Theme: Property

  • What would happen if we returned to the gold standard?

    What would happen if we returned to the gold standard?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 18:23:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253026562624106498

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253026335519358977

  • WHERE DOES THE PROPERTARIAN PARTY FIT INTO THE PROPERTARIAN MOVEMENT? By Nathen

    WHERE DOES THE PROPERTARIAN PARTY FIT INTO THE PROPERTARIAN MOVEMENT?

    By Nathen

    I have been thinking about where this political party fits into the movement as a whole quote a bit recently. P is fundamentally an intellectual, not political movement, but it has profound political ramifications. I consider myself a Newb so take this for what it’s worth, but my observation is that Curt Doolittle is focusing primarily on developing leaders and teachers who can spread and grow this next intellectual revolution.

    While leaders like John Mark (who provided my introduction to P through his Youtube videos), ITV, Brandon Hayes, Bill Joslin and Noah Revoy are sharing the intellectual and political ideas of P with many people, there is not, as far as I know, a grassroots, boots-on-the-ground organization yet. In my opinion, this is the purpose of the Propertarian Party.

    While the internet is an incredible tool for sharing information and connecting people, we are hardwired for face-to-face interaction. If our goal is to enact real change, it must happen in meatspace, not in the electronic ether. While display and word can happen electronically, these must eventually be translated into deed. Deeds require hands and muscles and sweat and blood. If we talk but do not act, we are useless and have no place in the Pack.

    The effectiveness of political parties is in being able to look your neighbor in the eye and speak to him about how your political ideas can improve his life. Face-to-face communication is visceral, not just intellectual. People can experience your conviction, or lack thereof, much more completely. Consider the possibilities of setting up a table at a gun show (once we start having them again). Having the opportunity to meet dozens, if not hundreds of like-minded people from your area and talk to them about the solutions that P offers. People are familiar and comfortable with political parties. This may make us more approachable. The Party may also be a good vehicle for fund-raising.

    Another consideration is what happens after we achieve victory (we will) and the Propertarian Constitution, or as I think of it, the Revitalized US Constitution is enacted? How will these 1000 Aristocracies bloom? Having multiple local Propertarian Party organizations already in place will make the transition quicker and more focused. It all comes down to Boots On The Ground.

    This Group is a great way to start the process, but ultimately it is each of our responsibility to begin talking to people in our communities and introducing them to Propertarianism. The Propertarian Party is a vehicle to make it easier to start that conversation, but WE must be it’s advocates. We must each be willing to speak the difficult and uncomfortable truths directly to another person knowing we may anger or offend them and that we may get yelled at or even physically assaulted.

    Are you ready and willing to stand in front of another man and speak the truth he needs to hear even if it upsets him? Are you ready to deal with GSRRM right in your face? I am. Do you have the courage to stand up in front of a group of strangers and tell the truth regardless of cost? I do. I will.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 14:16:00 UTC

  • OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can des

    OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL

    He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. The men who can defend or destroy, always own and control things. The question is only whether they act to control things they own. This is why a universal militia is required to produce rule of law – the power to deny power. And this is why only western man has rule of law – individual sovereignty. And with the introduction of metal, the spear, then the sword, then the bow, then the rifle, the militia increasingly obtained power, to deny power. The purpose of the militia is to create the power to deny power, so that no one else has the power to control things or destroy things – leaving only sovereignty and reciprocity under the natural law as means of survival. Therefore the host of men must exercise control of things in order to prevent control of things, leaving only the natural law, and and the markets for reciprocity within them.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 07:50:00 UTC

  • That is communist chinese propaganda. Does that mean your ancestors who kept the

    That is communist chinese propaganda. Does that mean your ancestors who kept the secret recipe for porcelain should not have?
    A thing belongs to those who use violence to maintain their ownership. We don’t use violence – Because we wanted to end your primitive chinese barbarism.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 14:54:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250437272257748994

    Reply addressees: @Djww5 @healingbyhenry @sunkiisss

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250436734392754176

  • MORAL FOUNDATIONS (INSTINCTS) SOCIALIST – EQUALITARIAN – FEMALE (HERD) (Consumpt

    MORAL FOUNDATIONS (INSTINCTS)

    SOCIALIST – EQUALITARIAN – FEMALE

    (HERD)

    (Consumption – Short Term – Anti-Property)

    Offer: Care, Affection, Sex. Weapon: Undermining, Disloyalty.

    1) Care/Harm: Redistributive Property

    (Welfare, Charity, Land reform)

    And;

    2) Fairness/Cheating: Proportionality. Cooperative Property (Sharing, Antitrust laws, Sport rules)

    LIBERTARIAN – EGALITARIAN – ASCENDENT MALE

    (SOLITARY HUNTER)

    (Production – Medium Term – Property – Exchange)

    Offer: Exchange. Weapon: Boycott (deprivation)

    3) Liberty/Oppression: Personal Property

    (freedom, liberty, self determination, opportunity seeking)

    And;

    4) Truth/Face: reciprocity information Property

    (truth before face:M vs face before truth:F)

    ARISTOCRACY – HIERARCHY – DOMINANT MALE

    (PACK)

    (Capitalization – Long Term – Common Property)

    5) Sanctity/Degradation: Disgust: Normative Property

    (Norms, Manners, Ethics)

    And;

    6) Loyalty/Betrayal: Interpersonal Property

    (Kinship, Ethnicity, Nationhood)

    And;

    7) Authority/Subversion: Institutional Property

    (Religion, Hierarchy, Law)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-14 09:13:00 UTC

  • MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and

    MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME?

    Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals.

    See?

    Here:

    Human Logical Facility (constant relations) >

    …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) >

    …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) >

    …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) >

    …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) >

    …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) >

    …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) >

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) >

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence

    (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 08:33:00 UTC

  • “In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics whe

    —“In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining?”—Billy Law-Bregan

    Smart. Good thinking. Good question.

    In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable)

    In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ).

    So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits.

    MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total.

    LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total.

    STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total

    All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit.

    Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 08:33:00 UTC

  • CONNECT LOCALLY with Your Fellow Members of the Winning Right & Properta… via

    CONNECT LOCALLY with Your Fellow Members of the Winning Right & Properta… https://youtu.be/KzLfL1WyGME via @YouTube


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-10 03:12:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1248448745844412421

  • “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME Propertarianism is just a brand name for

    “PROPERTARIANISM” IS JUST A BRAND NAME

    Propertarianism is just a brand name for strictly constructed traditional anglo american constitutional law, that is an evolution of our law, that prevents the (((crimes))) invented during the twentieth century, that were used to undermine western civlization. “Propertarian” was an ‘insult’ that was levied against libertarians who reduced all questions of social science to measurement by property. Fortunately, all questions of social science, ethics and law, really are reducible to measurement by demonstrated interest that we call property. But, property, at least under our definition, is complete where under libertarianism it was insufficient. I chose the name “propertarianism” because it maintained this system of measurement, and “strictly constructed natural law of reciprocity” was too difficult a brand name. At this point I would change it to Sovereignty, or “European Traditional Natural Law.” or something else. But the ‘term’ has stuck as a brand name so it’s hard to change it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 15:40:00 UTC

  • Constitution. Subject: Territory. Problem: Continents. Under the law one may use

    Constitution. Subject: Territory.

    Problem: Continents.

    Under the law one may use the kin group’s territory to produce preferred commons under the law.

    A group may not divorce the territory from the law.

    A group may not grant competing peoples territory.

    One may only exit the territory.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 16:58:00 UTC