then it is merely cheaper and easier to have one’s slaves as vendors and customers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-03 12:55:00 UTC
PROTECTING THE TRIBE
—“The “authorities” have proven they will not protect private property or civilian lives (Ferguson being just the latest example) while the US Supreme Court has ruled police have no fiduciary duty or obligation to do you/us. The natural state is Hobbes’ Leviathan. A Social Contract must be created and once created it is maintained by the Carrot and Stick. For those that attempt to burn, loot and kill, they must be summarily dispatched either to their Maker or if they are Atheists to the Worm-ridden Compost Pile. I’m not here to judge them on their religion or spirituality just to protect myself, my family, my assets and production. No one questions a Lion, Gorilla or Bull protecting their pride, troop or herd. No one should question a human for doing the same.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-26 00:24:00 UTC
ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE CORRUPT. A GOVERNMENT BY NECESSITY, AS A MONOPOLY, IS CORRUPT.
There are no good government other than rule of law. Only less bad governments. Politicians do not save people. They are parasitic. The least parasitic are simply the best we can manage.
Ukrainians are under the illusion that good government will save them. But what saves the west is all those little judges, lawyers and juries running around. The politicians take credit for it. But they do almost nothing of value, and a lot of harm.
Prosperity is created by money, credit, contract, courts, and entrepreneurs. Period.
Yes, Ukraine needs a purge of the government – the Russians and communists must be force out, and if necessary into prison or back to Russia.
But that in in itself just reduces the criminality and corruption of government and does not create any wealth. Ukraine needs western jurisprudence. Reliable courts mean reliable credit.And credit is what allows you to benefit between NOW and LATER.
We are not wealthier than cave men. We have made everything cheaper, by moving what we could have much later, to what we can have now. And credit and interests are the tools for increasing production and consumption now, instead of later.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-24 09:32:00 UTC
ON UKRAINE
In Ukraine, we have the only poor, honest, white people left on the planet. The only thing we lack is a justice system. The only difference between Ukraine and Canada is that Canada has America instead of Russia as the most influential political neighbor. We just need anglo-american jurisprudence and Ukraine will not only the biggest but one of the wealthiest countries in europe.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-24 09:22:00 UTC
THE INSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION IS THE JURY AND THE MARKET
We know how to build libertarian government across heterogeneous moral codes: universal standing (proposals) before the jury (of our peers), in which we propose fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, free of negative externality.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 02:49:00 UTC
[W]e can construct libertarianism as a (a) sentimental, (b) ratio-moral, or (c) ratio-legal, or (d) legal-empirical framework – a body of interdependent arguments.
But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption.
This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent.
However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a ratio-legal law is calculated.
Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it.
Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property.
There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.
[W]e can construct libertarianism as a (a) sentimental, (b) ratio-moral, or (c) ratio-legal, or (d) legal-empirical framework – a body of interdependent arguments.
But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption.
This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent.
However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a ratio-legal law is calculated.
Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it.
Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property.
There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.
SENTIMENTAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, EMPIRICAL: LEGAL DECIDABILITY
We can construct libertarianism as a sentimental, ratio-moral, or ratio-legal, or legal-empirical framework. But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption. This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent. However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a that ratio-legal law is calculated. Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it. Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property. There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 10:35:00 UTC
[H]ow we construct classical liberalism from Anarcho-Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism from Nomocracy, and Nomocracy from Capitalism. You can’t do it any other way you know.
1. Capitalism (property rights) = Voluntary Organization of Production
2. Nomocracy (Rule of Law) = Organic Evolution of Law
3. Anarcho-… (anarchy) A Covenential Prohibition on Government.
…….. Removal of All Political Liberty.
4. Voluntary Contractual Covenants (Formation of a polity )
…….. Removal of Some Liberty on use of Property
5. Mandatory Contractual Covenants (Perpetuation of a Polity)
…….. Example: Removal of Liberty of Association and Disassociation
6. Mandatory Contractual Covenants for the Production of Commons (Government).
…….. Removal of Anarchic Prohibition in exchange for the construction of commons.
THIS DESCRIBES CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, NOT ANARCHO-CAPITALISM.
(Reminder: A Covenant is a Constitution without provision for government.)