Theme: Property

  • PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER. (in res

    PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER.

    (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)

    —“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks

    If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err.

    PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 14:32:00 UTC

  • “Libertarians think opening borders would finally help them defend property righ

    —“Libertarians think opening borders would finally help them defend property rights when in reality it’d speed up the opening of their private property’s borders.”—Steve Pender


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 16:11:00 UTC

  • There are not options with nationalization and resale

    There are not options with nationalization and resale.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-24 17:41:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242506957979877378

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242474181926752256

  • You aren’t very bright. Choices: 1) Take a huge personal lost for ceremonial rea

    You aren’t very bright.
    Choices:
    1) Take a huge personal lost for ceremonial reasons. (liberals are ok with their own doing it.)
    2) State you’re going to sell and be open to litigation for market manipulation.
    3) Sell and let the market do its job.
    Adults do #3. You’re a child.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-20 17:36:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1241056111987503105

    Reply addressees: @OutragePoet

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1241043312590483456

  • NO IT”S JUST A NORMAL TORT CASE – PARENTS DON”T HAVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE —“Curt,

    NO IT”S JUST A NORMAL TORT CASE – PARENTS DON”T HAVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE

    —“Curt, is this interesting or am I reading too much into it? From what I’ve read on UK property rights (past and present), the idea that pleas of injustice or “hey, no fair” could… https://ift.tt/2Wz6BGN


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-19 18:38:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240709193776214017

  • It’s intellectually dishonest, and moral crime to claim such a thing is possible

    It’s intellectually dishonest, and moral crime to claim such a thing is possible for any period of time – or that the result wouldn’t be increasing rents by 500 per month over the medium and long term.

    Pay down mortgages, write off consumer debt, double food stamp money – NOW.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-17 20:30:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240012567587815431

    Reply addressees: @SenKamalaHarris

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239946668990246912

  • Just as the last time, in 2009, Galbraith and I said “Just pay down home mortgag

    Just as the last time, in 2009, Galbraith and I said “Just pay down home mortgages and you’ll stop the worldwide price correction”.

    Same crime, different year.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-12 23:44:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1238249547853443073

    Reply addressees: @BethLynch2020

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1238175262795235335

  • Inalienable Rights are Inalienable 😉

    Inalienable Rights are Inalienable 😉 https://propertarianism.com/2020/03/03/inalienable-rights-are-inalienable/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-03 15:08:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234858141969526789

  • Inalienable Rights are Inalienable 😉

    —“Regarding: “Inalienable human rights only exist if we provide them to ourselves.” How is this done? Watched John Mark’s recent video with Curt and the topic came up, but it’s not quite sinking in yet. My best guess is it means I am obligated to defend those rights with words, actions, arms, etc., for myself (and perhaps others), otherwise it is a crime.”—Jack Scarbrough

    Correct. None may speak or act to remove them, nor may you by speaking or not, acting or not, surrender them.

  • Inalienable Rights are Inalienable 😉

    —“Regarding: “Inalienable human rights only exist if we provide them to ourselves.” How is this done? Watched John Mark’s recent video with Curt and the topic came up, but it’s not quite sinking in yet. My best guess is it means I am obligated to defend those rights with words, actions, arms, etc., for myself (and perhaps others), otherwise it is a crime.”—Jack Scarbrough

    Correct. None may speak or act to remove them, nor may you by speaking or not, acting or not, surrender them.