(11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.)
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.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52491576_10157003298252264_6424530364756131840_o_10157003298247264.jpg PROPERTY IN TOTO IS DEAD SIMPLEMartin ŠtěpánThe way I was trying to explain this to people asking if leftists can have properties such multiculti, equality etc. is that just because we recognize something as property doesn’t automatically mean we also recognize your right to having it. But I guess that might just cause more confusion.Feb 21, 2019, 3:49 PMSimon Ström2) is merely justification for 1) and 3) describes a situation of mutually assured warranty, ultimately rooted in 1) applied to institutions of legal practiceFeb 21, 2019, 4:06 PMCurt DoolittleGod i love it when you are around. …. thank youFeb 21, 2019, 4:17 PMJosh King4) something that a government may not seize or search without a proper warrant, because it was not earned by the state.Feb 21, 2019, 5:26 PMEthan TriceMight pretty much does make right. We may not like it, but that’s a far more valid theory than social contractsFeb 21, 2019, 5:45 PMJimmy KnowlesWhen you consider it as a nation it makes sense as well. Willing to defend, invest tax money for infrastructure mutual defense and retirement, without imposing cost on others as a parasite, you can have a clear definition of citizen via that route.Feb 21, 2019, 5:50 PMStephen ThomasInvestment (accountable resources)
Honest Acquisition (without impositions or fraud)
Defense (forceful/violent protection)
Will you invest in it? Have you honestly acquired it? Will you fight or die to secure it?
If so, how can anyone rightfully claim it is not yours?Feb 21, 2019, 6:11 PMJim CatreHalf of this conflates defense of property with the acquisition of property.Feb 21, 2019, 7:18 PMJim CatreAre there any economists in this group other than myself?Feb 21, 2019, 7:20 PMCurt Doolittle—“Jim Catre Half of this conflates defense of property with the acquisition of property.”—
Explain???Feb 21, 2019, 7:25 PMJim Catre>Men are willing to defend with violence.
Suggests that someone who is unable to defend said property doesn’t actually own it. Furthermore, it doesn’t address whether the defense of said property has to be performed by the owner of the property. In either case, it does not describe a method by which one acquires authority over said property.
>Have a provable investment.
This can be open to interpretation. For example, if I purchase a large plot of real-estate and have the contract to prove as much, it doesn’t mean that the person who sold the real estate had the authority to sell to begin with.
The other interpretation, and the one that 99% of ideologies seem to follow, implies something akin to Lockean methods of property acquisition.
>Acquired property without imposing costs on other parties.
Absolutely asinine statement. Due to scarcity and opportunity costs, virtually any kind of transaction can impose an external cost on others.Feb 22, 2019, 12:47 PMCurt DoolittleLearn something.
—“Suggests that someone who is unable to defend said property doesn’t actually own it.”–
He may in fact possess it. He may have invested in it. Under reciprocal conditions others may choose not to use it. But in physical reality ‘ownership’ is determined by an insurer who decides disputes (in most cases, the court, the police, the military, etc).
You can demonstrate investment. you can hold possession. you can agree with others that you will respect possessions (property), and you can construct an insurer that insures your possessions are not involuntarily transferred.
End the insurer and you don’t ‘own’ anything.
End the normative agreement and you don’t have ‘property’ only possession.
End your sufficiency of self defense against an aggressor and you don’t have possession.
Ergo. no. absent sufficient defense you don’t ‘own’ anything.Feb 22, 2019, 1:35 PMJim Catre>But in physical reality ‘ownership’ is determined by an insurer who decides disputes (in most cases, the court, the police, the military, etc).
Again, you’re not answering the question of acquisition. How did the court, police, etc. gain ownership over the real estate or natural resources?
>absent sufficient defense you don’t ‘own’ anything.
But you completely contradict this statement when you bring up property norms and the individual and social benefit gained from having property rights. Market failure occurs when property rights cannot be defined.Feb 22, 2019, 1:40 PMCurt Doolittle—“>Have a provable investment. “…. This can be open to interpretation. For example, if I purchase a large plot of real-estate and have the contract to prove as much, it doesn’t mean that the person who sold the real estate had the authority to sell to begin with. The other interpretation, and the one that 99% of ideologies seem to follow, implies something akin to Lockean methods of property acquisition.”—
Which claim are you making?
