Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Ending the Libertarian Fallacies of Argumentation and Estoppel

    ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives. 2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers). 3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer. 4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof. 5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity. This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise. As Eli Says: —“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”– In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict). The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost. Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument. Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories. in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking. The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced. Thus Endeth The Lesson. Apr 23, 2018 11:43am

  • SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self own

    SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS.

    Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation).

    So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible.

    The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false).

    Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war.

    So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional).

    And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds.

    So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights.

    And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy.

    And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:41:00 UTC

  • GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let

    GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE

    What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let you live, (b) keep your things (c) let you remain free of slavery (d) Let you keep a portion of your production?

    It’s the inverse of the Crusoe’s Island thought experiment.

    Historically, the model that we evolved with, is an evenly distributed but scarce population preying on one another to obtain territory, women, and goods.

    How do you develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the historical (existential) rather than pessimistic (Kahn) or optimistic (Crusoe) models?

    Genghis Khan <———- Steppe ———> Crusoe

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:43:00 UTC

  • by Eli Harman via Brandon Hayes Libertarians have a theory of legitimate private

    by Eli Harman via Brandon Hayes

    Libertarians have a theory of legitimate private property originating in original appropriation and subsequent exchange. This is sometimes called “Intersubjectively Verifiable Property” (IVP) which means “property people can agree who owns” and it basically limits the scope of “legitimate” property to personal, private, property. But people will intuit assaults on or theft of common and intangible property as a loss and they will retaliate against it. So if the purpose of property rights, norms, and regimes, is to minimize conflicts by codifying who owns what, and consequently, who may do what, where, and why, then libertarian IVP fails as a property regime and a property norm, because there are whole categories of conflict it does not address nor prevent because it does not codify property rights in things that people value (with good reason) and conflict over, but actually licenses parasitism, theft, destruction, and freeriding in these domains by prohibiting retaliation against it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 12:42:00 UTC

  • ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN any

    ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON

    1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives.

    2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers).

    3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer.

    4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof.

    5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity.

    This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise.

    As Eli Says:

    —“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”–

    In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).

    The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost.

    Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument.

    Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources.

    In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires.

    As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories.

    in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking.

    The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced.

    Thus Endeth The Lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 11:43:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore

    PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!)

    by Ely Harman

    Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft.

    A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.)

    Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women.

    Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless.

    Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are:

    Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them.

    Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them.

    Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them.

    Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them.

    And others…

    The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot.

    The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for.

    Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own.

    To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back.

    To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them.

    There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 18:17:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • What would happen if we prevented renting in cities the way we prevent renting i

    What would happen if we prevented renting in cities the way we prevent renting in suburbs?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 09:35:00 UTC

  • BUT WHAT DOES NATIONAL SOCIALISM MEAN? –“I’ve been reading your posts. Properta

    BUT WHAT DOES NATIONAL SOCIALISM MEAN?

    –“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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 16:29:00 UTC