RT @Outsideness: @LeftoidMind @KalishJantzen “A world of free movement” would be South Africa scaled-up to planetary size. So rather less t…
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-24 09:46:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988715784938639360
Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness):
@LeftoidMind @KalishJantzen “A world of free movement” would be South Africa scaled-up to planetary size. So rather less than “$78 trillion richer” after the politics reached equilibrium.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-24 05:46:00 UTC
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
Listen. I am gonna go to my grave railing against the charades of (((libertarianism, communism, and neoconservatism))) and advocating +++Sovereignty, Rule of Law, and Market Government+++ instead.
The fact that people could be fooled by the fallacy of capitalism vs communism instead of rule of law vs rule of discretion is just evidence of how susceptible people are to framing.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 12:25:00 UTC
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY
1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and
2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and;
3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons.
4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.
In other words:
You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it.
Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.
We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse.
And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 11:47:00 UTC
I pray thee gods, deliver us unto kings, and save us from the people.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 09:22:00 UTC
THREE MEANS OF COERCION
1 – Violence(established male, conservative) competition of the group (of brothers). Conserve Capital.
2 – Remuneration (ascendant male/libertarian) Produce Capital.
3 – Gossip (female, socialist) competition of her offspring. Consume Capital.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-21 14:49:00 UTC
—“What is your political stance?”— How about Conservative (aristocratic), Libertarian (rule of law), which means my stance is EUGENIC. And certainly not Progressive (priestly), Humanist (rule by discretion), which means DYSGENIC. As far as I know: (a) we either rule by discretion or rule by law (not legislation but law). (b) we either rule by eugenics and wealth, or rule by dysgenics and poverty. Because all political orders are deterministic. You either get a massive middle class (classical liberalism), get a caste system (india, south america), or you get a massive underclass (islam). Because in the end your relative standard of living is dependent upon the size of your underclass. Really. That’s all it is. Seriously. So choose between paying the piper now (conservative wealth and eugenics) or paying the piper later (progressive poverty and dysgenics ).
—“What is your political stance?”— How about Conservative (aristocratic), Libertarian (rule of law), which means my stance is EUGENIC. And certainly not Progressive (priestly), Humanist (rule by discretion), which means DYSGENIC. As far as I know: (a) we either rule by discretion or rule by law (not legislation but law). (b) we either rule by eugenics and wealth, or rule by dysgenics and poverty. Because all political orders are deterministic. You either get a massive middle class (classical liberalism), get a caste system (india, south america), or you get a massive underclass (islam). Because in the end your relative standard of living is dependent upon the size of your underclass. Really. That’s all it is. Seriously. So choose between paying the piper now (conservative wealth and eugenics) or paying the piper later (progressive poverty and dysgenics ).