Theme: Property

  • War is a necessary product of the commons that creates ones ability to determine

    War is a necessary product of the commons that creates ones ability to determine the distribution and limits of property rights.

    What has happened to the people who cannot enforce property rights because they are incompetent at the production of war?

    The extinct. The assimilated. The gypsies and Jews nearly assimilated or extinct.

    Wishful thinking is for women. They are weak by nature. Men are only weak by choice.

    😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-16 05:27:00 UTC

  • Having assets and having cash are two different things. It is quite possible to

    Having assets and having cash are two different things. It is quite possible to be wealthy and have no cash. It is quite possible to have cash and not wealth.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-16 00:05:00 UTC

  • NO LIBERTINES, RIGHTS ARE MADE. Fact: Natural rights are necessary for voluntary

    NO LIBERTINES, RIGHTS ARE MADE.

    Fact:

    Natural rights are necessary for voluntary cooperation in a market.

    They are something we desire to construct.

    We are rarely successful.

    Rights exist if and only if enough people ensure that they do by the organised use of violence to warranty those rights will be enforced.

    Ergo, rights do not exist any more than dances exist, unless we act to create them for one another.

    Period.

    Property ( that which an organism expends energy obtaining, and thereafter defends ) is demonstrated by most animals.

    Property rights are created when two or more people create an agreement for the reciprocal insurance of one another’s common and personal property.

    Private property refers to that which is not held as a commons.

    Property is demonstrated by defense ( retaliation ).

    Property rights are demonstrated by reciprocal insurance.

    Property rights evolved in parallel with the evolution of both the family, inheritance, and the division of labor, by devolving from nearly universal commons to nearly universal private property.

    Rights can only exist as terms of contract.

    When we say we have rights this is false. It cannot be true. Instead we demand rights in order to cooperate willingly.

    You can ‘hold’ or ‘believe’ whatever you wish. But Wishing it was so does not make it so. ACTING DOES.

    So you may WISH that we work together to produce – existentially – – those rights, but they cannot exist otherwise.

    As for your ancestors, what is the difference between using potatoes to reproduce at eight people per acre instead of one or two, then when the blight arrives, blaming others for your folly?

    …and conducting war with the proceeds of your productivity?

    In other words proles like yourself compete though overconsumption, over reproduction, and false moral criticism. ( r-selection ) while the middle and upper class use proceeds to limit their reproduction and deny you your parasitic overconsumption, over reproduction, and use of false moral equivalency. For the productive and the eugenic build civilization largely by limiting their own consumption and limiting the overconsumption and over reproduction of the parasitic underclasses.

    So what you are doing is making a false equivalency to commit fraud: engaging in over consumption and over reproduction and the dysgenic and impoverishing effects of that proletarian strategy.

    So there is nothing false or immoral by preventing human locusts.

    There is everything false and moral in denying the parasitic over reproductive access to consumption.

    In fact, since the lower classes are more damaging to the community than the upper classes are advantageous, the central reason for western success has been the systematic expansion of property and the systematic use of manorialism, war, and hanging.

    In fact, while the west does possess a geographic advantage, and the west escaped eastern totalitarianism because of our wet climate, our success at dragging mankind out of disease ignorance and poverty has been our use of testimonial ( scientific) truth and aggressive systematic eugenics.

    I suppose the socialist literature does not address the fact that Ireland and Scotland and good parts of Wales and Brittany, were third world countries until the nineteenth century.

    Natural rights: I shall not impose costs, by deed, word, or externality, upon the mind, body, Kin, several property, shareholder property, or commons, that others have expended costs in constructing, or maintaining. And I shall insure all those others who obey this law against such impositions of cost, by retaliating against those who impose such costs.

    This is natural law. It is the law of non-imposition, for the purpose of creating preserving and expanding voluntary cooperation.

    Ergo, comments by other posters are made in ignorance, error, deceit, or fraud.

    Property predates cooperation.

    Cooperation requires non-parasitism.

    Non parasitism requires retaliation.

    Retaliation requires organization.

    Organization requires contract.

