–“I’ve been reading your posts. Propertarianism sounds an awful lot like national socialism. Maybe there is something Im missing. But, I’d be interested, if you have time, just to know what perhaps the major difference is.”— Well, you know, that depends on your definition of national socialism. In the choice of Nationalism vs Universalism, I suggest nationalism in order to force groups to pay the high cost of domesticating their own people educationally, normatively, culturally, economically, and politically, rather than forcing other groups to pay for that domestication. This is compatible with natural law (reciprocity) where universalism is not because it consists of forcing others to pay the cost rather than you paying the cost of revolution, reformation, and reeducation. In the scientific vernacular, Socialism refers a political and economic system whereby production, distribution, exchange, and reward, are determined by a bureaucratic government in order to insure equidistribution despite unequal contribution to production. In other words, turning a society into the equivalent of a 18th and 19th century factory. In the scientific vernacular, Capitalism refers to a political and economic system whereby all production, distribution, exchange, and reward are determined by market forces. In classical liberalism, and social democracy, some degree of the proceeds of mutual cooperation in markets, is captured by the state and used to produce commons outside of market competition. In christian monarchies these goods are determined by the monarchic administration. In classical liberalism these goods are determined by those who produce (the middle classes), and in social democracy these goods are determined by majority (which means the working and underclasses). Since this market(private) and non-market(Public) activity always and everywhere exists, we are all merely discussing which class has a monopoly on the decision making, the distribution of that taxation across the population, and amount of that taxation at any point in the population, given the available proceeds from cooperation (taxation). At present (a) the economic mainstream seeks to maximize takings and maximize commons. However, that is because they do not measure all capital changes (intangibles like trust, group traits, and survivability from shocks). And; (b) we know the current targeting methods (gdp, interests rates) do not work, and; (c) that the austrian prediction (exacerbation of cycles until collapse) appears to be correct. And we have; (d) only to resort to direct inflation by redistribution of liquidity to consumers in times of shocks, despite; (e) this will create a dependence upon redistributions, only exacerbating larger and longer cyclic shocks. So, what I propose instead is (a) nationalism, in fact, collections of city states, and (b) redistribution, yes, but (c) markets for the production of commons, and the total elimination of the political class other than a monarchy as a judge of last resort. And (d) we pay underclasses (those who are unproductive) not to reproduce. Because (e) it is possible to create a constitution under rule of law that is not open to interpretation, only to expansion of suppression of parasitism. But when you (or others) say ‘national socialism’ I don’t really know what that means, other than to say that in my understanding we run the government in the interest of the tribe (nationalism) using rule of law, without engaging in discretionary rule.” And in that case I don’t know what ‘socialism means’ since nationalism and socialism are synonyms, just as communism and universalism are synonyms. Now, compare Fascism’s version of ‘National Socialism’, that’s a very different thing, with a very strong political class, and the use of aesthetics and propaganda to reinforce the hero worship of that political class, and, well, that is just something I would rail against. We can laud our generals in times of war, our kings in times of peace, each other in times of prosperity, and our ancestors, thinkers, artists, scientists, engineers in times of stress, and nature, her gifts, and her seasons in times of sacredness. Why? Those things are true and difficult to corrupt into deceits that manipulate us. Rousseau and Kant tried to create secular version of christianity and it led to marx’s destruction of civilization. Our ancient ancestors never made the mistakes of the semites, but in our time of weakness, the eastern (syrian) byzantine empire imposed semitic superstition on us by force. And we only rescued ourselves from that dark age during the viking conquests, the crusades, and the Hansa, by taking back responsibility for ourselves, and our achievements, instead of submitting to the evil god of middle eastern slaves. Why? Because our origins are in the militia: the voluntary army of individually sovereign warriors, who submit to no one. To resolve differences between sovereign equals requires we can only decide as such by tests of reciprocity, and tests of reciprocity limits us to property and the common law of tort. We will continue to convert ourselves into gods, and drag mankind kicking and screaming behind us if we preserve our sovereignty as a militia of warriors, each of whom is a shareholder in the nation. But, we die, the west dies, and our transformation of man into gods dies, when the militia dies. It all begins with the militia.
