Theme: Property

  • “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY COMMON LAW AND TORT LAW AND HOW ARE THEY RELATED.”—

    —“CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY COMMON LAW AND TORT LAW AND HOW ARE THEY RELATED.”—

    OK. Um I’m talking about the common law in the old sense as ‘the traditional law’ which consists of sovereignty and tort. In both UK and USA ‘common law’ often includes legislation that violates sovereignty and tort. In my work I make a clear distinction between the one law (reciprocity) common law (findings of the court), legislative law (improving or undermining the common law and the one law) and regulation (enforcement of legislative law whether it improves or undermines the common law and the one law)

    I refer to tort when I want to remind people that legislation and regulation do not necessarily (and often do not) preserve our natural, customary, traditional, rule of law by findings of law.

    The legislature’s original purpose was to choose whether the monarchy’s demand for the population to bear costs was acceptable to the regions,the warriors, the militia, and sometimes out of pragmatism) to the people.

    The ‘enlightenment’ took the power of commons choice out of the hands of the monarchy and put it into the republic (elected representatives, and the peerage (local governors)).

    The marxist and social democratic movement reversed our civilization by expanding the commons such that they violated our underlying natural law of reciprocity, in favor of the rest of humanity’s underclass demand for proportionality, and upon receiving proportionality, the political and underclass demand for equality of outcome.

    So, great question.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 12:19:00 UTC

  • NO, KINSELLA DOESN’T USE RECIPROCITY, NOR DOES MOLLY, NOR BLOCK, NOR HOPPE, NOR

    NO, KINSELLA DOESN’T USE RECIPROCITY, NOR DOES MOLLY, NOR BLOCK, NOR HOPPE, NOR ANY OTHER “LIBERTARIAN”.

    ^Reciprocity as I use it, also includes a definition of reciprocity as productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests (investments) of others. And where those demonstrated interests include forgone opportunities as well as seized opportunities to obtain an interest in that which others may (commons) have, or have not yet done so (private), or have obtained by the same reciprocal means.

    There is absolutely no one in the libertarian community who uses a definition of this precision and scope, and the reason they don’t is their use of Pilpul to create demand for substitution by the listener (audience) thereby creating a pretense of agreement on terms, when terms are not stated, but imagined. (This is the reason libertarianism is another abrahamic deception by suggestion and substitution.)

    This is why libertarianism relies on principles (vagueness and incompleteness demanding substitution ) rather than decidability (precision and completeness prohibiting substitution). And it is why libertarianism has branches, and why libertarianism failed to maintain an intellectual vanguard other than a few MI mediocre thinkers.

    A polity must survive competition for territory, trade routes, human capital, population, and productivity, by generating not only private returns but commons sufficient to permit those private returns, commons sufficient to provide multiples on those returns, a means of deciding which private is tolerable an dnot, and which commons are to produced, while defending it from others (competitors and predators) with competing interests.

    Libertarianism doesn’t do that. It’s the philosophy (ethics) of (((diasporic))) separatists concentrating capital by avoiding the payment of all possible local costs, and specializing in generating moral hazard, profiting from seizing opportunity generated by that moral hazard, concentrating the proceeds in methods of rent seeking, and by that combination preying upon the host until they are ostracized, deported, or prosecuted for their criminality.

    The only people that would end up in a libertarian community are the same people that would found such a thing: Pirates (europeans), Raiders (muslims), Rent Seekers (jews), Petty thieves (gypsies), a dependent class (underclasses), and an authoritarian leadership. None of which produce local goods, services, and information, but exist to avoid the costs of participation in a polity and its commons, while profiting from it by criminality.

    This is why each of these people from pirates on down has been ostracized, persecuted, prosecuted, and warred against – and as such why there are no libertarian (parasite or free rider) communities. The only vaguely libertarian communities are parasites or free riders that hold a territory with military protection of a powerful state, but no governance, infrastructure, support of maintenance. In other words the only ‘libertarians’ have been outposts claiming territory as an opportunity for future gain on behalf of a state or empire that cannot afford to colonize it by it’s own resources.

