Mar 22, 2020, 1:45 PM
—“Hm. If I exchange demonstrated interest, then I will be bearing a cost on that which other has already born a cost to demonstrate an interest, won’t I?”—
Yes, but it’s a voluntary exchange, and if productive, the net is an increase. I other words, the transaction (full accounting again) increases the balance sheet of the individual or group or the individual or group wouldn’t have voluntarily done so.
Mar 23, 2020, 12:59 PM You can have a natural interest in your children. You can have a demonstrated interest in yourself, and in your children. If you claim self ownership you are confusing OWNERSHIP with NATURAL INTEREST and DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. You can have a natural interest in something. You can have a demonstrated interest in something, You can possess something, You can defend it yourself, or with other by normative means, or with a polity by institutional means. But to OWN a thing requires INSTITUTIONS that insure your control over it by the organized application of violenc. Libertarian pilpul conflates demand for, with existence of, in order to avoid starting with the first cause of sovereignty and reciprocity by the necessity of defense. You cannot magically impose fantasy on others. You must CONSTRUCT the institution of property and property rights by reciprocal defense. There are no existential ‘rights’. Only demand for them. They are created by the organized application of violence to defend them. Why would slaves not rely on the organized application of violence instead of idealisms out of ether and the threat of ostracization? Because they are powerless and poor. Why would aristocracy state the truth: property and property rights are organized application of violence? Because they are powerful and not poor. STOP THE LIBERTARIAN LIE DISAMBUGUATION?
ignorance > opportunity > natural interest > demonstrated interest or not > possession (or not) > property (norm) or not > property rights (institutions) or not.
All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability FOR OTHERS. It’s all pilpul. It’s all using platonism (ideal terms, out of thin air) without accounting for causality.
Mar 23, 2020, 12:59 PM You can have a natural interest in your children. You can have a demonstrated interest in yourself, and in your children. If you claim self ownership you are confusing OWNERSHIP with NATURAL INTEREST and DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. You can have a natural interest in something. You can have a demonstrated interest in something, You can possess something, You can defend it yourself, or with other by normative means, or with a polity by institutional means. But to OWN a thing requires INSTITUTIONS that insure your control over it by the organized application of violenc. Libertarian pilpul conflates demand for, with existence of, in order to avoid starting with the first cause of sovereignty and reciprocity by the necessity of defense. You cannot magically impose fantasy on others. You must CONSTRUCT the institution of property and property rights by reciprocal defense. There are no existential ‘rights’. Only demand for them. They are created by the organized application of violence to defend them. Why would slaves not rely on the organized application of violence instead of idealisms out of ether and the threat of ostracization? Because they are powerless and poor. Why would aristocracy state the truth: property and property rights are organized application of violence? Because they are powerful and not poor. STOP THE LIBERTARIAN LIE DISAMBUGUATION?
ignorance > opportunity > natural interest > demonstrated interest or not > possession (or not) > property (norm) or not > property rights (institutions) or not.
All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability FOR OTHERS. It’s all pilpul. It’s all using platonism (ideal terms, out of thin air) without accounting for causality.
Mar 23, 2020, 1:04 PM Claiming the existence of potential interest, natural interest, and demonstrated interests are true. Claiming the existence of Ownership is a lie. Property is a lie. Property rights is a lie. Potential, natural, demonstrated interests, and possession exist in fact, independent of others. Property and Property Rights, and as a result that legal Ownership must be constructed by cooperation using the organized application of violence by others to ensure them. Everything libertarianism said was sophistry to avoid the necessity of producing commons at personal cost and of defense of those commons at personal cost. Why? Jewish diaspora (rothbard, rand). German Free Cities (hoppe) under which the magical authority of the empire and its taxes were somehow an oppressor rather than a producer of defense under which commercial civilization was possible.
Mar 23, 2020, 1:04 PM Claiming the existence of potential interest, natural interest, and demonstrated interests are true. Claiming the existence of Ownership is a lie. Property is a lie. Property rights is a lie. Potential, natural, demonstrated interests, and possession exist in fact, independent of others. Property and Property Rights, and as a result that legal Ownership must be constructed by cooperation using the organized application of violence by others to ensure them. Everything libertarianism said was sophistry to avoid the necessity of producing commons at personal cost and of defense of those commons at personal cost. Why? Jewish diaspora (rothbard, rand). German Free Cities (hoppe) under which the magical authority of the empire and its taxes were somehow an oppressor rather than a producer of defense under which commercial civilization was possible.
P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/p-increases-the-scope-of-the-crime-of-baiting-into-hazard/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:47:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265852236791459842
May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.
The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)
May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.
The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)
Never Attribute to The Moral What Is Merely Self Interest https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/never-attribute-to-the-moral-what-is-merely-self-interest/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:53:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265687633138790401
Demonstrate Investment First Before Obtaining Influence https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/demonstrate-investment-first-before-obtaining-influence/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 15:22:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265664668598755329