https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWZCxqCbh_wPART 7 !!!!!
Propertarian E-book
Published on Jan 25, 2019
– A LIST OF HANS HERMANN HOPPE’S ERRORS
– LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS
– THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE AND CONSTRUCTING LIBERTY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWZCxqCbh_w&
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-25 14:23:00 UTC
PROPERTARIAN PARSIMONY
GIVEN THE FOLLOWING
Whereas life defends investment of
1. Time,
2. Effort,
3. Resources,
4. Forgone opportunity
Where defended investments consist of:
1. Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.
2. Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.
3. Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.
4. Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.
5. Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares. Citizenship.
6. Common Property – Territorial and capital interests, Artificial Property.
7. Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.
8. Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.
Where reciprocity consists of:
1. Productive
2. Fully informed
3. Warrantied
4. Voluntary transfer
5. Free negative externality.
Where ir-reciprocity in action consists of:
Action:
1. Murder
2. Harm
3. Theft
—
4. Fraud (in all forms)
5. Free Riding (in all forms: Socialization of losses, Privatization of commons)
7. Blackmail
8. Rent Seeking.
9. Conspiracy
—
10. Propagandizing (Poisoning the well)
11. Conversion (Poisoning the well)
—
12. Immigration,
13. Conquest
14. Genocide
And where ir-reciprocity in speech consists in:
Speech
1. Intent to lie.
2. Intent to deceive.
3. Failure of due diligence against lying
4. Carrier of lies.
5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.
6. A genetic predisposition to lie.
And Where truthful speech consists of:
1. categorically consistent (identity)
2. internally consistent (logic)
3. externally correspondent (empirical)
4. operationally consistent (existentially possible)
5. rationally consistent (rational choice)
6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice)
7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete)
8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent)
And where:
And where both Actions and Speech are limited by:
9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible.
10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution.
And Where the function of the state is:
1. The function of the state is largely to serve as insurer of last resort against actions for which restitution is impossible, improbable, or beyond the means of the community to organize.
And Where the function of the law is:
1. The function of common natural law is to resolve differences.
2. The function of legislation is to provide contracts for production of commons.
3. The function of regulation is to administer operationalization of legislation, and the common law.
And Where the difficulty in the present:
1. No means of testing the legislation prior to its enactment.
2. No means of returning legislation to the legislature.
3. No means of approving regulation as expansion of legislation.
4. No means of structurally limiting law, legislation, and regulation, to strict construction from reciprocity and therefore tests of computability (operational possibility).
In other words, there are limits to what private insurers can do, and the case study is germany, which makes most use of insurance of any people.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 10:09:00 UTC
I just did. They are systemic problems due to failures of our law to incrementally suppress parasitism and rents, and (as pickety takes pleasure in driving home) regular corrections of systems of parasitism are necessary in every durable state.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 16:41:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087389775315767298
Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087389309777383424
IN REPLY TO:
@OctaveFilms
@curtdoolittle @vdare Just list the three most parisitic out of all parasites! Not just generally but specifically.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087389309777383424
The first question of philosophy is ‘why not commit suicide?’; the first question of ethics is ‘why not kill you and take what is yours?”; the first of politics “Why should me and mine not end, enslave, enserf you?” The only answer to the second two questions is ‘reciprocity’.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 15:53:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087377602506051584
Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087369547982749697
IN REPLY TO:
@OctaveFilms
@curtdoolittle @vdare Fair enough on the semantics.
But if we parse out all the word salad, a win for you is basically a re-writing of the Constitution that establishes a cultural hiearachy.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087369547982749697
A victory consists in the restoration of the constitution to Rule of Law by the Natural Law of Reciprocity, the elimination of accumulate rent seeking, and the prohibition on commercial, financial, bureaucratic, academic, and political speech that is false or irreciprocal.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 14:15:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087353041211351040
Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087339978273841154
IN REPLY TO:
@OctaveFilms
@curtdoolittle @vdare What constitutes a victory?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087339978273841154
A LAW DEGREE MIGHT HINDER YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF PROPERTARIANISM
by Daniel Roland Anderson (law)
Depending on one’s academic and personal background, a law degree does significantly more harm than good when it comes to understanding Curt’s work. (Math, Engineering, and Philosophy majors can help. English Lit, Sociology, and Political Science will hinder.)
Mostly, a law degree hurts, because one learns to conflate legislation and regulation with actual law—which you won’t learn in law school at all.
And the version of Common Law schools teach (pilpul) will definitely do more harm than good because reciprocity has no role in the process, unless learning how to circumvent, distort, denigrate, and subvert reciprocity counts as a “role.”
Law schools excel at this.
Also, Dunning-Kruger will be an issue for most law school grads.
The situation is actually worse than I’m making out, but I’m spending some time with a friend who grew up working in the fields with me, so I’m in a good mood.
This kid just turned 32 and intuitively grasps the basics of Curt’s work very, very quickly.
He graduated high school with a 1.7 GPA, played a little college football and then never held an 8-5 job—opting instead for work where results determined income 100%. He’s trained people and started businesses and is raising a family.
He has a real law degree. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-19 11:22:00 UTC
NO IT’S NOT AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S JUST SCIENCE AND ITS APPLICATION.
—“You most likely have explained this but in one or two sentences, how would you describe the ideology of Propertarianism? Keep it up and stay reciprocal 🙂 “—A Friend
Propertarianism is not an ideology. It’s the completion of the scientific method, and it’s application to human knowledge – particularly social science.
Using propertarianism I have described perfect government. And I advocate for perfect government. Because for european peoples, perfect government is possible.
That said, it is possible to produce ANY government using propertarianism. You just have to do it truthfully and procedurally.
Monarchical, Republican, Classical Liberal, Democratic, Night Watchman (anarchic). This is because all of these can be constructed under rule of law of reciprocity, an independent judiciary, a militia, and a prohibition on falsehood. Conversely, you cannot produce an islamic or jewish or christian, or other theological state because these are predicated on falsehood.
This is the “SHORT VERSION”
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156923009867264&set=a.43196237263&type=3
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-18 09:52:00 UTC
PROPERTY IN TOTO, RECIPROCITY, AND THE NECESSITY OF VIOLENCE
by Lucas Cort
(via brandon hayes) (curtd: this is flawless)
Property in toto (demonstrated property) provides a measurement of what humans value. Demonstration of value occurs in human action, when individuals or groups show a willingness and ability to defend said value. The use of violence ensures retention of property and acts as a deterrent against future violations. People can choose the strategies of cooperation, predation, parasitism, or non cooperation. Cooperation with strict adherence to reciprocity being the optimal strategy for long term productive interactions.
Reciprocity entails non imposition of costs against others property in toto, through productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers. Violations of reciprocity lead to conflict due to asymmetrical imposition of costs. Predation being short term and parasitism being a medium term strategy.
Retaliation cycles ensue violations, revealing the need for third party assessment and resolution, including enforcement between parties. This gives rise to the discovery and evolution of Law, an insurer of last resort (polity/government), and the militia. These institutions and discoveries are created and upheld through the use of violence, creating disincentives for violations of reciprocity. Through this incremental domestication of man we maintain group cooperation and reap the surpluses that ensue. Resulting in the rapid evolution and competitive edge of the society at large.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 11:53:00 UTC
—“An unearned equality outcome is theft by another name.”—William L. Benge
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 07:05:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085795158766116864
—“An unearned equality outcome is theft by another name.”—William L. Benge
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 02:05:00 UTC