Theme: Property

  • Usually people who want to debate aren’t knowledgeable enough, intelligent enoug

    Usually people who want to debate aren’t knowledgeable enough, intelligent enough, or intellectually honest enough to bother with, but given a moderator I’ll try.

    —“Are Property Regimes Ponzi Schemes?”–

    Property isn’t a ponzi scheme (it’s not false) however it will (often) increasingly lead to the concentration of wealth, until it no longer can, unless certain safeguards are put in place (natural law).

    The reason for this concentration of wealth is that we tolerate financial rents today like we tolerated land rents of yesterday. The problem has been prohibiting rents.

    We can actually prevent rents today. But that means the price of such prevention is working while younger and older, direct redistribution of liquidity, the ending of consumer intersets, very strict nationalism to prevent immigration, and a requirement that women produce more than replacement rate children.

    So as always problems can be fixed if you’re a scientist, but not if you’re merely a rationalist, or a purveyor of moralistic fairy tales.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 17:17:00 UTC

  • 1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I k

    1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more.

    2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time).

    3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created..

    4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail.

    5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers.

    6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections.

    7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade.

    So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 02:18:00 UTC

  • Investment is a fact. Possession is contingent. Property is what the strong agre

    Investment is a fact.
    Possession is contingent.
    Property is what the strong agree it is.
    Property rights are what the strong are willing to insure.

    Be the strong.
    It all begins with the militia.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-04 22:53:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992537767866437632

  • Investment is a fact. Possession is contingent. Property is what the strong agre

    Investment is a fact.

    Possession is contingent.

    Property is what the strong agree it is.

    Property rights are what the strong are willing to insure.

    Be the strong.

    It all begins with the militia.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-04 18:53:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM. HOW WE ALL GET ALONG. THE DIVISION OF LABOR. by Richard Nikoley

    PROPERTARIANISM. HOW WE ALL GET ALONG. THE DIVISION OF LABOR.
    by Richard Nikoley. He covers the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, labor, and advocacy. http://freetheanimal.com/2018/05/synchronicity-libertarians-conservatives.html


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-03 23:17:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992181278693904384

  • IT ALL BEGINS WITH THE MILITIA by Igor Rogov (brilliant) The “English” success i

    IT ALL BEGINS WITH THE MILITIA

    by Igor Rogov

    (brilliant)

    The “English” success is more easily attributable to one or two social inventions of Saxons – the free man on his own land, also known as churl and an armed militia or fyrd, which were quite distinct from greek or early roman examples because they persisted as something very essential and spiritual entities which resulted in Magna Carta which was then revitalised in American constitution.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-03 11:43:00 UTC

  • Rights

    RIGHTS In practice, you have the property and property rights that the people around you are willing to concede that you have, and willing to help you defend and uphold. One man cannot stand alone against the world. But enough in confederation can hold hostile hordes at bay indefinitely. Property and property rights are obtained in exchange. You recognize and uphold mine and I’ll do the same for yours. The necessary standard to make property rights durable is mutual insurance, not just “respect mine and I’ll respect yours” but “DEFEND mine and I’ll DEFEND yours.” Practically speaking, you can’t have any rights without positive duties and obligations. Libertarians go wrong when they make a distinction between “positive” and “negative” rights. All rights are positive rights because NO rights can be enjoyed without enforcement and defense; and enforcement and defense must be proactive and have positive costs (although the benefits may be greater.) Any claims by libertarians that rights are “natural,” “God-given”, “innate,” “inalienable,” “selfevident,” or anything of the sort are moralistic attempts to obtain rights at a discount, without paying the full cost of asserting, maintaining, and defending them, by convincing others to PROVIDE them at their expense. But there can be no such thing, in practice, as a right not to contribute to the maintenance and defense of rights that one demands. Rights, in practice, have to be maintained and defended. Non-contribution to the maintenance and defense of rights is not conducive to their maintenance and defense. Demands for rights while refusing to enter into reciprocal duties and obligations to defend rights is a violation of reciprocity and an act of parasitism, not conducive to long term cooperation. Without cooperation, no rights can successfully be maintained and defended. Eli Harman

  • Rights

    RIGHTS In practice, you have the property and property rights that the people around you are willing to concede that you have, and willing to help you defend and uphold. One man cannot stand alone against the world. But enough in confederation can hold hostile hordes at bay indefinitely. Property and property rights are obtained in exchange. You recognize and uphold mine and I’ll do the same for yours. The necessary standard to make property rights durable is mutual insurance, not just “respect mine and I’ll respect yours” but “DEFEND mine and I’ll DEFEND yours.” Practically speaking, you can’t have any rights without positive duties and obligations. Libertarians go wrong when they make a distinction between “positive” and “negative” rights. All rights are positive rights because NO rights can be enjoyed without enforcement and defense; and enforcement and defense must be proactive and have positive costs (although the benefits may be greater.) Any claims by libertarians that rights are “natural,” “God-given”, “innate,” “inalienable,” “selfevident,” or anything of the sort are moralistic attempts to obtain rights at a discount, without paying the full cost of asserting, maintaining, and defending them, by convincing others to PROVIDE them at their expense. But there can be no such thing, in practice, as a right not to contribute to the maintenance and defense of rights that one demands. Rights, in practice, have to be maintained and defended. Non-contribution to the maintenance and defense of rights is not conducive to their maintenance and defense. Demands for rights while refusing to enter into reciprocal duties and obligations to defend rights is a violation of reciprocity and an act of parasitism, not conducive to long term cooperation. Without cooperation, no rights can successfully be maintained and defended. Eli Harman

  • RT @DegenRolf: Already at age 3, children have a surprisingly sophisticated sens

    RT @DegenRolf: Already at age 3, children have a surprisingly sophisticated sense of land ownership and its implications. https://t.co/6udc…


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 19:41:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989952695464284161

  • Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf): Already at age 3, children have a surprisingl

    Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf):

    Already at age 3, children have a surprisingly sophisticated sense of land ownership and its implications. https://t.co/6udcTXnZY3

    More: On the possibility of a “property instinct”: https://t.co/Lb4GKkyYJJ https://t.co/Glu87U8FjU


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 15:41:00 UTC