    That’s what ‘libertarianism’ means. Period. End of argument.

    Sovereigntarianism (what I do), instead says we organize into an army (militia) as investors, and conquer (take) territory, and construct commons and the many returns on commons, including markets, because markets produce the returns necessary to pay for the defense and institutions and infrastructure necessary to preserve our investment in the polity.

    In other words, libertarians are parasites, and sovereigntarians are producers.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 09:29:00 UTC

  • (not being pushy. just habit of phrasing. sorry) I’m saying that every time we h

    (not being pushy. just habit of phrasing. sorry) I’m saying that every time we have tried to solve the problem with economic self interest in the absence of suppression of rents we fail.) Anyway. sorry to intrude. Someone looped me in, and I see common problem in your argument.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 21:46:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057025927866138624

    Reply addressees: @GeolibGeorge @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057024943429484549


    IN REPLY TO:

    @GonzoGeorgism

    @curtdoolittle @Septeus7 @Slysneak @Lord_Keynes2 @jappleby123 @Noahpinion @ProfSteveKeen …. align with what is important to people?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057024943429484549

  • New Introduction To Propertarianism for Libertarians

    October 29th, 2018 8:38 AM NEW INTRODUCTiON TO PROPERTARIANISM FOR LIBERTARIANS Created a page for introducing libertarians to Propertarianism, includes: 1) Eli’s Introduction (with Ahmed’s Arabic Translation), 2) Reforming Mises (long) 3) Reforming Rothbard (medium) 4) Reforming Hoppe. (short) (Every time I read Ely Harman’s introduction I’m thrilled. He is a fabulous communicator.) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/10/28/propertarianism-for-for-libertarians/

  • New Introduction To Propertarianism for Libertarians

    October 29th, 2018 8:38 AM NEW INTRODUCTiON TO PROPERTARIANISM FOR LIBERTARIANS Created a page for introducing libertarians to Propertarianism, includes: 1) Eli’s Introduction (with Ahmed’s Arabic Translation), 2) Reforming Mises (long) 3) Reforming Rothbard (medium) 4) Reforming Hoppe. (short) (Every time I read Ely Harman’s introduction I’m thrilled. He is a fabulous communicator.) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/10/28/propertarianism-for-for-libertarians/

  • The Destruction of Property (markets) in All Its Forms as Means of Restoring the Herd (monopoly)

    October 29th, 2018 10:31 AM ABRAHAMISM > MARXISM > POSTMODERNISM > FEMINISM: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN ALL ITS FORMS AS MEANS OF RESTORING THE HERD (MONOPOLY) (important concept) [M]arxism: use of pseudoscience (labor theory of value), sophism (pilpul – Dialectical materialism), gossip and reputation destruction(critique alienation, class warfare) to undermine a social order (trust and cooperation) by the promise of a utopia (for a class), in exchange for allying in numbers. 1 – Marxism-Communism-Socialism : suppression of private property in the means of production, vs, 2 – Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production, vs, 3 – Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production. Marxism of 1 – private property, 2 – common property, 3 – institutional property. Covers the Entire Scale. followed by the french contribution: 4 – Postmodernism, identity-race property. In other words, suppression of each class of property in order to create a class monopoly (underclass communism, middle class libertarian, political class neo conservatism). This requires little more than the academic use of the female reproductive and competitive strategy, which is to: DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT SCALES.

