STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet) Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image. YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT [–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’. (a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works… (b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why? (c) Because it damages the informational commons. (d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo. (e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law. Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns. So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*. The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption. And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan. Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire. But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons. Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait. Why? Because the ego lies. You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours. Cheers.
Theme: Property
-
Once You Grasp the Term Propertarian, You Will Eventually Find Propertarianism.
YOU GET AN A+. (from elsewhere) Propertarian = the reduction of social science, group evolutionary strategy, morality, politics, law, ethics, and cognition, to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property between consenting individuals. Next you will grasp that the scope of property Rothbard claims (physical intersubjective) lacking rule of law, and Hoppe’s use of rule of law, limited to the intersubjectively verifiable), cannot provide the incentives necessary to produce a sustainable voluntary polity capable of surviving competition against other polities. Once you have made that distinction you can come join Propertarianism: 1) Acquisitionism (psychology) 2) Testimonialism (epistemology) 3) Propertarianism (ethics and morality) 4) Evolutionary Strategy (Sociology) 5) Market Government (Politics) (“Market Fascism for the insiders – meaning only markets”) 6) Group Evolutionary Strategy (avoidance, competition, conflict, war) 7) Aesthetics of Transcendence (obtaining Sovereignty through Agency) 8) Natural Law: the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of all of the above. The normal path of maturity appears to be Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > Dark Enlightenment > Propertarianism. This spectrum describes hope (Libertarianisn), separatism (anarcho capitalism), hopelessness (dark enlightenment), taking responsibility (Sovereignty: Propertarianism : Natural Law of Sovereign Men.) Its a lot harder than memorizing a few simple phrases common in libertarianism, or mastering a few arguments as in Anarcho Capitalism. But if it was easy it wouldn’t have taken us so long to write a formal grammar of Natural Law. We’re waiting for you. Or at least, those who can make the journey. -Cheers
-
Once You Grasp the Term Propertarian, You Will Eventually Find Propertarianism.
YOU GET AN A+. (from elsewhere) Propertarian = the reduction of social science, group evolutionary strategy, morality, politics, law, ethics, and cognition, to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property between consenting individuals. Next you will grasp that the scope of property Rothbard claims (physical intersubjective) lacking rule of law, and Hoppe’s use of rule of law, limited to the intersubjectively verifiable), cannot provide the incentives necessary to produce a sustainable voluntary polity capable of surviving competition against other polities. Once you have made that distinction you can come join Propertarianism: 1) Acquisitionism (psychology) 2) Testimonialism (epistemology) 3) Propertarianism (ethics and morality) 4) Evolutionary Strategy (Sociology) 5) Market Government (Politics) (“Market Fascism for the insiders – meaning only markets”) 6) Group Evolutionary Strategy (avoidance, competition, conflict, war) 7) Aesthetics of Transcendence (obtaining Sovereignty through Agency) 8) Natural Law: the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of all of the above. The normal path of maturity appears to be Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > Dark Enlightenment > Propertarianism. This spectrum describes hope (Libertarianisn), separatism (anarcho capitalism), hopelessness (dark enlightenment), taking responsibility (Sovereignty: Propertarianism : Natural Law of Sovereign Men.) Its a lot harder than memorizing a few simple phrases common in libertarianism, or mastering a few arguments as in Anarcho Capitalism. But if it was easy it wouldn’t have taken us so long to write a formal grammar of Natural Law. We’re waiting for you. Or at least, those who can make the journey. -Cheers
-
NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT
NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT NATURAL LAW IS ONLY POSSIBLE UNDER ARISTOCRACY
btw: (important)
I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality.
The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism.
As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale.
Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. )
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 13:19:00 UTC
-
NICELY STATED —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring pheno
NICELY STATED
—“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 23:45:00 UTC
-
COMMON SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT OWNERS OF ORGANIZATIONS Ownership: control. Ownershi
COMMON SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT OWNERS OF ORGANIZATIONS
Ownership: control. Ownership (control) of WHAT? Ownership denies others use, consumption, transfer, and fruits. So what ownership do shares actually convey? RESIDUAL FRUITS.
Shareholdership in practice provides a limited ownership to residual capital.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-06 06:36:00 UTC
-
A CORPORATION IS PRODUCED THROUGH LIMITED LIABILITY REQUIRING A MONOPOLY INSURER
A CORPORATION IS PRODUCED THROUGH LIMITED LIABILITY REQUIRING A MONOPOLY INSURER OF LAST RESORT: STATE.
A corporation CAN only occur in a state, because a corporation obtains limited liability from the state.
One can form a partnership, and one can issue shares to distribute ownership in a partnership, and one can create all sorts of different shareholder agreements, but a corporation of any of the three popular types (llc, S, C) differ in the method of taxation, the means of management, and the extent of limited liability.
in a private law society lacking a constitution, and lacking a state as an insurer of last resort, there is no such possibilty of limited liabiilty. The solutoin is to obtain insurers, and pay insurers fees instead of taxes in order to limit your liabilities.
This is another example of how libertarian thinkers take advantage of the ignorance of individuals as to the nature of the state: it is an insurer of last resort.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 22:44:00 UTC
-
THERE IS NO TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS PER SE There is only a tragedy of the politic
THERE IS NO TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS PER SE
There is only a tragedy of the politically managed commons, but there is no tragedy of the privately managed commons.
Read Ostrom and stop using that term when you don’t understand it. A government commons is abused, a private one is not.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 20:12:00 UTC
-
“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx,
—“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart
(a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories. (b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone.
The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again.
But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication.
Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons.
Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 10:09:00 UTC
-
LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians ge
LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS.
(from elsewhere)
Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day.
If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish.
The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes.
To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers.
Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay.
This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism).
(I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.)
Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it.
The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment.
As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations.
Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it.
There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 07:04:00 UTC