    Contract requires decidability.

    Property ( cost ) provides decidability independent of opinion, norm or law.

    The reason for the systematic decline in human violence has been the evolution of property rights, and the suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses.

    We incrementally suppress parasitism and increase cooperation be the incremental evolution of laws that articulate prohibitions against all innovative attempts to decivilize through the imposition of costs by word, deed, conspiracy, or externality.

    The question of the 20th century is why we do not treat statist parasitism in the form of downward redistribution, and advocacy of violations of property as the conspiracy to defraud that they are.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-12 14:29:00 UTC

  • What about its genetic,normative,informal and formal institutional capital? What

    What about its genetic,normative,informal and formal institutional capital? What you mean is that property in London would drop.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-07 15:48:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/740208912037740545

    Reply addressees: @DiscoverFT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/740188167035355137


    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/740188167035355137

  • Once you understand the ‘scam’ of the NAP, you become very weary of terms changi

    Once you understand the ‘scam’ of the NAP, you become very weary of terms changing emotional state rather than property.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 13:23:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737998048253644800

    Reply addressees: @MichaelPascal21

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737983894553788416


    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/737983894553788416

  • His criticism is the same as Hoppe’s – better articulated as tests of property.

    His criticism is the same as Hoppe’s – better articulated as tests of property. I use property-in-toto. Each gen. clearer.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 13:22:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737997793965559809

    Reply addressees: @MichaelPascal21

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737983894553788416


    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/737983894553788416

  • Q&A: “Curt, do you see equity courts as necessary?” If you mean that judges shou

    Q&A: “Curt, do you see equity courts as necessary?”

    If you mean that judges should decide by two different criteria, then no. If you mean equity (various involuntary transfers) is a matter for courts, then yes.

    Here is the deal: the purpose of law is to keep us in peaceful cooperation (order). But externalities differ with the subject matter at hand.

    So treason, murder, theft, incompetence, error, and family matters allow for greater subjective discretion because of fewer or at least less impactful externalities.

    The law, like mathematics did not evolve in an era were we possessed the language of economics and finance (equilibria).

    So the law like mathematics carries archaic terminology from the religious and moral eras. Bad words make bad choices.

    I usually speak in terms of information, decidability, and externality. The law does consider these things. But often refers to them oddly, and in what we might consider ‘sacred’ legal terms, with moral weights.

    So I see that courts must specialize in types of cases for the simple reason that judges cannot master all domains. (Although the good judges I know say that this variability is what keeps them intellectually stimulated. But there is too much evidence that very technical subjects requires specialists.)

    Whether without contract, with contract, within the social contract, and within the legislative contract, I don’t really see any difference. It’s all property rights.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 09:58:00 UTC

  • They do it everywhere in all of history. It’s late marriage, access to property

    They do it everywhere in all of history. It’s late marriage, access to property and status, and shame that prevents it.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 07:24:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737907670984843264

    Reply addressees: @heretic027

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737907392495640577


    IN REPLY TO:

    @heretic027

    @curtdoolittle They only do that bc gender egalitarianism incentivises them to do so by distorting opportunity cost for reproduction.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737907392495640577

  • Prior to universal suffrage we used one FAMILY one vote, by the male property ow

    Prior to universal suffrage we used one FAMILY one vote, by the male property owner: the only individual with intergenerational incentives.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 06:25:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737892769004433409

  • WE USED MARRIAGE AND PROPERTY TO CIVILIZE BOTH GENDERS (ponder the importance of

    WE USED MARRIAGE AND PROPERTY TO CIVILIZE BOTH GENDERS

    (ponder the importance of this a bit)

    ***Women only DON’T reproduce dysgenically and persist poverty when we create institutions to prevent un-meritocratic reproduction as severe as those that prevent un-meritocratic consumption by male violence.***

    It has been as difficult to civilize women as it has been to civilize men. And we did both largely through the institution of marriage, property, and the common law, and aggressively persecuting unmeritocratic dysgeneic reproduction as well as unmeritocratic unproductive violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 03:27:00 UTC