QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Harvard is a hedge fund with a university attached to it.”
-Jordan Weissman, Slate
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 10:17:00 UTC
QUOTE OF THE DAY
“Harvard is a hedge fund with a university attached to it.”
-Jordan Weissman, Slate
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 10:17:00 UTC
Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW?
–“I don’t think most polycentrists claim that polycentric law would be conflicting or arbitrary, not much more than it already is, certainly not to the degree that it would be rendered undecidable.”—
Well, first, just to point out the obvious, then what is the point of it? Emotional satisfaction? The common law is already polycentric. In the sense that it evolves through every single judgement, and can be appealed on the basis of erroneous judicial judgement (not on the facts, but on the application of law).
The question facing libertarians is that polycentrisim is a convenient intellectual distraction from having failed to determine a necessary and sufficient means upon which to construct law.
Now I know enough cosmopolitan philosophy to know that this is the central strategy of cosmopolitan authors and their jewish predecessors: to state a half truth in order to allow subjective judgement to survive.
I have only begun my work on their strategy of deception through suggestion but I see it as not terribly helpful to my cause. So I haven’t taken it far enough.
Operationalism eliminates the tactic so that its no longer possible. I am more interested in the solution (operationalism and testimonialism) than I am in criticizing the group evolutionary strategy of the jewish enlightenment.
Hence why I focus on solutions rather than criticisms.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC
Q&A: HOW CAN WE REPEAL ARCHAIC LAW?
—“Are there provisions for repealing archaic law?”—
Since independent, organically evolved common law is not legislated, it need not be repealed. It need only be falsified by new law – just as all sciences falsify old theories with newer better theories.
In general both law and theory add precision, rather than falsify.
One of the values of strictly constructed law is that (a) it is very hard to create an erroneous law, and (b) it is easy to restructure(refactor) it (just as we restructure a program in software).
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC
Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW?
–“I’ve read your articles on incremental suppression of parasitism. Is that the only way law evolves in your formulation? “—
I cannot think of any other reason for LAW to evolve, even though I can think of many reasons why alternative CONTRACTS would evolve.
So when you are referring to the term ‘law’, I suspect you use the common convention of conflating discovered law, legislative command, legislative contract, and regulatory law into a single category of ‘that which must be obeyed’.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC
(Yeah. What you see me doing is constructing markets that create commons without the possibility of discretion. Libertinism avoids commons. But commons are the consequence of western high trust. And our competitive strategy.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 07:24:00 UTC
AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS.
The reason that Americans can trust you by default in business is because our courts will punish the HELL out of you if you act in an untrustworthy fashion. American courts largely function as lie detectors more so than truth detectors.
This is what separates Common law courts from Napoleonic law courts: There is (or should be) no difference between state and civic action; and we punish the hell out of violators, rather than regulate actions.
That this produces superior economic velocity for the middle and upper classes while allowing the lower classes enough rope to constantly hang themselves is not obvious. For this reason – difficulty for the proletarians – I do not see the necessity of a monopoly homogenous set of rules of operation.
If I am willing to operate by aristocratic (outcome based) common law, then I should be able to. If I prefer to have the protection of regulatory law (as instruction and guidance relieving the burden of knowledge) then I should be able to enjoy it.
But despite propter-hoc regulatory law, or post-hoc common law, in neither of these cases are the laws of dispute resolution in matters of property different. What differs is the form of insurance I expect in defense of them.
This differs from polycentric law, in the sense that there is no difference whatsoever in law, only difference in the requirements of the insurer. As such, the governmental ‘houses’ function as insurance agencies – insurers of last resort – rather than polycentric legal houses.
This difference separates Propertarianism from Libertinism (Cosmopolitan libertarianism) permanently. There is but one law of cooperation necessary for the preservation of cooperation as preferable to predation: non-parasitism (non-imposition of costs). There is but one positive expression insuring the victim: property rights to property en-toto. And therefore all conflict is decidable, and all law universal regardless of polity. But the means by which we insure one another, and the contracts we enter into one another, are something quite different. (We merely lie and equate legislation and regulation with law so that the government can claim false legitimacy for its actions. One can violate a political contract, but that is a contract violation not a legal violation. Whether one can issue regulation is not a question as long as it meets testimonial and propertarian criteria, and citizens have universal standing in juridical defense – which they don’t have today.)
The classical liberal model of houses that represent the interests of the classes and force exchanges between the classes was very close. The first mistake was investing power in the parliament rather than in the houses of parliament, and the second mistake was failing to add a house of labor and a house of dependents so that we could conduct trades between the newly enfranchised classes. Just as the British error was its failure to add a house of colonies to the government, rather than equal participation in the parliament.
SIMPLE RULES FOR COMPLEX LAW
There is but one cause of law, that is the facilitation and preservation of the incentive of cooperation and non-retaliation. There are no other causes of law other than the principle of non-parasitism that preserves the incentive of cooperation and non-retalitation.
There is but one law and that is property en toto. There i
All legislation consists of contract. No legislation consist of law.
All legislation must apply universally. All standing must mirror any application.
All legislation may only carry forward. No legislation may be retroactively imposed.
All legislation must consist of voluntary transfers. No legislation may force involuntary transfer.
All regulation is refinement of legislation. No regulation may extend beyond its governing legislation.
All regulation consists of contract modifications. No regulation may violate contract provisions.
All propertarian and testimonial contracts assent. No non-propertarian, non-testimonial contracts may assent.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 07:22:00 UTC
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/14/hot-air-exclusive-walker-pledges-to-end-federal-public-employee-unions/Walker pledges to end federal employee unions.
Well now we are seeing interesting policy ideas!
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-14 11:33:00 UTC
CAN I PLEASE HAVE BETTERS?
I mean, I want a king whose family has been in royalty for a thousand years. I want a senate with Norman Schwartzkopf’s, a house of commerce with captains of finance and industry, a house of commons with heads of households (families) and small and medium business owners, and a house of dependents who are none of the above. Why do we vote with unaccountable numbers rather than measurable money? Why do I have to listen to professional politicians lie about a non-existent common good, instead of the point of view of each of the classes? Why do we engage in the greatest lie since monotheism: democracy, rather than discuss the expressed wants and needs of the different classes?
I am happy to acknowledge my betters in family and business, industry and finance, trade routes and defense. Why do I not want my betters to rule? Why would any of us prefer the existing system of conflict generation and lying over truthful speech in the pursuit of creating commons between the classes?
**I pray thee god, grant us kings, and deliver us from the people.**
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-12 07:59:00 UTC
British Universalism: Locke, Hume, Smith, then Burke
Conquered the world with Ships, Cannon, Steel, Law, Accounting and Trade.
Utopianism led to wealth.
Conquered Germany and in doing so Europe.
Left the american “children” holding the bag.
Americans constrained communism by selling utopianism.
That utopianism was suicide.
The anglos have been fools.
Under the excuse of not offending customers.
Resulted in their suicide: conquest by their customers.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-03 09:01:00 UTC
Well you are probably better informed about them. I work with institutions more so than rhetoric.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-29 12:37:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/637605078766067712
Reply addressees: @soapjackal @Outsideness @ne0colonial
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/637602426585878528
IN REPLY TO:
@soapjackal
@curtdoolittle @Outsideness @ne0colonial Thats understandable. Its important to learn the lesson of the german Cameralists regardless.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/637602426585878528