(Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights) [T]here are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert: 1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing) 2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation) 3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing) We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite. The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation. Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism. Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy). I do not use the term natural law for Propertarianism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing. We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism. Then we had an invasion of Christianity. Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience) Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.) Three waves of increasingly articulate lies. The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud. Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive. But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilization to another dark age.
Theme: Property
-
A Short Course in Propertarian Reasoning
(introduction to propertarianism)
Note: this is a sketch of propertarian reasoning I’ve put together to satisfy some of your requests. If you follow me you will recognize the technique as the application of the scientific method and amoral economic language to questions of social science.
[P]RINCIPLES
1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.
3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.
4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.
5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.
6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.
7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.
8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.
9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.
10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.
11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).
12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.
13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.
14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.
[L]IST OF PROPERTY-EN-TOTO: THAT WHICH WE ACT TO AQUIRE (DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY)
http://www.propertarianism.com/demonstrated-property/[T]HE SIMPLE METHOD: INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION
1) take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.
2) identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)
3) identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.
4) determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).
5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.
6) State the user’s request in amoral propertarian terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.[A]DVANCED: AN EXAMPLE OF EMPLOYING THE PROPERTARIAN METHOD ON ADVANCED CONCEPTS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-propertarian-methodol…/This example addresses the term ‘evil’ in propertarian terms, and provides an example of how highly loaded terms from antiquity can be converted into scientific (propertarian) terms.
TERMINOLOGY
Demonstrated Property / Property en Toto
Exchange / Transfer / Voluntary Transfer / Involuntary Transfer
Parasitism / Free Riding / Imposed Costs
Productive / Unproductive
Fully Informed / Asymmetric Information
Warrantied / Un-warrantied
Discount / Premium
Coercion / Influence
Voluntary Organization of Production
Incremental Suppression of free riding
Truth / Truthfulness / Honesty
Moral / Amoral / Immoral
Morality / Cooperation / Retaliation -
A Short Course in Propertarian Reasoning
(introduction to propertarianism)
Note: this is a sketch of propertarian reasoning I’ve put together to satisfy some of your requests. If you follow me you will recognize the technique as the application of the scientific method and amoral economic language to questions of social science.
[P]RINCIPLES
1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.
3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.
4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.
5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.
6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.
7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.
8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.
9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.
10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.
11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).
12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.
13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.
14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.
[L]IST OF PROPERTY-EN-TOTO: THAT WHICH WE ACT TO AQUIRE (DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY)
http://www.propertarianism.com/demonstrated-property/[T]HE SIMPLE METHOD: INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION
1) take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.
2) identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)
3) identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.
4) determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).
5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.
6) State the user’s request in amoral propertarian terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.[A]DVANCED: AN EXAMPLE OF EMPLOYING THE PROPERTARIAN METHOD ON ADVANCED CONCEPTS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-propertarian-methodol…/This example addresses the term ‘evil’ in propertarian terms, and provides an example of how highly loaded terms from antiquity can be converted into scientific (propertarian) terms.
TERMINOLOGY
Demonstrated Property / Property en Toto
Exchange / Transfer / Voluntary Transfer / Involuntary Transfer
Parasitism / Free Riding / Imposed Costs
Productive / Unproductive
Fully Informed / Asymmetric Information
Warrantied / Un-warrantied
Discount / Premium
Coercion / Influence
Voluntary Organization of Production
Incremental Suppression of free riding
Truth / Truthfulness / Honesty
Moral / Amoral / Immoral
Morality / Cooperation / Retaliation -
THE THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, AND THE EVOLUTION OF LAWS (Natural Law is an exc
THE THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, AND THE EVOLUTION OF LAWS
(Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights)
There are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert:
1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing)
2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation)
3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing)
We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite.
The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation.
Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism.
Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy).
I do not use the term natural law for propertarainism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just
So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing.
We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism.
Then we had an invasion of Christianity.
Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience)
Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.)
Three waves of increasingly articulate lies.
The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud.
Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive.
But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilisation to another dark age.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 05:49:00 UTC
-
SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING (introduction to propertarianism) Note: t
http://www.propertarianism.com/ideas/the-propertarian-methodology/A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING
(introduction to propertarianism)
Note: this is a sketch of propertarian reasoning I’ve put together to satisfy some of your requests. If you follow me you will recognize the technique as the application of the scientific method and amoral economic language to questions of social science.