  • The Position of “Libertarian” Literature in Intellectual History

    October 29th, 2018 9:55 AM THE POSITION OF “LIBERTARIAN” LITERATURE IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY [A]s in most enlightenment literature, [Insert libertarian book name here] presumes an environmental condition that does not exist. The enlightenment has failed. The 20th century was the end of the experiment. Man was not oppressed. He was domesticated, until he could produce a sufficient pareto distribution that made a middle class possible given the technology available. we aren’t every going to ‘…. all just get along…”, only find the safest ways of evolutionary competition. [they are] good books. But [they are] just plagued by the usual problems of the postwar ‘end of history’ movement between the anglo, french, and jewish versions of a middle class utopia. My criticism of Rawls, Nozick, Barnett (et al), is that like many in the 20th, they too readily accepted the jewish libertine separatist literature – when that tradition never created liberty because the producers could never hold territory, because they were insufficiently martial – instead of the european tripartite (aristocratic) model of earning a condition of liberty through governance of animal man – by holding the territory and creating the institutions and capital necessary to domesticate him. So the Libertines “libertarians” produced works advocating Roving Preacher ‘liberty’ and the ‘Bazaar ethics of travelling merchants’ instead of the entics of the territorial military, independent jurist, the domestication from slavery to serfdom to freemen to citizen to peer, and the production of metal and capital rather than rent seeking and privatization of the commons.) Just as we fought hard to survive the french german, and russian counter-empirical revolutions (enlightenments), and their ‘centuries’, the “jewish century” is over (having done more than all previous counter-revolutions combined). Marxism, Socialism, “Libertinism”, Neo-conservatism, “Jewish Austrianism”, Freudian and Boazian Pseudoscience, Frankfurt “critique” (undermining), french-jewish postmodernism (outright lying by reality by chanting), Propaganda by Pilpul and Critique, Globalism, and all universalisms (monopolies) of authoritarians have failed, with the balance of powers, nationalism, truth, and science replacing the century of fraud. The question is whether we will regroup and defend ourselves against the restoration of the 1500 years of islamic conquest, as we have regrouped against the french, german, russian, and jewish revolts against modernity. It seems like the intellectual vanguard to undermine the west (the french and the jews), the political vanguard to undermine the west (the puritans and the french and the jews) and the islamic military and demographic masses to destroy, (restoration of the islamic conquest) is just repeating in the current world, the same process that occurred in the ancient – and gave us the Abrahamic Dark Ages of Ignorance. Without women voters we would never be here. Because like the ancient world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were spread to the women and the underclasses who are most susceptible to false promise (‘salvation’), pilpul (sophism), and critique (straw manning). But despite women voters it appears that the world is revolting against the jewish century false promises, pilpul (sophisms), critique (straw manning), and the industrialization of undermining through media (gossip and reputation destruction. Anglo 1600’s, French 1700’s, German middle 1800 to early 1900’s, Russian – Jewish Late 1800-early-1900’s – jewish postwar to present – Islamic late 1900s to present. one empirica and one scientific enlightenment, offset by french, german, russian-jewish-chinese, western-jewish, and now Islamic counter-enlightenments. in retrospect it’s amazing that (a) we fell for it a second time, and (b) still survived it.

  • The Destruction of Property at All Levels

    October 29th, 2018 10:11 AM MARXISM IN EVERYTHING: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT ALL LEVELSMarxism: suppression of private property in the means of production, vs, Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production, vs, Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production. All three promote MONOPOLIES (equalities) of the HERD (feminine reproductive strategy and intuition) rather than MARKETS (inequalities) of the PACK (make reproductive strategy and intuition). An expression of:

    —“the psychometric literature indicates, in regards to the masculine vs feminine, and the conservative vs liberal.

    Low openness/high conscientiousness (orderly, sensitive to disgust, will to create borders and demarcate categories, committed to his/her own covenants) High openness/low conscientiousness (imaginative, creative, disorderly, chaotic, tolerant of mess, fickle, temperamental, resistant of borders etc) It’s masculine vs feminine. A noun-use bias is masculine because it’s a label for an actual solid thing (order) A verb-use bias feminine because it’s the label for word describing an occurrence or something happening ie transformative ie chaotic – feminine. Masculine – order (Pack)Feminine – chaos. (Herd)”— Joel Harvey Because of the brain structure variation between female and male brains (although we can, each of us, exist along this spectrum including the middle of it). With Brandon Hayes and Joel Harvey

