The only unifying option available at the time, that would take advantage of the fact that colonies were developed by private parties not the governments, and as such the parties wanted to maintain their independence.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 02:35:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713382974224228623
Reply addressees: @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713313217022165165
Those words are too vague to allow me to answer.
Women can always have legal rights (essentially property rights) (defensive) the question is only whether they should have political rights (offensive).
It’s imposible to have democratic govt in low trust societies they need…
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-14 18:10:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713255861148070190
Reply addressees: @FernandoGLV1212
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713241898029072686
RT @NatLawInstitute: @curtdoolittle “Everything else is a private matter”
Well, there’s the issue. Privacy is something only possible becau…
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-14 00:09:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712983991005905033
the fundamental problem of sparta is that the men who were warriors died too frequently leaving the control of their estates to women, who eventually ruled sparta with the same disregard as women have to day.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-12 00:24:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712263053666902259
Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @cryptodiaries @InternetIsHell @elonmusk @bryanbrey
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712262534806270340
HADIT’S MORAL FOUNDATIONS AS PROPERTY RIGHTS
(repost from 2014)
[O]f Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as individual property rights:
1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)
2. Proportionality/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)
3. Liberty/Oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)
And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.
4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.
5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe.
As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction).
When I first read a paper by Jonathan Haidt, years ago now, I immediately understood the implication. Just as the ten commandments are reducible to “There is but one law: property, and thou shalt not steal”, all our moral rules can be reduced to one: “thou shalt not steal directly or indirectly, by action or inaction.” These rules are genetic in origin. They are necessary and immutable.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-11 18:47:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712178017189900288
I dont know why you think I don’t understand. But in the end, property rights like all rights require territorial control. There are not and never have been and never can be libertarian polities. if for no other reason than the opposition will not tolerate it.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-09 10:32:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711328788007567616
Reply addressees: @MakingMoneyFast @Omelett24733001 @balajis
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711325829123219674
Private < —– common —- > Political
Im talking about the political end.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 23:26:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711161143908295081
Reply addressees: @Bioliberalism @DanielB02277937
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711156726207074802
Under feudalism (distributed rule), the aristocracy (military), needed to maintain landholdings(production) in the family by giving it to the eldest (Primogeniture) instead of distributing it to all the males. This caused much of the aristocracy that had no other options to take positions in the churches which were all paid for by these aristocratic femilies. This meant that the aristocdracy owned both the manor and the church, and they divided responsibility giving church management of the peasants in matters of behaviora and morals, and the manor in matters of property, and the shire courts, city courts, and parliament for escalating resolution of disputes. The aristocratic families would then accumulate land in the local church to provide income for these sons. The church landsd were not taxed. Over time the church held half of all land in Europe.
Reply addressees: @NWEurasian @MinClaydough
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-07 17:39:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710711532655419392
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710644091015373130
I assume you mean Georgism, not the economics of Georgia.
I think it was an intelligent even if failed attempt to find a radically different yet simple solution to the post-agrarian age. However, it relies on arbitrary valuation, causes capital flight, is administratively challenging if not impossible, and while we have implemented it widely in the USA as property tax, and it produces insufficient revenue for almost any purpose at all, and is continously contentious.
The problem is better understood as density aborbs all increases in value by transfers to owners of property and real estate. And that problem is better understood as a failure of the state to finance housing at no interest to families within the range of that density.
The only ‘fair’ taxes are sales and income tax – and we hate them. We only hate income tax because it is too complicated instead of proportional and consistent without exceptions or deductions. And we hate sales tax because it isn’t included in the price, and too many things are taxed.
The most unfair ‘tax’ is interest on consumer credit applied to durable goods, and semi-durable goods, when we are only borrowing against our future selves, and these goods then expire over the time we have borrowed the money from – it makes no sense and it’s predatory on our people. There is no reason for interest on homes, autos, boats, appliances, durable furniture, and really, even clothes.
Likewise there is no reason for intergenerational transfer of income instead of the singapore model of individual savings with contributions by the state, which are invested by the state ( or some agents ) for retirement, medical care, and unemployment.
Reply addressees: @MathPolice
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 21:05:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710400861782831104
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710391092481581346
No one owes anything to anyone other than equal defense of what they have earned by means of reciprocal cooperation. You nor anyone else has a claim on anyone else other than defense against those who would harm you and what you have demonstrated an interest in through reciprocal exchagne.
I don’t owe you. “Society” is another word for “me and him and him”. And so we don’t owe you anything. Instead if you do not like the terms, you are, like any other, welcome to depart and find people you prefer to cooperate with on your terms.
Your access to the polity is granted only by not imposing costs upon the demonstrated interests of others obtained by reciprocal exchange.
In other words you have access to a polity in exchange for avoiding crimes.
Those who contribute to a polity for the purpose of producing public capital of course, then logically, in defense of their i nterests, have say in how it is used for the benefit of all who have access to the commons.
No on is responsible for you. Period.
Reply addressees: @ThruTheHayes @Chargerfryar @randomal974199 @NatLawInstitute
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 20:58:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710399220790738945
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710397806320431361