You cannot trust what you cannot measure. If you cannot measure it you are acting not on trust but on faith. And faith is not a way to govern, but a way to hide the extraction of rents before the opportunity is lost.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 12:29:00 UTC
THINK ABOUT THIS SERIES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS
1) Why don’t I fight with you?
2) Why don’t I steal from you?
3) Why don’t I trade with you?
4) Why don’t I finance with you?
5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you?
6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you?
7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you?
8) Why don’t I reproduce with you?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 08:57:00 UTC
But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? mises.org GROW UP – WE **WANT** WARLORD RULE – THE MILITIA https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Warlords MUST take over. That’s the whole point. The question is only their number. A militia of warlords constitutes a distributed dictatorship under which only markets governed by natural law are possible. Anarchism? A lot of optimistic bullshit. Go live in Ukraine. in Belarus. In Russia (at least outside of moscow or st Petersburg.) Ukraine (the borderland) is where Jewish separatism of Rothbard was envisioned, under the protection of lithuanian, or polish, or russian empires, allowed financial and commercial gangsterism, while prohibiting physical retaliation. It was a system of organized predation upon the people just as today’s financialism consists of organized predation upon the people while preventing juridical defense from it, and physical retaliation against it. And that’s Ukraine today. The pretense of order. But 40+ Gangsters (warlords) we call Oligarchs (Private Property Rulership) with enough money and arms to (a) stack and buy the courts, (b) stack and buy the government, who have their own militaries, and who cannot be displaced, because they can too easily turn the rest of ukraine into a civil war zone like the east, leaving the only option Russian invasion and enforced order – which was exactly the plan all along. The reason ukraine is weak, is that it has no militia. Period. Rothbardianism consists of nothing but optimistic juvenile platitudes sold to reproductively, socially, economically uncompetitive males, as a wishful separatist movement, so that they might beg not to contribute to a commons that makes the market order possible, and instead, may parasitically exploit it without contribution. ie: separatism. Rothbardian ghetto ethics of intersubjectively verifiable property There is only one source of liberty: the organized use of violence to obtain, hold, and advance territory, resources, population, institutions, and capital – by a militia of sufficient scale that they cannot be opposed by any cost effective means, or by any concentration of power. How is that possible: only under genetic, cultural, and institutional homogeneity. PERIOD. How do you create liberty (permission)? As a byproduct of creating sovereignty in fact. How do you create sovereignty in fact? By organizing a corporation (franchise) of warriors – all of whom obtain a share (dividend) from the market produced by their distributed dictatorship of individual rule. But those warriors must be kin or to prevent organization by other than kin selection. A genetically and culturally homogenous population in the ruling class – the militia – must exist for liberty to exist. Sorry. Thats western history in a nutshell. Rothbard was just a commons marxist (Free Rider) just like Marx was a private property free rider. Just as the Neocons are a political market free riders. Monarchy and nobility (aristocracy) didn’t oppress. They domesticated the animal man. And clearly failed to domesticate the borderlands – where parasitic separatists allied with the state to prey upon the people, while preventing their retaliation against them. So grow up. Libertarianism is for boys. Men fight. they take. They rule. They profit from rule. They profit from rule by the incremental suppression of every means of profit possible other than productive, fully informed warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality in the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services, and information, and production of commons, institutions, and political orders. Men fight. Boys beg from mommy and daddy authority of whatever scale they must. Men are sovereign in fact. Boys have a little pretense of liberty by permission. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON
But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? mises.org GROW UP – WE **WANT** WARLORD RULE – THE MILITIA https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over Warlords MUST take over. That’s the whole point. The question is only their number. A militia of warlords constitutes a distributed dictatorship under which only markets governed by natural law are possible. Anarchism? A lot of optimistic bullshit. Go live in Ukraine. in Belarus. In Russia (at least outside of moscow or st Petersburg.) Ukraine (the borderland) is where Jewish separatism of Rothbard was envisioned, under the protection of lithuanian, or polish, or russian empires, allowed financial and commercial gangsterism, while prohibiting physical retaliation. It was a system of organized predation upon the people just as today’s financialism consists of organized predation upon the people while preventing juridical defense from it, and physical retaliation against it. And that’s Ukraine today. The pretense of order. But 40+ Gangsters (warlords) we call Oligarchs (Private Property Rulership) with enough money and arms to (a) stack and buy the courts, (b) stack and buy the government, who have their own militaries, and who cannot be displaced, because they can too easily turn the rest of ukraine into a civil war zone like the east, leaving the only option Russian invasion and enforced order – which was exactly the plan all along. The reason ukraine is weak, is that it has no militia. Period. Rothbardianism consists of nothing but optimistic juvenile platitudes sold to reproductively, socially, economically uncompetitive males, as a wishful separatist movement, so that they might beg not to contribute to a commons that makes the market order possible, and instead, may parasitically exploit it without contribution. ie: separatism. Rothbardian ghetto ethics of intersubjectively verifiable property There is only one source of liberty: the organized use of violence to obtain, hold, and advance territory, resources, population, institutions, and capital – by a militia of sufficient scale that they cannot be opposed by any cost effective means, or by any concentration of power. How is that possible: only under genetic, cultural, and institutional homogeneity. PERIOD. How do you create liberty (permission)? As a byproduct of creating sovereignty in fact. How do you create sovereignty in fact? By organizing a corporation (franchise) of warriors – all of whom obtain a share (dividend) from the market produced by their distributed dictatorship of individual rule. But those warriors must be kin or to prevent organization by other than kin selection. A genetically and culturally homogenous population in the ruling class – the militia – must exist for liberty to exist. Sorry. Thats western history in a nutshell. Rothbard was just a commons marxist (Free Rider) just like Marx was a private property free rider. Just as the Neocons are a political market free riders. Monarchy and nobility (aristocracy) didn’t oppress. They domesticated the animal man. And clearly failed to domesticate the borderlands – where parasitic separatists allied with the state to prey upon the people, while preventing their retaliation against them. So grow up. Libertarianism is for boys. Men fight. they take. They rule. They profit from rule. They profit from rule by the incremental suppression of every means of profit possible other than productive, fully informed warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality in the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services, and information, and production of commons, institutions, and political orders. Men fight. Boys beg from mommy and daddy authority of whatever scale they must. Men are sovereign in fact. Boys have a little pretense of liberty by permission. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON
SOVEREIGNTY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM: IT STARTS WITH THE MILITIA **Rule of Law, by Natural Law, with Universal Standing, and Universal Applicability: A contractual corporation consisting of a distributed dictatorship of sovereign militia (men). ** A constitution of natural law creating a distributed private government, each member with one share ownership, purchasable by reciprocal insurance of all other members. With an independent judiciary, and and a hereditary monarchy providing a judge of last resort. Under such a corporation, under such a form of management, under such a contract, we have only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality, in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production private of goods, services, and information, commons of goods, services, and information, and the production of polities themselves, ad the means by which to cooperate. Government without discretion. Rule of Law between men, not over men. ( I have to substitute ‘militia’ for men, or the entire chain of reasoning is lost. )
SOVEREIGNTY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM: IT STARTS WITH THE MILITIA **Rule of Law, by Natural Law, with Universal Standing, and Universal Applicability: A contractual corporation consisting of a distributed dictatorship of sovereign militia (men). ** A constitution of natural law creating a distributed private government, each member with one share ownership, purchasable by reciprocal insurance of all other members. With an independent judiciary, and and a hereditary monarchy providing a judge of last resort. Under such a corporation, under such a form of management, under such a contract, we have only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality, in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production private of goods, services, and information, commons of goods, services, and information, and the production of polities themselves, ad the means by which to cooperate. Government without discretion. Rule of Law between men, not over men. ( I have to substitute ‘militia’ for men, or the entire chain of reasoning is lost. )
0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for:2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) 4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons. 5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information. 6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction.7) A market for the resolution of disputes over property in toto by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary) 8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers) 9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.
0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for:2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) 4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons. 5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information. 6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction.7) A market for the resolution of disputes over property in toto by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary) 8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers) 9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.
THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false, non-parasitic) political speech. In fact, it was the state that ended our market for truthful speech. Why? … Isn’t science an ongoing discovery process? doesn’t it function as a market for information, with career ending punishments for violators? Don’t we protect against fraud and deceit in the market for goods and services – and provide special protections that PROHIBIT us from defending the market for information against fraud and deceit? Didn’t we, for millennia, protect against libel(written) and slander(spoken), and don’t we grant special privileges that prevent us from using the course to protect ourselves from libel and slander – especially in large scale media? In other words, doesn’t the state PROHIBIT us from self defense against falsehoods? Why is it that we cannot in private advocate for conspiracy (theft), yet in public can advocate for conspiracy (theft) as long as the majority of conspirators approve of the theft? Why is it that we used to be able to protect the environment,and the commons via the judiciary, but the state removed our juridical defense? Why is it that the state removed our juridical defense against members of the bureaucracy, the government, the academy, and the media? Are you going to try to advocate that reciprocity (natural law) is not, in cooperation, the equivalence of truth (decidability)? Or are you saying specifically that people should be able to violate reciprocity and violate truth in order to use large numbers to impose thefts using the violence of the government, in order to obtain by non-reciprocity and deceit, that which they might obtain by voluntary exchange, thereby depriving those who have one thing from obtaining another thing in exchange? Just because you can’t figure out how to create law of information regarding political speech (forcible coercion) such that it holds to the same standards as market speech (goods, services, and information) doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact. it was done for millennia. The question is why did the state take it away, and why can we not restore it?
THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false, non-parasitic) political speech. In fact, it was the state that ended our market for truthful speech. Why? … Isn’t science an ongoing discovery process? doesn’t it function as a market for information, with career ending punishments for violators? Don’t we protect against fraud and deceit in the market for goods and services – and provide special protections that PROHIBIT us from defending the market for information against fraud and deceit? Didn’t we, for millennia, protect against libel(written) and slander(spoken), and don’t we grant special privileges that prevent us from using the course to protect ourselves from libel and slander – especially in large scale media? In other words, doesn’t the state PROHIBIT us from self defense against falsehoods? Why is it that we cannot in private advocate for conspiracy (theft), yet in public can advocate for conspiracy (theft) as long as the majority of conspirators approve of the theft? Why is it that we used to be able to protect the environment,and the commons via the judiciary, but the state removed our juridical defense? Why is it that the state removed our juridical defense against members of the bureaucracy, the government, the academy, and the media? Are you going to try to advocate that reciprocity (natural law) is not, in cooperation, the equivalence of truth (decidability)? Or are you saying specifically that people should be able to violate reciprocity and violate truth in order to use large numbers to impose thefts using the violence of the government, in order to obtain by non-reciprocity and deceit, that which they might obtain by voluntary exchange, thereby depriving those who have one thing from obtaining another thing in exchange? Just because you can’t figure out how to create law of information regarding political speech (forcible coercion) such that it holds to the same standards as market speech (goods, services, and information) doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact. it was done for millennia. The question is why did the state take it away, and why can we not restore it?