1. you failed due diligence and must appeal to the court despite having done so in order obtain restitution or title.
2. the other party engaged in fraud or error, and you must appeal to the court for his having done so, in order to obtain restitution or title.
3. you have demonstrated investment (performed) some investment even if you cannot demonstrate (provide evidence) that you have done so, and therefore have some moral right to either restitution or the property regardless of the court if you can find someone who can enforce it, or if you are able to physically enforce it yourself.Feb 22, 2019, 1:41 PMJim CatreSee? That’s my point. It definitely seems as though your entire argument is “might makes right” and, if that’s the case, you need to stop beating around the bush and fucking own it.Feb 22, 2019, 1:41 PMJim Catre4. None of the above. I’m looking for what gives someone the right to initially claim authority and ownership over capital.Feb 22, 2019, 1:42 PMCurt DoolittleJim Catre
—“might makes right”—
No, we are correcting you’re use of moralisms, idealism, and special pleading. Might MAKES EVERYTHING, PERIOD. The question of whether it makes reciprocity (right), parasitism (wrong), or predation (very wrong).
—“4. None of the above. I’m looking for what gives someone the right to initially claim authority and ownership over capital.”—
Claim to whom?, How can one have ‘authority’ or ‘ownership?
—“claim”—
Under test of reciprocity: demonstrated interests (cost in time, effort, resources) in acting to obtain that interest, or forgoing opportunity to take interest, by limiting one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of the same by externality upon others.”
(In case the deduction is not obvious, that includes homesteading.)
But again… claim before whom?
HERE (“property for the 1000’th time”)
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10157003524812264Feb 22, 2019, 1:48 PMCurt Doolittle(I am not beating around the bush. I am falsifying your priors in order to disambiguate your language such that it is no longer pop philosophy sophism. It’s not like you’re alone man. we do this every day.)Feb 22, 2019, 1:52 PMJim Catre> How can one have ‘authority’ or ‘ownership?
It’s axiomatic, and is a natural result of self-ownership and the social and economic need for organization. Ownership, after all, is just a derivative of authority. No one can exert higher authority over my mind and body than myself. If I own my body, I own and am responsible for it and its actions. Since I own my actions, I own and am responsible for the result of said actions.Feb 22, 2019, 1:52 PMJim CatreI think we’re coming from the same place, with the same conclusions. Violence is the supreme authority from which all authority derives. However, you can’t ignore the fact that, individually and socially, we get more utility through peace and non-violence.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMJim CatreThat’s WHY we’ve developed property norms.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMCurt DoolittleJim Catre there we go. that’s right.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMOliver CrokeMichael WitcoffFeb 22, 2019, 2:09 PMSteve PenderProperty is that which has such benefit that people are willing to bear the cost of defending it to continue deriving that benefit.Feb 22, 2019, 2:32 PMPROPERTY IN TOTO IS DEAD SIMPLE
Judge for yourself whether Howe is (a)Stupid, (b)Ignorant and Lazy, (c) Intellectually Dishonest, or (d) All of The Above.
Compare his definitions of propertarianism, of property, of operationalism, of the means of decidability (testimonialism) and claims made, with posts that are three or more years old.
Even worse, his confusion of justificationism (norm, philosophy, religion), with falsificationism (math, science, law) and that P constitutes an instance of law (decidability in matters of conflict) not justification (suggested or consensual behavior) or that he cannot seem to comprehend the difference between theory (search for opportunities) and recipes-actions (operational transformations) – say the theory of smelting vs the means of smelting different metals under different conditions. Or that the purpose of P is force the speaker to demonstrate he has the knowledge that he makes a truth claim in matters of conflict. Or that the Operationalist/Operational/intuitionistic/Praxeological movement resulted in current scientific prose. Or that Eprime is only used to formally criticize operational speech not ‘speak in it’ – in the same way formal logic is only used to formally criticize set statements. I mean… Howe’s criticism is one stupid ignorant lazy arrogant presumptuous statement after another.