PRINCIPLES
1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.
2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.
3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.
4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.
5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.
6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.
7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.
8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.
9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.
10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.
11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).
12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.
13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.
14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugneic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.
LIST OF PROPERTY-EN-TOTO: THAT WHICH WE ACT TO AQUIRE (DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY)
http://www.propertarianism.com/demonstrated-property/
THE SIMPLE METHOD: INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION
1) take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.
2) identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)
3) identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.
4) determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).
5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.
6) State the user’s request in amoral propertarian terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.
ADVANCED: AN EXAMPLE OF EMPLOYING THE PROPERTARIAN METHOD ON ADVANCED CONCEPTS
http://www.propertarianism.com/ideas/the-propertarian-methodology/
This example addresses the term ‘evil’ in propertarian terms, and provides an example of how highly loaded terms from antiquity can be converted into scientific (propertarian) terms.
TERMINOLOGY
Demonstrated Property / Property en Toto
Exchange / Transfer / Voluntary Transfer / Involuntary Transfer
Parasitism / Free Riding / Imposed Costs
Productive / Unproductive
Fully Informed / Asymmetric Information
Warrantied / Un-warrantied
Discount / Premium
Coercion / Influence
Voluntary Organization of Production
Incremental Suppression of free riding
Truth / Truthfulness / Honesty
Moral / Amoral / Immoral
Morality / Cooperation / Retaliation
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-24 06:49:00 UTC
-
HIERARCHY OF COGNITIVE HUMAN SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY (acquisition strategy)
HIERARCHY OF COGNITIVE HUMAN SYSTEMS
G-GENES,
0-PROPERTY (acquisition strategy)
1-INTUITION, (search)
2-REASON, (stack/order)
3-COOPERATION (division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, labor)
Kahneman isn’t enough. Haidt isn’t enough. Propertarianism is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:26:00 UTC
-
Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM (I am tur
Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM
(I am turning out to be an enemy of the twentieth century’s advocacy of highly loaded easily understood, short sentences.)
—“The mainstream econ definition of a common good is one which is rivalrous but non-excludable. So in this sense, I understand why one might consider law itself a common good, but court systems? Is demonstration sufficient to consider something a common good? I mean, wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—
–“rivalrous but non-excludable”—
But is that demonstrably true? Is any good non-excludable?
Instead, humans demonstrably reciprocally insure all property against some subset of:
1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.
2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.
3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.
4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)
5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)
6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.
A park is an interesting example: we grant people Transitus, but deny all other rights.
A common grazing ground is another interesting example: we grant transitus, fructus, but that is all.
A monument (or a church, which is our most common monument), we grant only transitus.
We prohibit people from denying Transitus where it imposes unnecessary burdens: property lines.
Water is another interesting example, we deny pollution that externalizes costs. We have done the same recently with air. We probably need to do the same with the seas.
But does any people tolerate abusus? (making land uninhabitable or unusable?) Only where land is not valuable.
A commons is that which some group has expended effort (born costs) to inventory, and to prohibit one or more rights, the most common of which is Abusus, Mancipio and Constituo. (See Nobel Prize Winner Elanor Ostrom’s work)
—“wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—
It is better to see marxists as preserving discretion and accrual of debt to produce a dysgenic order, and property rights advocates as eliminating discretion and replacing it with accrual of debt, to produce a eugenic order. In other words, marxists are promoting the parasitic female strategy to reverse civilization, and propertarians are promoting the productive male strategy to continue civilization.
(This is a profound restatement of these issues)
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 07:46:00 UTC
-
OPINION ON TUCKER: MISSING THE BOAT (from elsewhere) —“What’s your current opi
OPINION ON TUCKER: MISSING THE BOAT
(from elsewhere)
—“What’s your current opinion of Jeffrey Tucker?”—Johannesson
Tucker is a decent fellow seeking income by popularizing libertinism.
As a writer he is articulate.
As a marketer of ideas he is quite good.
As an editor he is even better.
As a theorist he is as weak as the rest.
As an entrepreneur he conflates his advocacy of his over-investment in his passion with the demands of the market: something no libertarian should fail to recognize. Ideology must satisfy market demand just as any other product.