Theme: Property
-
“I am unwilling to oppress another individual’s engagement in reciprocally volun
“I am unwilling to oppress another individual’s engagement in reciprocally voluntary trade, just as I am unwilling to tolerate another’s oppression of my reciprocal and voluntary trade.. But… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=278685816061649&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-16 12:53:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030075125025198080
-
My answer to How does libertarian free market capitalism hypothetically deal wit
My answer to How does libertarian free market capitalism hypothetically deal with monopolies, infrastructure, and externalities such as air and water pollution? https://www.quora.com/How-does-libertarian-free-market-capitalism-hypothetically-deal-with-monopolies-infrastructure-and-externalities-such-as-air-and-water-pollution/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=f8db559c
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 20:08:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029459726457860096
-
RT @dagmar_schmitt: @curtdoolittle The herd sees rights fundamentally as access.
RT @dagmar_schmitt: @curtdoolittle The herd sees rights fundamentally as access. Civil rights are just access to other peoples spaces, and…
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 16:14:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029400817168773121
-
Why do women so easily conflate rights with privileges and rents?
Why do women so easily conflate rights with privileges and rents?
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 14:50:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029379833841819648
-
No, I say that the British were a branch of germanic civ until 1830. I say rule
No, I say that the British were a branch of germanic civ until 1830. I say rule of law that will produce the goods of capitalism, and that the soc./cap. argument is specious. I argue for expansion of the classical monarchies by the addition of houses. And econ. creates wealth.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 12:55:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029350867156328448
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @Simonow_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029345909291798529
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
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.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029345909291798529
-
Aug 13, 2018, 9:35 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/american-ownership-society-is-changing-thanks-to-technologyhttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/american-ownership-society-is-changing-thanks-to-technologyUpdated Aug 13, 2018, 9:35 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-13 21:35:00 UTC
-
Untitled
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/american-ownership-society-is-changing-thanks-to-technologyhttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/american-ownership-society-is-changing-thanks-to-technologyhttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/american-ownership-society-is-changing-thanks-to-technology
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-13 21:35:00 UTC
-
—“What is a Right?”—
(repost for newbs) Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine Updated Apr 6, 2013 1) RIGHTS: A “right” is a claim against other members of a contract, wherein each party grants the other party something (a right) in exchange for somthing else (an obligation). Each person then has ‘rights’ as agreed upon in the contract, as well as obligations. This is the meaning of the term ‘right’. A right is something that you obtain from others in exchange for granting them something. There is no other logical meaning of the term, unless you invent a god or demon, or some equivalent that you are supposedly in contract with. (Although the term ‘right’ is abused by way of analogy and metaphor, which I will explain below.) 2) CONTRACTS: A contract can be discreetly created, such as a handshake, a promise, or an agreement. Or a contract can be written as a note, a written contract, or a constitution. A contract can be created by habituation as a “norm”, such as manners, ethics and morals. While very few people understand this, ethical and moral statements are those that compensate for asymmetry of information between members of a contract for norms. This contract for norms is we call a society. Manners are promises that you will respect ethical and moral norms. Ethics are rules that we follow to make sure that there are no involuntary transfers of prooperty due to asymmetry of information in an exchange. Morals are general rules that we will follow to make sure there are no involuntary transfers from others who are outside (external to) any action or exchange. (Having a chid that you cannot pay for, and expecting others to support it, is an involuntary transfer from others. That is why it’s generally been considered immoral.) One can voluntarily enter discreet contracts. But normative contracts are a necessity because people cannot peacefully and productively cooperate without them. One can generally move between groups with different normative contracts (societies, and communities) but it is all but impossible to avoid them entirely, and it is entirely impossible to exist in a community without adhering to that contract – usually people are excluded from opportunity, punished, imprisoned, ostracized, or deported, for violations of the normative contract. 