What is a nation but a large family with frontiers? But it serves the interest of politicians to convert family private property into a corporation and to sell off the assets, for their benefit.
That is what statism does really.
(H/T Aaron Kahland)
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-07 03:17:00 UTC
http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/05/shocard-is-a-digital-identity-card-on-the-blockchain/LIKE I SAID: THE BLOCKCHAIN IS A GREAT REGISTRY OF PROPERTY.
(and divisible shares are limited in their use as currency)
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-05 23:45:00 UTC
THE COST OF REVOLUTION
1) Revolutions are a cost. Not revolting is a cost. The question is only which we prefer to pay.
2) Property rights are obtained by raising the cost of not exchanging property rights. They are lost by failing to pay the cost of making property rights cheaper than their absence.
3) Liberty is obtained by raising the cost of infringing upon liberty. Liberty is lost by failing to pay the cost of making liberty cheaper than the alternatives.
4) The common law is obtained by raising the cost of constructing legislative commands and regulations. The common law is lost by failing to pay the cost of making the common law cheaper than its alternatives.
Western civilization has accumulated a great deal of fragility. We can no longer (like Russians and Ukrainians) return to the farm for survival. There are four hours of energy, one day of water, four to six days of food, three weeks of order, 30 days of economic stability, and 90 days of political stability, in the funnel.
We no longer need armies, masses in the streets, or a political majority to construct a revolution. What prevents a revolution today, is merely a solution that a minority are willing to fight for, despite paying the highest possible price.
Property rights are constructed by the threat of violence and predation if they are not constructed.
All other arguments are acts of free riding: theft by fraud. The attempt to obtain property rights without paying the (high ) cost of them.
There can be no discount on liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-05 10:50:00 UTC
[T]he only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism. We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence. a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism. Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization. Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile. It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty. Or lose it forever.
[T]he only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism. We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence. a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism. Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization. Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile. It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty. Or lose it forever.
[T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.
The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.
Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous?
Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.
Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).
[T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.
The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.
Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous?
Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.
Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).
If you use PSYCHOLOGIZING or MORALIZING, RATIONALISM or LAW, rather than PROPERTARIANISM you are part of the problem.
Become part of the solution instead.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 05:03:00 UTC
The only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny. They only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism.
We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence.
a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism.
Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization.
Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile.
It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty.
or lose it forever.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 04:58:00 UTC
[I] won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:
(a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity;
(b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other;
(c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production;
(d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and
(e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.);
(f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders.
Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace.
Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’.
However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us.
So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism).
Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations.
If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs).
Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy.
All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic.
CLOSING
This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences.
My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.