Retweeted Alec Tyson (@alec_h_tyson):
Large majorities of Trump (78%) and Clinton (77%) supporters who are in a relationship, say spouse/partner shares #Election2016 preference https://t.co/DuHYeYANwW
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 19:02:00 UTC
Retweeted Alec Tyson (@alec_h_tyson):
Large majorities of Trump (78%) and Clinton (77%) supporters who are in a relationship, say spouse/partner shares #Election2016 preference https://t.co/DuHYeYANwW
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 19:02:00 UTC
(Saving in progress)
1) —“Hello Curt! Briefly, and simply, would you tell me the difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy?”—
CURT:
Great question.
A Dictator is not bound by rule of law. He exercises discretionary rule.
A Monarch in the european sense, is bound by rule of law, and exercises discretion only within the bounds of rule of law.
Most cultures other than china limit rulers to some sort of traditional boundaries or religious boundaries. But only christian monarchies were semi-bounded by whatever natural law the church and tradition were able to limit them with. Anglo saxons were quite good at limiting the power of the monarchy, and that is the tradition that carries with us.
2) —“Regarding how aristocratic families earn their status, a King is nominated to lead? He is lifted up to the top of a society rather than oppressing the people?”—
CURT:
For most of european history, kings were elected. The reason they adopted inheritance was to end succession conflicts. But the consequence was the extension of time preference and the increased production of competitive commons.
3) —“Things we’re more stable that way I guess. I suppose even with a “bad” King, the people could more or less go about their business
Why are modern royalty so impotent? I was raised on Queen Elizabeth and all things British (plus James Bond ). Where are they now when we could use some Leadership?”—
CURT:
(Great questions. I’m going to answer this in the main thread so that everyone benefits. I’m doing some other things right now so it might take some time. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 11:19:00 UTC
Jefferson misunderstood.
It is not the method of governance that matters so much as rule of law that constrains the action of all – governing and governed alike.
He justified majoritarianism, possible only under homogenity, yet enfranchised all hoping that the church would create the homogenaity.
But the ‘priesthood’ that ‘kept the faith’ of western civilization in prehistory, and in the ancient, medieval, and modern periods, has been the judiciary. The church was just another house of government.
The question we must solve is quite simple: how to preserve the independence, scholarship, and exclusivity of the judiciary, as the final arbiter of disputes over property-in-toto.
The truth is that self interest alone is what drives these people. And self defense of their status is enough, so long as the militia stands, and the miitary indocrtinates.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 09:09:00 UTC
If Trump wins we buy time. If Clinton Wins We Start A War.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 15:28:00 UTC
Do I understand correctly? That Russia Today (RT) bank accounts have been siezed and closed?
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 15:24:00 UTC
Have you ever MET any aristocracy? I have. sorry. But they’re aristocracy for a reason: they earned it. I look at monarch and nobility and if I must choose between Pelosi and Ryan and any of the great houses, it’s not a difficult choice.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 14:56:00 UTC
RULE BY OUR BETTERS IS PREFERABLE
I don’t fear rule by my betters as long as they are limited by rule of law under natural law, with universal application and universal standing. Because under rule of law the only possible way that they have to act is in my, and, our benefit. Conversely I detest being ruled by my inferiors without rule of law under natural law, with universal application and universal standing. Democracy guarantees that by sheer numbers my inferiors rule.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 14:42:00 UTC
THIS ISN’T A NEGOTIATION
You don’t understand. So let me help you. Sovereignty resulting in Liberty isn’t just an abstract moral good. It’s not just more competitive because it adapts faster than all other political models. It’s not just a eugenic and peaceful method of domesticating and evolving mankind from mystical barbarism to material reason. It’s not just western civilization’s reason for dragging humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, poverty, and disease. It’s not just western civilization’s evolutionary strategy – the first tenet of western ‘religion’.
It’s that Sovereignty resulting in Liberty is the only condition under which we agree to refrain from conquering, dispossessing, enslaving, and if necessary, murdering you, your allies, your kith, and your kin.
While it is true that citizens and customers are cheaper and more rewarding than slaves, serfs, and prisoners, it is far more preferable to return to universal warfare, colonization, manorialism, and slavery, than it is to continue to permit you to commit your genocide against our people, our culture, and our civilization.
So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty voluntarily, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, and kill you and your ilk until your consent is not longer relevant.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-14 14:26:00 UTC