—“Male cooperation is based on voluntary hierarchy, so the fact that someone is better than you in some way means it is better for men to be friends. Female cooperation is not hierarchical, because caring for children does not require leadership in the same way that hunting and warfare do.”— Adam Voight
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:41:00 UTC
The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expand the sentence you will falsify NAP.
“the method of decidability by which we avoid conflict and insure cooperation is to restrict our actions to those that do not aggress against…. (what)?”
You see. the reason libertarians disagree is because they can’t define ‘what’. So they use ‘Principle’ as a means of avoiding answering the question. Why? Because if you answer the question of ‘what’ you find that you end up with classical liberalism not with libertarianism or anarchism. Why? BEcause otherwise it is impossible to form, hold, and preserve a polity in competition with other polities.
Try it. You can’t do it. I know more about the libertarian fallacy than anyone living. And the way to test (praxeological test) the NAP or libertarian ideology is to ask the sequence of steps necessary for the formation, holding, and persistence from competition of such a polity.
In other words, *create a model*. And the reason people don’t do that, and the reason there are not ‘advanced literatures’ on libertarianism, is because it’s not possible. Period. End of story.
There are no conditions under which the formation of an anarchic polity is possible. The best one can do is rule of law by natural law and severely limit mandatory investment in the commons to that which we call a minimal state. Even then, open immigration and the NAP fail – the litmus test is blackmail. And that’s even before we get to trade policy and immigration, and financialization, and the problem of free riding on the commons of competing polities, and the fact that such libertarian polities always attract such malcontents that they drive out the good, and draw the ire of ‘traditional’ polities.
I put a stake in rothbard’s heart but that vampire of nonsense that foolish young men seem so attracted to, always seems to find an artery-of-idiocy to bite into.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 13:32:00 UTC
1) Democracy is a means of selecting priorities among peoples with similar interests.
2) Markets are a means of cooperating across dissimilar interests.
3) Monopoly (Majority) rule is a means of circumventing cooperation between dissimilar interests, and institutionalizing theft – when every theft creates agitation and is a lost opportunity for cooperation.
The genders (men/women), the classes, the institutions (force, trade, talk), as well as the federation, the state, the locality, and the neighborhood, all require local democracy and a hierarchy of markets in everything.
Majoritarianism was fine when we had a house of lords/senate of regions, and a house of small business owners (farmers and merchants). It stopped being fine almost immediately. And it ceased being fine the moment the industrial revolution kicked in, and different regions developed different nations and no longer shared common interests.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 10:22:00 UTC
DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SELECTING PRIORITIES AMONG PEOPLES WITH SIMILAR INTERESTS. MARKETS ARE A MEANS OF COOPERATING ACROSS DISSIMILAR INTERESTS.
(And monopoly majority rule is a means of destroying cooperation between dissimilar interests.)
by Shanaynay Tomson
If voting is used at all it should be a limited to a tool used among peers within political houses that represent the classes to make decisions among themselves and come up with proposals and requests made to the ruling aristocracy who also use voting as a limited tool among themselves as peers.
All attempts to use voting among groups of non-peers with varied and conflicting interests (separate polities existing under a larger umbrella polity [the state]) can be defined as Chaos and have always proven to be such.
Though useful among groups of peers that are equals, it is a tool of only limited and specific value and should always be used as such, it is otherwise dangerous. de Tocqueville saw this in his exploration of US democracy in the early 19th century, a number of the US founders were aware of this as well, but failed to create an operational system that limited the dangers inherent to this tool of very limited use.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 08:18:00 UTC
“BANKS”
Banks allow large numbers of people to cooperate *anonymously* by aggregating small amounts of money from those with small amounts of income to leverage the borrowing capacity of fiat money. The first question is only whether *bankers* are providing any coordination value that cannot be provided purely statistically (doubtful. very.) The second question is whether continuous interest or transactional fees are either beneficial(destructive) or preferable(necessary).
From what I can defend, I see a need for:
1) Mutual Funds (distributed investment risk for consumers)
2) Credit Services (and counseling)
3) Clearing Services (an account or accounts)
And I do not see any value in an other services.
The collateral system as I understand it does not achieve the desired purpose. It is a means of regulating BANKS not consumer or business behavior: the deprivation of credit alone is the only motivator for consumers. And as far as I an tell the collateral system is just a means for creating moral hazard and entrapment. The only criteria is whether individuals have an ability to pay from income streams, not whether we can ‘retaliate’ against their assets. Secondly, there is no reason why we require people to pay on a regular schedule rather than as a percentage of their income streams. Much of what we believe is true is not. Money is not money any longer.
BANKING HIERARCHY: (class based services)
check cashing services: underclass
(hole in the market): working poor
credit unions: labor class (renters)
savings and loans: homeowners
banks: small business banks
commercial banks: medium and large business banks.
semi-political banks: ‘financial institutions’
the central bank: the private sector.
the treasury: the public sector.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 07:31:00 UTC
By William L. Benge
Your ordering:
individual action —- cooperative action
industriousness —- pro-sociality
private property —- common property
Suggests:
eugenia — dysgenia
Which is repaired by the duality of reciprocity:
negativa — positiva
This repairing may be volunteered instantly or gradually, and by or for a village, town, city, entire regions and continents of persons, a single household, or, in the remotest ultimate possibility, by the entire civilized world.
The scope is limited by an unmeasured and therefore uncertain liquidity. Only with data can we deny the potential of short-order international breadth, a new worldwide ethos.
(well done!)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 16:04:00 UTC
individual action —- cooperative action
industriousness —- pro-sociality
private property —- common property
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 10:59:00 UTC
DIFFERENCES IN MORAL INTUITION ARE VERY SIMPLE
The difference between alphas (the tribe), and betas (myself and my offspring). Or the difference between K-selection (us) and r-selection (you). The fact that the left strategy is r-dysgenic, and the right K-eugenic is not a mystery. The fact that the primary difference between races, nations, and tribes, is their time under manorialism (feudal farming) and the success at reducing the size of the underclass such that the median intelligence rises above what we consider 100 today. Your ancestors might have been peasants. And that might be why you hold your ‘feelings’. But many of ours have been farmers, and craftsmen, and scholars or soldiers or both. And that is what separates the K-alpha-eugenic classes from the r-beta-dysgenic classes. Its not complicated. We don’t choose moral codes. We are born with them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 12:32:00 UTC
5) Ergo the problem of the production of commons under the preservation of liberty can be solved.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:12:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882904959364341760
Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664
I don’t care about anything other than the content and form of your arguments. I don’t care about nationality or race, or gender. All I care about is building an international group of people who can teach and use natural law in opposition to the abrahamic, marxist, frankfurt, and postmodern schools. Aristocracy For Everyone. Let a thousand Nations Bloom. No people can fail transcendence if they choose it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 21:13:00 UTC