Theme: Property

  • WE HAVE A CHOICE (revised) Truth, Trade and Liberty (propertarianism) –vs– Lie

    WE HAVE A CHOICE (revised)

    Truth, Trade and Liberty (propertarianism)

    –vs–

    Lies, Takings, and Authority (socialism)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 09:56:00 UTC

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism is Radical not Reactionary

    Josh Jeppson said something smart last night: that Propertarianism isn’t conservative (reactionary) but innovative. That’s true.

    But then, how do I position it? —“You don’t want to go back to something (maybe some things but not all), so you’re not a reactionary, you don’t want to conserve what we have so you aren’t a conservative, and you don’t want to take what we have further, so you aren’t a progressive. You are (gasp) a revolutionary”—Adam Felix

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism is Radical not Reactionary

    Josh Jeppson said something smart last night: that Propertarianism isn’t conservative (reactionary) but innovative. That’s true.

    But then, how do I position it? —“You don’t want to go back to something (maybe some things but not all), so you’re not a reactionary, you don’t want to conserve what we have so you aren’t a conservative, and you don’t want to take what we have further, so you aren’t a progressive. You are (gasp) a revolutionary”—Adam Felix

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • So full accounting says that while the slavery incentive exists, it was insuffic

    So full accounting says that while the slavery incentive exists, it was insufficient until expansion.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 11:03:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619461836543533056

    Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619461404286943232


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom And the moral test any exchange of property of any kind requires full accounting. Not cherrypicking.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619461404286943232


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom And the moral test any exchange of property of any kind requires full accounting. Not cherrypicking.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619461404286943232

  • And the moral test any exchange of property of any kind requires full accounting

    And the moral test any exchange of property of any kind requires full accounting. Not cherrypicking.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 11:01:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619461404286943232

    Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619460832041304064


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom All moral assertions are reducible to statements of property rights of one form or another.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619460832041304064


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom All moral assertions are reducible to statements of property rights of one form or another.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619460832041304064

  • All moral assertions are reducible to statements of property rights of one form

    All moral assertions are reducible to statements of property rights of one form or another.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 10:59:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619460832041304064

    Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619460644878876672


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom So are you saying that morality does not construct an economy for the production of cooperation?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619460644878876672


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom So are you saying that morality does not construct an economy for the production of cooperation?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619460644878876672

  • LIBERTINES. YOU’RE INFECTED. BUT WE HAVE A CURE: PROPERTARIANISM Dear Cosmopolit

    LIBERTINES. YOU’RE INFECTED. BUT WE HAVE A CURE: PROPERTARIANISM

    Dear Cosmopolitan Libertines:

    You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders.

    So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.)

    And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park).

    And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law).

    And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade.

    Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert.

    You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason.

    And you’ve been infected.

    It’s OK. We have a cure.

    Propertarianism.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-09 09:02:00 UTC

  • Obverse and Reverse

    Obverse / Reverse. ——————————— Silver Rule / Golden Rule. Act to Obtain / Act to Defend Non-Parasitism / Property Freedom to / Freedom From Obligation / Right Source: Curt Doolittle