3) NATURAL RIGHTS: Some contract rights are both necessary for humans to engage in contracts, and possible to grant in contracts. Such as surrendering our opportunity for violence theft and fraud, from those with whom we are in contract. If we surrender our opportunity to use violence theft and fraud, we define this set of forgone opportunities “property rights’. Because these rights are necessary for peaceful cooperation, and necessary for contracts to function, we call these necessary rights ‘Natural Rights’ – in an effort to limit the ability of governments to violate the contract rights that are necessary for human cooperation when they make laws. If we define our minds and bodies as our property. And we define those objects, that we freely obtained through exchange as our property, then there is only one natural right and that is property. It is the only right necessary, and the only right universally possible to grant to one another – because we must refrain from something, rather than do something. In this sense, there is only one possible human right, and all other rights derive from it. 3) HUMAN RIGHTS: Some contract rights are not necessary but beneficial. These rights generally can be categorized as forms of ‘insurance’. They cannot be direclty exchanged without an intermediary institution acting as the insurer. People cannot equally contribute to their costs. We call these rights ‘Human Rights’. 4) DEMANDED RIGHTS: Now this is not to say that you have no control over your rights. You can for example (and we all do) demand additional rights in exchagne for our compliance with manners, ethics, morals, norms, laws that are levied equally against all. These rights are not human rights, they are not natural rights. They are rights that you demand for your compliance. THe problem is, that means that they are just a preference. That’s all. You must get a right in exchange even if you demand it, it cannot exist until there is a contract for it, somehow. And we can cause discomfort, economic friction, and political resistance. Or we can offer to contribute more somehow in exchange for additional rights. In this sense, most arguments are in favor of demanded rights, in the form of FREE RIDING, PRIVILEGES, RENTS, and DIVIDENDS. 5) FREE RIDING (CORRUPTION) Free riding is letting other people pay for something that you enjoy. Voting for a tax that you don’t have to pay is free riding. Living off your parents is free riding. 5) PRIVILEGES (CORRUPTION): Sometimes we attempt to seek privileges not rights – a privilege is something that unlike insurance, is something we are likely to obtain, and which comes at a cost to others, without our providing something else in exchange. These are not rights, but privileges at the expense of others. 6) RENTS (CORRUPTION) In contemporary politics, unscrupulous people attempt to label privileges as rights, so that they can obtain something from others at no cost to themselves This is not seeking rights but seeking privileges. It is a form of corruption, which is just an indirect form of theft. In economics, seeking privileges from government is a form of corruption called ‘rent-seeking’. (Which admittedly, is an old and confusing name. In previous centuries, people would seek to obtain an interest in land so that they could collect rents on it.) Today, people seek an interest in tax revenue so that they can collect income from it. This is Rent-Seeking. The government, in practice, if not in theory, owns all land, and we rent it from the government by taxes. If you cannot pay your taxes, you cannot keep your land. Taxes today, are no different from taxes under feudalism. We have just replaced private landowners with a political bureaucracy. In both cases we are renting our land, and in many cases the homes we build, from the government. Taxes are our rents. And people who seek to own part of taxes are rent-seekers. 