  • The Position of “Libertarian” Literature in Intellectual History

    October 29th, 2018 9:55 AM THE POSITION OF “LIBERTARIAN” LITERATURE IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY [A]s in most enlightenment literature, [Insert libertarian book name here] presumes an environmental condition that does not exist. The enlightenment has failed. The 20th century was the end of the experiment. Man was not oppressed. He was domesticated, until he could produce a sufficient pareto distribution that made a middle class possible given the technology available. we aren’t every going to ‘…. all just get along…”, only find the safest ways of evolutionary competition. [they are] good books. But [they are] just plagued by the usual problems of the postwar ‘end of history’ movement between the anglo, french, and jewish versions of a middle class utopia. My criticism of Rawls, Nozick, Barnett (et al), is that like many in the 20th, they too readily accepted the jewish libertine separatist literature – when that tradition never created liberty because the producers could never hold territory, because they were insufficiently martial – instead of the european tripartite (aristocratic) model of earning a condition of liberty through governance of animal man – by holding the territory and creating the institutions and capital necessary to domesticate him. So the Libertines “libertarians” produced works advocating Roving Preacher ‘liberty’ and the ‘Bazaar ethics of travelling merchants’ instead of the entics of the territorial military, independent jurist, the domestication from slavery to serfdom to freemen to citizen to peer, and the production of metal and capital rather than rent seeking and privatization of the commons.) Just as we fought hard to survive the french german, and russian counter-empirical revolutions (enlightenments), and their ‘centuries’, the “jewish century” is over (having done more than all previous counter-revolutions combined). Marxism, Socialism, “Libertinism”, Neo-conservatism, “Jewish Austrianism”, Freudian and Boazian Pseudoscience, Frankfurt “critique” (undermining), french-jewish postmodernism (outright lying by reality by chanting), Propaganda by Pilpul and Critique, Globalism, and all universalisms (monopolies) of authoritarians have failed, with the balance of powers, nationalism, truth, and science replacing the century of fraud. The question is whether we will regroup and defend ourselves against the restoration of the 1500 years of islamic conquest, as we have regrouped against the french, german, russian, and jewish revolts against modernity. It seems like the intellectual vanguard to undermine the west (the french and the jews), the political vanguard to undermine the west (the puritans and the french and the jews) and the islamic military and demographic masses to destroy, (restoration of the islamic conquest) is just repeating in the current world, the same process that occurred in the ancient – and gave us the Abrahamic Dark Ages of Ignorance. Without women voters we would never be here. Because like the ancient world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were spread to the women and the underclasses who are most susceptible to false promise (‘salvation’), pilpul (sophism), and critique (straw manning). But despite women voters it appears that the world is revolting against the jewish century false promises, pilpul (sophisms), critique (straw manning), and the industrialization of undermining through media (gossip and reputation destruction. Anglo 1600’s, French 1700’s, German middle 1800 to early 1900’s, Russian – Jewish Late 1800-early-1900’s – jewish postwar to present – Islamic late 1900s to present. one empirica and one scientific enlightenment, offset by french, german, russian-jewish-chinese, western-jewish, and now Islamic counter-enlightenments. in retrospect it’s amazing that (a) we fell for it a second time, and (b) still survived it.

  • The Destruction of Property (markets) in All Its Forms as Means of Restoring the Herd (monopoly)

    October 29th, 2018 10:31 AM ABRAHAMISM > MARXISM > POSTMODERNISM > FEMINISM: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN ALL ITS FORMS AS MEANS OF RESTORING THE HERD (MONOPOLY) (important concept) [M]arxism: use of pseudoscience (labor theory of value), sophism (pilpul – Dialectical materialism), gossip and reputation destruction(critique alienation, class warfare) to undermine a social order (trust and cooperation) by the promise of a utopia (for a class), in exchange for allying in numbers. 1 – Marxism-Communism-Socialism : suppression of private property in the means of production, vs, 2 – Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production, vs, 3 – Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production. Marxism of 1 – private property, 2 – common property, 3 – institutional property. Covers the Entire Scale. followed by the french contribution: 4 – Postmodernism, identity-race property. In other words, suppression of each class of property in order to create a class monopoly (underclass communism, middle class libertarian, political class neo conservatism). This requires little more than the academic use of the female reproductive and competitive strategy, which is to: DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT SCALES.