Ask yourself if it was even vaguely possible to make the above podcast if you had even taken a cursory read of the material, and even a trivial understanding of it. Especially given that we tend to make definitions in series and he doesn’t use a single one. I mean, would you misrepresent the definition of P if it’s on the home page of the site? Would you misrepresent the definition of property and it’s means of construction? Would you misrepresent the operational and ePrime movements by criticism of the personalities of the time, or whether they performed as claimed? I mean, would you? Does the OED contain false definitions because they were written by a man, insane, and in an asylum?
Then ask yourself that given that little understanding, that much straw manning, the claim that it’s not personal compared to the gossiping he does at the end whether. And you’ve called my wife, who I met on my second day in Ukraine, a whore and me a sex tourist. And this is because the last time you came after me I did a pretty thorough destruction of apriorism – not that I had to since it’s pretty common knowledge among the educated (even someone like Rand) that this kantian nonsense was just an attempt at secular preservation of authority of the church and state.
Yes we are getting popular. In our popularity we are leaving behind people with malinvestments in failed intellectual, economic, and political movements. We might fail in our mission. That said WASTING MY TIME and POLLUTING THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS with stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest pretense does nothing to advance anything except a polluted commons, and to prohibit good people with good intentions, seeking a POSSIBLE solution to the problem of leftist usurpation of propaganda from paying the rather high cost of investing in learning how to do so.
Which is precisely what P is designed to do.
Dishonest, lazy ignorant, stupid, self interested shills. The world needs fewer of you. You’re just as cancerous to our people as the leftists.
PROPERTARIAN NATURAL LAW VS CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION VS LEGISLATION VS REGULATION
Propertarian natural law used to create normative (political) law – but truthfully. Meaning that we must give special dispensation to devout christians to lie about magic nonsense, just as we give special dispensation to the Amish.
But in matters of law, no. Ie: we can re-christianize the public spaces etc, and re-paganize the public spaces, and re-lionize (heroes) the public spaces … if we want. We just must state that christians exchange prohibition on making truth claims about magic nonsense in exchange for free practice of the religion. And once that constitutional trade is made, it cannot be modified.
In practice this is what exists today. Except we cannot outlaw judaism and islam for being counter to natural law. Whereas christianity is only counter to the justification of natural law.
The law exists so that those with material interests (power) preserve the value of cooperation by forcing people into, and limiting them to, the market, and denying them non-market means (within the limits of cost and ability).
Propertarianism explains how to use this law (logic) to suppress those forms of parasitism that are currently not, because we lacked a means of doing so. In particular (and I have only come to understand this myself over the past few years) it suppresses baiting into moral hazard, which is the general technique of exploitation that is in use. (including your sophism above).
P it’s purely empirical. “people do this”, “this is why”, “self interest of those with interests”, “where almost all but the marginal cases have interests.”
You can build any political order with P that you want precisely because it is an algorithmic logic (grammar), as long as you do it truthfully.
To falsify P would require you falsify rational choice, reciprocity, and self interest. To state you would prefer to built some other form of government no matter how honest or dishonest, productive or parasitic, would still be explicable in P, and peoples’ behavior under it would still be universally expliable with P, because P is not a philosophy (should) but a science (is). It is the science and logic of what we call the psychological, linguistic, social sciences, and political sciences.
Now you can ‘bitch’ about the fact that I use this logic to advocate for rule of law – the most parsimonious expression of that science – because you like or do not like that particular world (because it would crush ‘creativity in dishonesty’) which means ‘witty people’ have no more utility in their manipulation of others in order to obtain self image, social status, and various forms of influence. But that is the point altogether.
P is simply ‘true’. What you do it it is a matter of your (power-group’s) preferences. I prefer to crush the abrahamic deceits (baiting into moral hazard by sophisms, pseudosciences, supernaturalisms, and deceits) and to use this to save my people from their lies. Maybe you prefer otherwise.
But I am fairly sure that the mainstream will prefer my argument and policy recommendations over the alternatives and this lowers their resistance to its implementation relative to your alternatives.