Like the MI he failed to see the dramatic sea change from hopeful and rebellious classical liberals combined with a few social misfits, to alt-right classical liberals and many socially con-formative. And by missing that shift, and holding onto prior intellectual investments, he has missed his opportunity to generate revenue by continuing WITH the stream, rather than now struggling against it.
The world has moved on. The Alt-right owns the momentum because it attacks the lies and pseudoscience of the postmoderns head-on, rather than continuing the won-battle against socialism.
The Libertine generation is over. Libertines cannot hold territory against invaders wishing to impose alternative normative and institutional ambitions. No one gets a free ride on liberty. The only means of obtaining liberty is the violent suppression of those who would take it from us.
Alt-right is the only possible form of liberty, and therefore the only direction of libertarian investment.
It is what it is. Adapt or perish.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 06:19:00 UTC
-
AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS. The reason that Americans can
AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS.
The reason that Americans can trust you by default in business is because our courts will punish the HELL out of you if you act in an untrustworthy fashion. American courts largely function as lie detectors more so than truth detectors.
This is what separates Common law courts from Napoleonic law courts: There is (or should be) no difference between state and civic action; and we punish the hell out of violators, rather than regulate actions.
That this produces superior economic velocity for the middle and upper classes while allowing the lower classes enough rope to constantly hang themselves is not obvious. For this reason – difficulty for the proletarians – I do not see the necessity of a monopoly homogenous set of rules of operation.
If I am willing to operate by aristocratic (outcome based) common law, then I should be able to. If I prefer to have the protection of regulatory law (as instruction and guidance relieving the burden of knowledge) then I should be able to enjoy it.
But despite propter-hoc regulatory law, or post-hoc common law, in neither of these cases are the laws of dispute resolution in matters of property different. What differs is the form of insurance I expect in defense of them.
This differs from polycentric law, in the sense that there is no difference whatsoever in law, only difference in the requirements of the insurer. As such, the governmental ‘houses’ function as insurance agencies – insurers of last resort – rather than polycentric legal houses.
This difference separates Propertarianism from Libertinism (Cosmopolitan libertarianism) permanently. There is but one law of cooperation necessary for the preservation of cooperation as preferable to predation: non-parasitism (non-imposition of costs). There is but one positive expression insuring the victim: property rights to property en-toto. And therefore all conflict is decidable, and all law universal regardless of polity. But the means by which we insure one another, and the contracts we enter into one another, are something quite different. (We merely lie and equate legislation and regulation with law so that the government can claim false legitimacy for its actions. One can violate a political contract, but that is a contract violation not a legal violation. Whether one can issue regulation is not a question as long as it meets testimonial and propertarian criteria, and citizens have universal standing in juridical defense – which they don’t have today.)
The classical liberal model of houses that represent the interests of the classes and force exchanges between the classes was very close. The first mistake was investing power in the parliament rather than in the houses of parliament, and the second mistake was failing to add a house of labor and a house of dependents so that we could conduct trades between the newly enfranchised classes. Just as the British error was its failure to add a house of colonies to the government, rather than equal participation in the parliament.
SIMPLE RULES FOR COMPLEX LAW
There is but one cause of law, that is the facilitation and preservation of the incentive of cooperation and non-retaliation. There are no other causes of law other than the principle of non-parasitism that preserves the incentive of cooperation and non-retalitation.
There is but one law and that is property en toto. There i
All legislation consists of contract. No legislation consist of law.
All legislation must apply universally. All standing must mirror any application.
All legislation may only carry forward. No legislation may be retroactively imposed.
All legislation must consist of voluntary transfers. No legislation may force involuntary transfer.
All regulation is refinement of legislation. No regulation may extend beyond its governing legislation.
All regulation consists of contract modifications. No regulation may violate contract provisions.
All propertarian and testimonial contracts assent. No non-propertarian, non-testimonial contracts may assent.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 07:22:00 UTC
-
Question for you. The Guardian put out a story the other day about “unaffordable
Question for you. The Guardian put out a story the other day about “unaffordable Brittain” – although looking at the interactive map they published (shown below), they’re only really talking about England and Wales. Do you have a view on this? Will have a look for the parent article and post it below.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 06:53:00 UTC