Theme: Property

  • Actually, Technically speaking, we do own it. That’s just empirically demonstrab

    Actually, Technically speaking, we do own it. That’s just empirically demonstrable. We’re productive. That’s why.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 21:25:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796463694322561026

    Reply addressees: @Martha12174

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796460139687481344


    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/796460139687481344

  • NO: DOLLARS ARE NOT MORE INNOCENT THAN VOTES. —“Dollars are not at all like vo

    NO: DOLLARS ARE NOT MORE INNOCENT THAN VOTES.

    —“Dollars are not at all like votes. A vote may be a slight thing in a large electorate but is, nevertheless, a proactive, illiberal, gratuitous, coercive move against others but spending a dollar, by contrast, is not coercive at all; not even one iota.”– David McDonagh

    Assuming however, that rule of law limits the externalities that can be produced by the spending of that dollar to those that are productive, and that the transaction involving that dollar is reciprocally productive, fully informed, warrantied, and voluntary.

    Libertarians seem to have a problem with complete sentences despite the first principle of economic theory: the broken window’s demand for full accounting. Yet libertarians speak in incomplete sentences using not full accounting but rational justification. And they do so in order to rely upon suggestion: causing the audience to subjectively substitute that information that is not provided in the incomplete sentence. So this obvious conflict between the first principle of economics which requires full accounting, and the use of justificationary rationalism to circumvent it by means of incomplete sentences and suggestion is the reason for the failure of the program to produce intellectuals that produce meaningful results, rather than simply attracting justificationists: free riders.

    It is not market activity that creates demand for authority and then state. But the externalities to the transaction that create demand for authority and the state.

    Why? Because humans retaliate, even at high cost, against any imposition of any investment that they have made. So liberty is constructed by the suppression of any activity that causes retaliation.

    Ergo, this is why the NAP is a fraud. Because it does not specify the scope of the prohibitions one may not aggress against without encouraging retaliation (demonstrated interest), and therefore generates rather than suppresses demand for the state. Hence why the only existential semi-libertarian polities have existed in border regions under the defense of states and empires, who tolerate free riding on the commons in exchange for holding territory in the state’s name at a discount – thereby preventing other states from doing the same without invoking retaliation.

    One may not impose a cost upon that for which others have borne a cost. And that constitutes every form of capital that humans produce. And since some capital is strategic rather than productive, then that which demarcates competition between preferences is TRUTH content.

    ERGO: votes are proxy for violence. Dollars are a proxy for expenditures of time, mind, effort, and resources – usually from the proceeds of trade that created a surplus because of a division of knowledge and labor.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:10:00 UTC

  • Of course not. But then I’m a little more rigorous. Sovereignty, nomocracy, prop

    Of course not. But then I’m a little more rigorous. Sovereignty, nomocracy, property in toto = fully decidable markets.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 01:34:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795801665492361217

    Reply addressees: @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795800322870562817


    IN REPLY TO:

    @jeffreytucker

    @curtdoolittle are you just playi g dumb here ?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795800322870562817

  • Markets are simply the only means of preserving asymmetry and removing asymmetry

    Markets are simply the only means of preserving asymmetry and removing asymmetry of power and information. Courts are the only means of preserving asymmetry of warranty of performance.

    I don’t think markets are subordinate to hierarchy in any sense other than I think that they themselves prohibit hierarchy by permitting the meritocratic rise and fall of the classes by means of DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS.

    I don’t think a market for commons divided by the classes of production is a hierarchy, it is just a means of recognizing the forms of production that the meritocratic families have managed to produce and hold onto: families, business, enterprises, territories, and monarchy.

    The fact that there is greater SCALE OF MERIT in each class is simply a fact of the market operating to ensure that we demonstrate the greatest rotation and maintain the families businesses, enterprises, and institutions, with the greatest merit.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 15:31:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM IS DESCRIPTIVE. (Eli Harman) —“Legalism is prescriptive. Prope

    PROPERTARIANISM IS DESCRIPTIVE.

    (Eli Harman)

    —“Legalism is prescriptive. Propertarianism is descriptive. We can criticize institutions by showing them to be unsustainably parasitic, dysgenic, consumptive, degenerative, or uncompetitive (existentially impossible over the long term.) We can describe institutions that are not degenerative but are productive, progressive, durable, anti-fragile, competitive (existentially possible.)

    We do not prescribe the latter, we merely prefer them. We note that the former will always tend to fall and the latter to rise.”—Eli Harman


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 18:53:00 UTC

  • FROM ANCAP TO PROPERTARIAN. WHY? LIBERTINE BUFFOONERY. —“One of the things tha

    FROM ANCAP TO PROPERTARIAN. WHY? LIBERTINE BUFFOONERY.

    —“One of the things that most influenced my departure from Ancap was the behavior of many of the more ardent, entrenched libertines when faced with arguments from better evidence (HBD, Demonstrated Property, R vs K selection). While I previously believed Ancap had the most refined understanding of economics and the sociopolitical, that started to seriously come into question when I saw just how dishonorably many of them behaved when faced with worthy adversaries. Notwithstanding my own inability to articulate a convincing rebuttal, it was particularly damning to witness the sheer buffoonery and often times overt parasitical behavior I had previously only associated with socialists. However, it took me sometime after that to be able to properly understand the nature of what exactly they were trying to achieve a discount from. That search is what lead me to you, Curt Doolittle.”— Jeremie Makell


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 11:00:00 UTC

  • I remember. It was horrible. The business men in my town stood in front of their

    I remember. It was horrible. The business men in my town stood in front of their shops with shotguns and took photos as a threat.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 17:28:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794954559223373826

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794865793171394560


    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/794865793171394560

  • EVERONE STEALS BUT CONSERVATIVES – THEY JUST CONSTRAIN. Marxists want to steal e

    EVERONE STEALS BUT CONSERVATIVES – THEY JUST CONSTRAIN.

    Marxists want to steal everything and tell you what to do with it. Social Democrats want to steal the proceeds of your risk taking and tell you what they will do with it. Libertarians want to steal from the commons and tell you that you can’t have any. And conservatives want to prevent not only stealing but whatever consumption they can, and to direct it to investment in family and commons.

    It’s not complicated. Children are costly, women redistribute, nest, and consume locally at all costs. Libertarians want to keep everything they produce because they’re undervalued in cooperation in large groups. And conservatives try to concentrate capital in the empirically demonstrated productive family, community, nation, and it’s capital.

    The universe operates by simple rules. Humans are simple creatures. It’s the vast network of excuses, justifications, wishful thinkings, falsehoods, and lies we tell that create the appearance of complexity.

    We acquire, and we justify the means of our acquisition. yet some of us are better at stealing and some better at rent-seeking, and some better at free-riding, and some better at producing, and some better at saving and defending.

    And we all claim our method is better rather than a necessary function in a division of intergenerational reproduction.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Sovereignty.

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Social Science of Western Civilization

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 11:28:00 UTC

  • Communism: the dreams of sheep herders forced from their land, unable to obtain

    Communism: the dreams of sheep herders forced from their land, unable to obtain and hold new land, trying to pretend they can have land by doing more of the same.

    The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again despite the fact that it doesn’t work.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 21:38:00 UTC

  • The problem with most attempts at state intervention is that they have mistakenl

    The problem with most attempts at state intervention is that they have mistakenly attempted to manipulate and control prices – the obvious thing. Rather than attempted to constrain the impact of trade on externalities: the commons. Most insidious has been the doctrine of laissez fair in which the common good is assumed to be the product of reduced prices and increased consumption rather than the accumulation of future-competitive capital.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 20:44:00 UTC