Again. Please don’t try to be smarter. You aren’t in the first place (even close) and P is quite a superpower – just like reason, empiricism, and science were superpowers before it.
The more I use P, the better I get at it, the more I understand the revolution in human thought and experience that would be brought about is as great as the previous revolutions provided by western thought (reason, empiricism, science).
WOOD CHIPPER POLITICAL PARTY? ( lol 😉 ) by Eric Burkett
Here is how property really works: …. If you won’t fight for it you then don’t own shit. ….. We tried principles. ….. We got open border child stripper communism. Wood chippers now.
WHAT ARE THE LEGIT CRITS OF PROP? (One More Time!!!)
2019-02-14
—“Curt: honest question: What are the faults/weaknesses to propertarianism? I am a supporter but no human system is perfect and would like to know that you have thought out how to beat your own plan and what are the counters to slow or stop those from happening. Keep up the good work. Thanks if you respond.”—
Um. I publish legit criticisms all the time. There are a few.
They are all reducible to:
Its big, complex, deep, and hard to learn. It is. The more I undrestand it myself, the more I understand that this scale of thing has only happened three other times in history. But people want something simple-stupid like libertarianism or progressivism. It’s not an ideology. it’s the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to all human thought, embodiment in the law, and means of restoring our civilization.
People want a political ideology, religion, or secular religion (philosophy) and prop is simply science and law, with ADVICE on religion and secular religion.
Jewish, christian, islamic religion do not come off very well, and I have not found a way to accommodate christian mysticism.
Everyone wants a monopoly (religion, authoritarianism, fascism, anarchism) when we must use each of these components in every society – we cannot have a monopoly on any of them. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred way of organizing society – i use all of them.
I suggest a few methods of governing across various peoples and various conditions with the law being the only constant. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred order. I use what is required.
I am an unabashed elitist working in favor of my people, but other than knowing what is good for my people, I do not consider their understanding of the world very valuable. Only the set of demands they have, not their way of satisfying them. ( I do not claim to be a good, a moral, or decent person or anything of the sort, I only claim I am correct. God knows I’ve made the same mistakes everyone else has. )
As far as I know there are no extant criticisms of the work itself and it will be extremely unlikely such things will arise other than in nuances. This is revolutionary and once you understand it your life will be changed forever.
THE COMMON LEGIT CRITS
… are listed in Section 3 Here:
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156982914672264
WHAT ARE THE LEGIT CRITS OF PROP? (One More Time!!!)
2019-02-14
—“Curt: honest question: What are the faults/weaknesses to propertarianism? I am a supporter but no human system is perfect and would like to know that you have thought out how to beat your own plan and what are the counters to slow or stop those from happening. Keep up the good work. Thanks if you respond.”—
Um. I publish legit criticisms all the time. There are a few.
They are all reducible to:
Its big, complex, deep, and hard to learn. It is. The more I undrestand it myself, the more I understand that this scale of thing has only happened three other times in history. But people want something simple-stupid like libertarianism or progressivism. It’s not an ideology. it’s the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to all human thought, embodiment in the law, and means of restoring our civilization.
People want a political ideology, religion, or secular religion (philosophy) and prop is simply science and law, with ADVICE on religion and secular religion.
Jewish, christian, islamic religion do not come off very well, and I have not found a way to accommodate christian mysticism.
Everyone wants a monopoly (religion, authoritarianism, fascism, anarchism) when we must use each of these components in every society – we cannot have a monopoly on any of them. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred way of organizing society – i use all of them.
I suggest a few methods of governing across various peoples and various conditions with the law being the only constant. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred order. I use what is required.
I am an unabashed elitist working in favor of my people, but other than knowing what is good for my people, I do not consider their understanding of the world very valuable. Only the set of demands they have, not their way of satisfying them. ( I do not claim to be a good, a moral, or decent person or anything of the sort, I only claim I am correct. God knows I’ve made the same mistakes everyone else has. )
As far as I know there are no extant criticisms of the work itself and it will be extremely unlikely such things will arise other than in nuances. This is revolutionary and once you understand it your life will be changed forever.
THE COMMON LEGIT CRITS
… are listed in Section 3 Here:
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156982914672264