7) DIVIDENDS (REDISTRIBUTION) if you obey norms (manners, ethics and morals) and obey natural rights (property), you do so at a cost to you. If you think of society as a business (it is, because it must be), and the business is to grow the local market (it is, at least to maintain it), because everyone in the local market will profit from it. (they do). Then these businesses (societies) grow through phases, just as businesses do (or really, business go through phases like society does, just a lot faster because they’re smaller), and in certain early phases(startups) they require a lot of investments from their shareholders (citizens), and in other phases they produce tremendous surpluses (mature, commoditized businesses), then we can see that most of the problem we deal with in politics, is who makes what contributions, and who collects what dividends, and how those dividends are used. PROBLEMS WITH DETERMINING DIVIDENDS (REDISTRIBUTION) It is very hard to argue against dividends (redistribution) if people respect (adhere to) manners, ethics, morals, and natural rights (property rights), as well as whatever arbitrary laws are created that affect all people equally. The general argument, which is true, is that by adhering to maners, ethics, morals, natural rights and arbitrary laws, you earn the right to participate in the market for goods and services. And that dividends are a due only to those people who provide goods and services in the market. The problem is that a market can’t exist without consumers, and that consumption is equally as important as production and distribution. You can’t have one without the other. So this argument is at best, empirically weak. The problem with dividends (redistribution) is not the logical requirement for dividends (redistribution), but the problem with how to determine what a dividend is, how to collect them, who has earned them, and how to allocate them, and how to distribute them. But I will have to leave that rather lengthly discussion for another time. 🙂 This is very close to the ‘final word’ on rights. It is extremely hard to criticize this series of statements using any form of rational argument. I will be happy to engage literate people on the topic but ask the moderators for their help. Curt.
-
—“What is a Right?”—
(repost for newbs) Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine Updated Apr 6, 2013 1) RIGHTS: A “right” is a claim against other members of a contract, wherein each party grants the other party something (a right) in exchange for somthing else (an obligation). Each person then has ‘rights’ as agreed upon in the contract, as well as obligations. This is the meaning of the term ‘right’. A right is something that you obtain from others in exchange for granting them something. There is no other logical meaning of the term, unless you invent a god or demon, or some equivalent that you are supposedly in contract with. (Although the term ‘right’ is abused by way of analogy and metaphor, which I will explain below.) 2) CONTRACTS: A contract can be discreetly created, such as a handshake, a promise, or an agreement. Or a contract can be written as a note, a written contract, or a constitution. A contract can be created by habituation as a “norm”, such as manners, ethics and morals. While very few people understand this, ethical and moral statements are those that compensate for asymmetry of information between members of a contract for norms. This contract for norms is we call a society. Manners are promises that you will respect ethical and moral norms. Ethics are rules that we follow to make sure that there are no involuntary transfers of prooperty due to asymmetry of information in an exchange. Morals are general rules that we will follow to make sure there are no involuntary transfers from others who are outside (external to) any action or exchange. (Having a chid that you cannot pay for, and expecting others to support it, is an involuntary transfer from others. That is why it’s generally been considered immoral.) One can voluntarily enter discreet contracts. But normative contracts are a necessity because people cannot peacefully and productively cooperate without them. One can generally move between groups with different normative contracts (societies, and communities) but it is all but impossible to avoid them entirely, and it is entirely impossible to exist in a community without adhering to that contract – usually people are excluded from opportunity, punished, imprisoned, ostracized, or deported, for violations of the normative contract. 3) NATURAL RIGHTS: Some contract rights are both necessary for humans to engage in contracts, and possible to grant in contracts. Such as surrendering our opportunity for violence theft and fraud, from those with whom we are in contract. If we surrender our opportunity to use violence theft and fraud, we define this set of forgone opportunities “property rights’. Because these rights are necessary for peaceful cooperation, and necessary for contracts to function, we call these necessary rights ‘Natural Rights’ – in an effort to limit the ability of governments to violate the contract rights that are necessary for human cooperation when they make laws. If we define our minds and bodies as our property. And we define those objects, that we freely obtained through exchange as our property, then there is only one natural right and that is property. It is the only right necessary, and the only right universally possible to grant to one another – because we must refrain from something, rather than do something. In this sense, there is only one possible human right, and all other rights derive from it. 3) HUMAN RIGHTS: Some contract rights are not necessary but beneficial. These rights generally can be categorized as forms of ‘insurance’. They cannot be direclty exchanged without an intermediary institution acting as the insurer. People cannot equally contribute to their costs. We call these rights ‘Human Rights’. 