THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOVEREIGNTY
– Aristocratic Sovereignty demonstrable in fact. (create order)
– Bourgeoise Liberty by permission for profit. (organize)
– Craftsman Freedom by permission when profitable. (transform)
– Dependent Subsidy for virtue signals when possible. (reproduce)
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 07:52:00 UTC
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARISTOCRATIC SOVEREIGNTY IN FACT, AND BOURGEOISE LIBERTY BY PERMISSION?
(good argument against parasitic rothbardians, and libertarians who have not yet ‘come over’.)
All talk of rights is the equivalent of all talk of god’s demands. Nonsense. Rights are created as the end result – the effect. What are they the result of?
(a) Sovereignty is testably true or false, and is a condition created by nothing other than the capacity to oppose impositions against one’s possessions by retaliation with violence. Sovereign men = legislatures of one.
(b) A condition of liberty is obtained by permission of those who are sovereign. And the history of liberty is the history of begging the sovereign for a limited imitation of sovereignty that we call liberty. Liberty is granted by sovereign men to unsovereign men so that they may be taxed for profit.
(d) among sovereign men, and those dependents who one grants liberty, the only means of preserving sovereignty and liberty is to resolve disputes by natural, judge discovered, common law of no-imposition: non-provocation of retaliation, against property-in-toto: the investments of the other.
(e) The sovereign minority creates liberty for the dependent minority who holds liberty by permission, in exchange for producing commissions earned by the sovereign that those who possess liberty do not pay.
(f) There exist moral fees and immoral fees. But if the fees are moral (productive ends) then *all moral taxes are moral* so to speak.
(g) we are not equal, unless we are equal in sovereignty. We are only equal in sovereignty in a militia of reciprocally insured men.
(h) and reciprocally insured men have by their action created a commons which we call property rights and the court of common law: a right constitutes an insurance claim upon the promise of reciprocity between and enforced by sovereign men.
THEREFORE
1) the scope of ones possessions and interests one claims reciprocal insurance of in order not to retaliate, break the peace and harm the market, and produce retaliation spirals, is limited only by the range of investments sovereign men make in the market that they have constructed by the use of violence to prohibit parasitism and create increases in trade from which they profit.
2) The entire libertine corpus consists of whining and begging to obtain the benefits of a market created by others, while escaping the costs. in other words libertarianism is an elaborate excuse to free ride upon the commons just as socialism is an elaborate excuse to free ride on private production. just another fraud in obscurant language.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 07:38:00 UTC
FOREIGN POLICY: POSTWAR ASSUMPTIONS NOW FALSE
1) FALSE: The United States enjoys and will continue to enjoy uncontested military primacy, not just globally, but in all key strategic theaters.
2) FALSE: U.S. allies are the richest, most capable countries in the world.
3) FALSe: A richer and more globally integrated China will also be a freer and more peaceful China.
4) FALSE: Great-power war is obsolete.
5) FALSE: The advance of democracy is unstoppable and irreversible.
6) FALSE: Globalization is inexorable.
7) FALSE: Technological innovation will lead to greater human flourishing and freedom, and will disproportionately favour the United States.
In other words CONSERVATIVES WERE RIGHT.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 06:54:00 UTC
NO, THE USA HAD NO STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE, BUT THE OLIGARCHS CERTAINLY DID.
—“Ukraine is corrupt but that is not the fault of Russia. Its Western puppet government is no better than Yanukovich’s. If anything, it is worse.”—-
Yeah?
Do you mean that the soviet system was not perpetuated by russian funding of ‘favorable tyrants’? Even after Putin said “We paid for them, we thought we had bought them.” But was totally off guard when the revolution happened? And so Putin panicked?
Do you mean, that when the oligarchs realized that Yanukovich was going to hand over the country to Russia, after Yanukovich ditched the EU deal, that they paid for the revolution, and put one of their own in power? After Russia has paid Yanukovich to bribe his way to re-election (I was offered 200uah to vote for him and I couldn’t even vote), and paid him to unfund and dismantle the military so that it would be easy for them to seize the country?
The oligarch’s clock is ticking and membership in the EU will force them out, but unlike Putin who will just kill them or take everything, the europeans will buy them off. The problem is that Russia is stalemating the EU by preserving the conflict.
So since I’m probably one of the more knowledgeable westerners in Ukraine maybe you should follow incentives rather than RT propaganda.
The USA did spend money to help pay for the costs of the revolution, but they were reluctant up until the last minute. I know. ‘Cause I was there.
So go be a russian troll or useful western idiot with someone stupid and ignorant enough to buy your regurgitated propaganda.
THE OLIGARCHS WERE AFRAID OF YANUKOVICH AND REPLACED HIM.
I dunno what is so freaking conspiratorial about the damned obviousness of it. teh govenrment owns 80% of the land in ukraine, and they sell it to foreigners for agrarian production. The oligarchs own nearly everything else, and have privatized as much of the commons as is possible. Why this wouldn’t happen regardless of american intervention is something only an idiot can’t understand. Follow the money. Follow the incentives.
