RT @TheMcMullan: @ConceptualJames Whether private property, common property, liberty or responsibility, the limits to all must be reciproci…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-11 09:06:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645714932296560641
ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.
My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.
The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.
In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.
The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
#libertarian @mises
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428206542849
ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.
My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.
The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.
In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.
The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
#libertarian @mises
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428013604864
RT @curtdoolittle: @BradRTorgersen @unusual_whales “All regional differences in income are eventually consumed by mortgage and rent prices”…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 11:25:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645387490780409857
“All regional differences in income are eventually consumed by mortgage and rent prices”
“All disproportionately profitable businesses or industries drive up mortgage and rent prices to the limit of their profitability”
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 11:25:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645387476574281729
Reply addressees: @BradRTorgersen @unusual_whales
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644945810310987781
There is nothing going on that isnt business as usual for keeping parties’ hands clean. Paying someone for an NDA for many purposes, one in this case that as far as I know isn’t illegal, is just again, how we handle such matters in our legal and justice system. Now, you’re probably just naive and ignorant, but this kind of tedium is a daily occurrence everywhere, so that private matters are kept private, and corporate matters kept insulated from private matters.
Reply addressees: @crcwilkinson @JesseBWatters @dbongino
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 02:04:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643434386530893825
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643432010331963395
There is nothing going on that isnt business as usual for keeping parties’ hands clean. Paying someone for an NDA for many purposes, one in this case that as far as I know isn’t illegal, is just again, how we handle such matters in our legal and justice system. Now, you’re probably just naive and ignorant, but this kind of tedium is a daily occurrence everywhere, so that private matters are kept private, and corporate matters kept insulated from private matters.
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 02:04:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643434386610683904
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643432010331963395
RT @StevePender: Rights (freedoms of action) are constructed in real time. They are not immovable assets, passively referenced, like a hous…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 08:47:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642810998762479617
EXPLAINING AMERICAN CIV – AND A CAUTION
https://t.co/7Whhhi8lzn
Wow. Every single note. Flawless.
The usual perfection by @whatifalthist.
(My notes:)
1) Only one property is missing. That is, the diversity of american elites puts pressure on retaining the common natural concurrent law as the only means of reconciliation of differences. Whereas Europe has been more vulnerable because it DOESN”T have rule of law, it has rule of parliament. This is why early Europeans, the Greeks, Romans, Germans, English, and Americans all evolved the law: because it’s the only means of resolving conflict and providing ‘markets’ for elites. And science is an extension of the law to matters outside of the law: it’s the system of weights and measures in the absence of authority.
2) The frontier? Yes. But that’s not meaningful. The seas? The European continent? The desire to cross the Bosphorus? But I’d argue that just ‘Aryanism’ (indo european: heroic, militaristic, technological, sky worshipping, expansionist, where man is destined to walk among the gods). And Aryanism (an alliance of warrior families requires sovereignty and law) requires law in the absence of authority.
This is why I emphasize the law of the governing and the vs religion of the clerisy and peasantry, and ‘respect’ between them. That led to America’s near-equal treatment of the constitution and religion as sacred.
IMO we have over-emphasized the populism of the church vs the elitism of the aristocracy and the law as the means of decision-making in the absence of authority. Western law is law as laws of nature are law. The rest of the world does NOT practice law. We just call it that because it forms the same function: rules and commands.
And the similarity between Europeans and Jews and the outsized theoretical contribution of both, is that these are both law-based societies.
Small things in large numbers over long periods have vast consequences. And those consequences share a common ancestry, a common cause, and that cause is simple, and profound.
Why?
The inability to impose authority generates the necessity of law, reason to explain and justify it, and norms and traditions that evolve from it. In the case of Judaism, it was a separatist, feminine, and social worldview. In the west, it was an aristocratic, masculine, and military-economic worldview.
The world of human behavior requires only a handful of rules to explain. This means that societies only have to make a small number of strategic decisions during their evolution.
But it’s an Anna Karenina dilemma. Many things must go right for this rational scientific market system to evolve and survive. But most civilizations failed the AK dilemma.
So is the west better or just the least wrong of the civilizations?
One thing is for sure, the overwhelming demand for individual responsibility in this western and particularly american civilization is the most costly, and emotionally and psychologically burdensome.
We should not expect that everyone is both willing and able to pay that cost. And we cannot have a society with many people unwilling to do so. And the Marxist-to-feminist-to-woke sequence is just that: the search for evasion of individual responsibility necessary for the preservation of sovereignty.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-01 01:06:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641970252199108608
Almost all crime is smash and grab.
No one hit’s safes. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-29 01:07:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640883284069568512
Reply addressees: @WalterIII
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640882200811048961