[E]VOLUTION OF METHODS OF REGULATION 1) RELIGION – threat of ostracization. (culture) 2) LAW – threat of punishment, loss of property or liberty. (state) 3) CREDIT – threat of loss of consumption. (suppliers) 4) SOFTWARE – threat of loss of opportunity. (friends) Religion records your birth, promises, and deaths. Law produces a history of your infractions. Credit records a history of your impulsivity Software records a history of your non-conformity. You are always at the mercy of your neighbors. But every time population increases and with it anonymity, we develop a new means of constructing reputations in oder to ensure conformity. (Fuk. And, I’m working at bringing it about… I’m gonna join the Mr Robot Society. )
Theme: Property
-
(important piece) THE SECRETS OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS: AXIS 1) Militarism, Militia
(important piece)
THE SECRETS OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS:
AXIS 1) Militarism, Militia, Heroism, Truth,
AXIS 2) Sovereignty. Private Property, Voluntary Exchange, Contract
AXIS 3) Jury, Common Law, Rule of law & Universal Standing, Natural Law
AXIS 4) Debate, Reason, Philosophy, Logic, Science, Medicine
AXIS 6) Near Breeding Eugenics, Manorial Eugenics, Criminal Eugenics
CLASSES
The People Who Fight (defense – order) Aristocratic
The People Who Farm (capital – production) Libertarian.
The People Who Gather (labor – consumption) Socialist.
THE CATASTROPHE’S
The Follies: Athenian/Spartan and Anglo/German civil wars.
The Plagues: i) Justinian / Arab ii) The Black Death
The Invasions: The demographic invasions of Greece, Of Rome, Of the Roman Empire, of Europe and Americas.
The Great Lies: i) Jewish Christianity, ii) Jewish Pseudoscience, iii) Islamism
The Great Losses: Arab and Turkish Conquests of The East , The Communist Revolution in Russia, Russian Conquest of Eastern Europe,
TECHNOLOGIES (undone)
1) Narrative, Writing, The Story, The Dramatic Play, The Novel, The Serial.
2) Counting, Positional Numbering, Arithmetic, Accounting, Computerized Accounting,
3) Mathematics (sets), Geometry (space), Calculus (relative change), Statistics (probability),
4) (physics)
5) (evolutionary biology)
6) (economics)
7) (truth) Syllogism, ..(correspondence).. Critical Rationalism, Testimonialism,
…
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-19 02:42:00 UTC
-
A HISTORY OF HUMAN REGULATION EVOLUTION OF METHODS OF REGULATION 1) RELIGION – t
A HISTORY OF HUMAN REGULATION
EVOLUTION OF METHODS OF REGULATION
1) RELIGION – threat of ostracization. (culture)
2) LAW – threat of punishment, loss of property or liberty. (state)
3) CREDIT – threat of loss of consumption. (suppliers)
4) SOFTWARE – threat of loss of opportunity. (friends)
Religion records your birth, promises, and deaths.
Law produces a history of your infractions.
Credit records a history of your impulsivity
Software records a history of your non-conformity.
You are always at the mercy of your neighbors. But every time population increases and with it anonymity, we develop a new means of constructing reputations in oder to ensure conformity.
(Fuk. And, I’m working at bringing it about…)
I’m gonna join the Mr Robot Society.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-18 10:42:00 UTC
-
Running Rothbardian Libertinism Into the Ground
[R]othbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense. There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules. The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists. So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government). Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs. There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself. And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem. There are no free rides. Liberty is rare because it is expensive. And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it. But the returns on the high trust society warrant it. Because westerners dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine SOURCE http://ex-army.blogspot.com/…/running-libertarianism-into-g…? AND ORIGINAL POST http://www.everyjoe.com/…/pol…/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
-
Running Rothbardian Libertinism Into the Ground
[R]othbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense. There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules. The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists. So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government). Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs. There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself. And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem. There are no free rides. Liberty is rare because it is expensive. And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it. But the returns on the high trust society warrant it. Because westerners dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine SOURCE http://ex-army.blogspot.com/…/running-libertarianism-into-g…? AND ORIGINAL POST http://www.everyjoe.com/…/pol…/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
-
Refuting Immoral Attacks on Propertarianism
(from an exchange) [W]hy would you even try to criticize Propertarianism unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both?
I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking. The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness. There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era. So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them. But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants. Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth. First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation. Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will. So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors? Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others? In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person? Except to perpetuate immorality? Truth built the west. Truth can restore it. (A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)
-
Refuting Immoral Attacks on Propertarianism
(from an exchange) [W]hy would you even try to criticize Propertarianism unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both?
I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking. The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness. There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era. So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them. But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants. Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth. First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation. Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will. So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors? Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others? In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person? Except to perpetuate immorality? Truth built the west. Truth can restore it. (A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)
-
REFUTING IMMORAL ATTACKS ON PROPERTARIANISM. Why would you unless you either don
REFUTING IMMORAL ATTACKS ON PROPERTARIANISM.
Why would you unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both.
–“What, you trying to make the argument that a minority prescription cannot produce a revolution?
Or that a majority is needed to force political change?
Or that treating information as s commons such that truthful speech is required just as we have done in courts to limit religious speech?
Or that it would be better to continue to permit pseudoscience and propaganda and deceit than to constrain it?
Or that houses where we conducted truthful exchanges in the production of commons would not be better than corporatism, special interests, class warfare, race warfare, party warfare, fed by media complicit in propaganda?
I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking.
The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness.
There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era.
So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them.
But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants.
Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth.
First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation.
Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will.
There is no more substance to your statements than this.
So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors?
Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others?
In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person?
Except to perpetuate immorality?
Truth built the west. Truth can restore it.
(A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 11:42:00 UTC
-
LIBERTINISM INTO THE GROUND… Um… Rothbard “appropriated” the term “libertari
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/12/running-libertarianism-into-ground.htmlRUNNING LIBERTINISM INTO THE GROUND…
Um…
Rothbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense.
There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules.
The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists.
So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government).
Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs.
There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself.
And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem.
There are no free rides.
Liberty is rare because it is expensive.
And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it.
But the returns on the high trust society warrant it.
Because dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
SOURCE
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/12/running-libertarianism-into-ground.html?
AND
ORIGINAL POST
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/07/politics/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 10:22:00 UTC
-
Will You Insure Your Brothers?
[W]hen will you insure your brothers? Is that insurance not the origin of property rights? Is that insurance not the origin of the brotherhood of soldiers? Is not all our civilization built upon our mutual insurance of one another? Our men need confidence that we will insure one another. That we take the oath and will not break the oath. Then they need a few examples. There are enough of us to rebuild the west. But we must understand that there is no one to save us but ourselves. We either draw arms and insure one another or we die like the rest as victims of the hordes. It is the confidence in one another that we must build. Then we must make it so expensive for our oppressors both home and abroad to violate our property, that they choose some alternative venue for their mischief. We will do that by the most expensive cost we can put upon them: Loss, Suffering, Death. Since we act on behalf of our kith and kin, then we will punish the kith and kin of those who violate our property. This means that if a man works against us, he risks his life, his kin, his home, and his relations. No mercy. We insure one another so that families restrain one another. Civilization has never been so frail. They have no choice – if we have the will.