The USA offered to do the one thing that would fix ukrainian corruption, and that was to pay the salaries of the judiciary, and thereby separate and create an independent judiciary that was monitored by westerners.
That would have fixed ukraine. But the president, the government and the oligarchs resisted it.
The soviet system remains until the people of ukraine kill enough politicians that they will kill enough olicarchs that they can use european money.
But here is what will happen: the euro is going to collapse in the next few years. Not long. This will create a profound depression in europe and force an alliance between Russia and Germany.
Ukraine has only two years of safety yet. And I doubt I am the only person on the planet to figure that out.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 18:21:00 UTC
The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of: 1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads. 3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly. Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of: 1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads. 3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly. Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
TO THE NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT ON YOUR LATEST VIRTUE-SIGNALING EXERCISE REGARDING TRUMP.
We have a word over here on The Right for men who genuflect before women’s emotionalism as if their feelings equate to material change in state. We call these men ‘cucks’. Short for ‘cuckolds’. And for reasons we can’t quite understand, other than perhaps Australians and New Zealanders have no other achievement or export than virtue-signaling, it seems that members of both governments do little more than produce a virtue-signaling economy of cuckoldry. Why? Because the female vote is bought cheaply with the same meaningless emotional currency as women demand and cuckholds sell. Meanwhile the empirical people in the world, in our financial, commercial, and military economies try to produce material benefits faster than the Red Queen of Virtue Signals can tax them, spend to demonstrate virtue signals for women who are consumers of emotions rather than facts.
This is the reason that democracy is coming to an end. The century of virtue signaling is coming to an end. Because we can no longer produce an unwarranted fraudulent emotional product on the backs of people who create material products, services, and information.
You are not seeing what you think you’re seeing. What you’re seeing is america implode from its own virtue signaling in the face of the universal adoption of consumer capitalism, the end of the Peace of Westphalia, the end of Anglo dominance of the international network of finance and trade, and and the restoration of non-state warfare by religion, demographics, disinformation, and persistent petty raiding that increases cooperative risk – decreasing trust, increasing demand for an authoritarian state to forestall declines in trust, and the economic consequences of political and economic and social distrust.
And just to be clear: it was ‘cucks’ chasing female votes with ‘free lunches’ and virtue signals that brought the end to the Westphalian Peace and the restoration of polycentric warfare by both military, economic, demographic, religious, and disinformational means.
It was women who filled the universities with demand for the Frankfurt schools’ utopian promises, and paid the academy money for anthropological, political, social and economic pseudoscience. Driving up university revenues and impoverishing a generation in old age, so that they could study pseudoscience in large numbers, and vote to expand it.
Can you look the evidence of history in the face? Or will you deny the truth of granting women access to the same responsibilities as men without the same cognitive biases of men, instead of giving women a separate house of parliament, and requiring reconciliation between men and women of different reproductive interests and cognitive biases? Can you look the evidence of history in the face and accept that the English method of creating houses for each class created a market for exchanges of commons between the classes, and that single-house monopoly government, abandonment of natural law in favor of fashionable majoritarianism, further expanded the monopoly – eroding the market for exchanges between the classes.
You are just behind the USA. Britain is smaller so it is just catching up to the USA. But the answer is the same: we had more trouble domesticating women’s hyper-consumption than we did men’s violence. That’s why we invented monogamy: as a trade. We have been battling islam since 700AD when they caused the military collapse of mediterranean trade through raids, and incrementally de-civilized North Africa, Spain, and the Balkans just as they are causing raids against us today. And none of those regions has been able to recover in the centuries since.
So perhaps you should look in the mirror. The world is shifting from the era of a monopoly of pseudoscience, fraud, and lies, to an era of trade once again, between nations and classes and genders.
Why? Because monopolies are always a bad thing that attract the worst people, and a monopoly producer of virtue signals on the backs of producers that sells signals to useful idiots, granted votes by virtue of existence, rather than by demonstrated success in contributing to the commons in a market for reproduction; a market for goods, services, and information; a market for dispute resolution by natural, judge-discovered common law, and a market for the production of commons between the classes, is just the most sophisticated system of selling religion, snake oil, pyramid schemes, and fraud since the church invented the bureaucratization of preaching and the collecting of tithes.
The fool is in the mirror.
(Thus ended the lesson so to speak.)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 09:56:00 UTC
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WE CAN REVOLT
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 08:50:00 UTC
IS THE PROBLEM REALLY DEMOCRACY? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:
The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:
1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.
And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.
3) MONOPOLY MAJORITARIANISM. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.
Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 06:12:00 UTC
Democracy is a means of distributing the spoils of conquest. Period.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 18:05:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803661288932974593
Reply addressees: @blahblahblah9tn @Anti_Gnostic @charlesmurray @JonHaidt @nntaleb
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803661129293541376
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/803661129293541376