4) DEMANDED RIGHTS: Now this is not to say that you have no control over your rights. You can for example (and we all do) demand additional rights in exchagne for our compliance with manners, ethics, morals, norms, laws that are levied equally against all. These rights are not human rights, they are not natural rights. They are rights that you demand for your compliance. THe problem is, that means that they are just a preference. That’s all. You must get a right in exchange even if you demand it, it cannot exist until there is a contract for it, somehow. And we can cause discomfort, economic friction, and political resistance. Or we can offer to contribute more somehow in exchange for additional rights. In this sense, most arguments are in favor of demanded rights, in the form of FREE RIDING, PRIVILEGES, RENTS, and DIVIDENDS. 5) FREE RIDING (CORRUPTION) Free riding is letting other people pay for something that you enjoy. Voting for a tax that you don’t have to pay is free riding. Living off your parents is free riding. 5) PRIVILEGES (CORRUPTION): Sometimes we attempt to seek privileges not rights – a privilege is something that unlike insurance, is something we are likely to obtain, and which comes at a cost to others, without our providing something else in exchange. These are not rights, but privileges at the expense of others. 6) RENTS (CORRUPTION) In contemporary politics, unscrupulous people attempt to label privileges as rights, so that they can obtain something from others at no cost to themselves This is not seeking rights but seeking privileges. It is a form of corruption, which is just an indirect form of theft. In economics, seeking privileges from government is a form of corruption called ‘rent-seeking’. (Which admittedly, is an old and confusing name. In previous centuries, people would seek to obtain an interest in land so that they could collect rents on it.) Today, people seek an interest in tax revenue so that they can collect income from it. This is Rent-Seeking. The government, in practice, if not in theory, owns all land, and we rent it from the government by taxes. If you cannot pay your taxes, you cannot keep your land. Taxes today, are no different from taxes under feudalism. We have just replaced private landowners with a political bureaucracy. In both cases we are renting our land, and in many cases the homes we build, from the government. Taxes are our rents. And people who seek to own part of taxes are rent-seekers. 7) DIVIDENDS (REDISTRIBUTION) if you obey norms (manners, ethics and morals) and obey natural rights (property), you do so at a cost to you. If you think of society as a business (it is, because it must be), and the business is to grow the local market (it is, at least to maintain it), because everyone in the local market will profit from it. (they do). Then these businesses (societies) grow through phases, just as businesses do (or really, business go through phases like society does, just a lot faster because they’re smaller), and in certain early phases(startups) they require a lot of investments from their shareholders (citizens), and in other phases they produce tremendous surpluses (mature, commoditized businesses), then we can see that most of the problem we deal with in politics, is who makes what contributions, and who collects what dividends, and how those dividends are used. PROBLEMS WITH DETERMINING DIVIDENDS (REDISTRIBUTION) It is very hard to argue against dividends (redistribution) if people respect (adhere to) manners, ethics, morals, and natural rights (property rights), as well as whatever arbitrary laws are created that affect all people equally. The general argument, which is true, is that by adhering to maners, ethics, morals, natural rights and arbitrary laws, you earn the right to participate in the market for goods and services. And that dividends are a due only to those people who provide goods and services in the market. The problem is that a market can’t exist without consumers, and that consumption is equally as important as production and distribution. You can’t have one without the other. So this argument is at best, empirically weak. The problem with dividends (redistribution) is not the logical requirement for dividends (redistribution), but the problem with how to determine what a dividend is, how to collect them, who has earned them, and how to allocate them, and how to distribute them. But I will have to leave that rather lengthly discussion for another time. 🙂 This is very close to the ‘final word’ on rights. It is extremely hard to criticize this series of statements using any form of rational argument. I will be happy to engage literate people on the topic but ask the moderators for their help. Curt.