FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. IT IS NATURAL TO MAN. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. ITS UNNATURAL. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT. [Y]a’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense. We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE. Sorry. Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.
Theme: Property
-
FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. AND C
FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT.
Ya’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense.
We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE.
Sorry.
Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 06:37:00 UTC
-
INDIVIDUALISM IN PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT NOT IN LIFE Individualism is isolationism i
INDIVIDUALISM IN PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT NOT IN LIFE
Individualism is isolationism is loneliness. More individualism is not a solution for isolation and loneliness. Individualism in property rights is necessary for the provision of incentives, opportunity to act, and economic calculation, while preventing free riding, and forcing everyone into the act of production. However, reproductive, social, and political individualism actually produce undesirable externalities: loneliness. Alienation. The ‘american disease’ in which we all are told we deserve attention but non of us gives it, and all of us fail to understand why we don’t experience it.
We live in a world where the only attention we obtain is that which we pay for in a commercial setting.
America is the land of attention whores. (Speaking as an american who has had the revelation. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-28 04:57:00 UTC
-
WHAT LIBERTARIANS HAVE RIGHT AND WRONG WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT 1) Property + Voluntar
WHAT LIBERTARIANS HAVE RIGHT AND WRONG
WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT
1) Property + Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of negative externality.
2) Contract + Common Law + Universal Standing
3) Competing Insurance Companies for the purpose of Regulation.
4) Economics: Voluntary organization of Production + Incentives + Competition
WHAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE RIGHT (AND WE HAVE WRONG)
1) Morality (‘Durkheimian Man’) requires many institutional means of coercion into respect for, and observation of, and enforcement of, property rights.
2) The Nuclear and Absolute Nuclear Family as the minimum organizational unit of any social order.
WHAT THE PROGRESSIVES HAVE RIGHT (AND WE HAVE WRONG)
1) Observance and enforcement of the property rights necessary for the voluntary organization of production, when one is not ABLE to participate in it, requires compensation for the effort of observance and enforcement. (Although they would never articulate it in this manner. The right of exclusion must be respected, but respecting it is a cost.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-27 09:34:00 UTC
-
THE FALLACY OF STARTING WITH THE ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS RATHER THAN
THE FALLACY OF STARTING WITH THE ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS RATHER THAN NEEDING TO CONSTRUCT THEM
If you have no property rights, but only permission from the state, to use its property in certain fashion, then the state cannot aggress against your property – nor can anyone else, except to the extent determined by the state.
To defend against this argument you must counter that natural rights exist like a soul, or are merely an allegory to contract rights, envisioned out of necessity for flourishing – or some other magical concept. Despite the fact that, contradictory to universal claims, nowhere on earth do private property rights exist. They are profoundly unnatural.
All that is necessary for cooperation is the institution of property. The scope of property is not defined by the means of transgression against property. We can only possibly hold a right that we have obtained in contract. The contract for property rights in the absence of a state can only be constructed by individuals exchanging the promise of defense in response to transgression, and the means of aggressively constructing those rights . The only means of preventing the universally extant violations of those rights obtained in such a contract, and reciprocally insured via that contract, is the organized application of violence against the state.
So it is an erroneous assumption, and a convenient one, that you start from a position of liberty, rather than start from a position of needing to construct liberty.
Intersubjectively verifiable property is a fallacy. Aggression is a fallacy. Natural rights are a fallacy. Crusoe’s Island is a fallacy. Man evolved from consanguineous bands by suppressing free riding, thereby pressing all into participation in production. Property is the natural result of suppressing free riding. At all points and at all times property is constructed by resisting free riding. Property results from the suppression of free riding. The origin of private property as we understand it occurred when Indo European cattle raiders were able to concentrate extraordinary wealth under pastoralism, by way of organized violence and they kept what they obtained in those raids. This is the origin of property: the organized application of violence against free riding.
People who are unwilling to enter the contract for organized violence in order to construct property rights both in contract and in daily practice (as a norm), are merely free riders (thieves) from those who are willing to act to construct property rights in contract and in daily practice (as a norm).
In other words, by claiming you have ‘natural rights’ you’re not only demonstrably wrong, but just trying to obtain property rights at a discount by free riding on the efforts of those who do construct property rights.
So, you’re not only wrong, but a dishonest, free riding thief, like statists you condemn are.
As far as I know this argument is bulletproof.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 23:00:00 UTC
-
THEFT OUTLINE
http://time.com/106319/heres-what-chinese-hackers-actually-stole-from-u-s-companies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29CHINESE THEFT OUTLINE
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 05:11:00 UTC
-
STATUS AS PROPERTY? BUT PEOPLE SURE ACT LIKE IT. RIGHT? The fact that people def
STATUS AS PROPERTY? BUT PEOPLE SURE ACT LIKE IT. RIGHT?
The fact that people defend their philosophical positions if their self image depends upon them is only confirmation that people treat status, even self image, as their property. I think If I explain truths and falsehoods – you can’t have a property right to falsehoods – this becomes clear. Just as you can’t claim market opportunities are property – because you don’t know if they’re true or not.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 23:27:00 UTC
-
A.E.L. PRINCIPLES 1) Property rights are obtained by entering into a contract fo
A.E.L.
PRINCIPLES
1) Property rights are obtained by entering into a contract for reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of violence to defend it.
2) Property is that which humans demonstrate as their property: that which they act to obtain by homesteading or voluntary exchange, with
the expectation of possession. (See categories of property below)
3) Voluntary Exchange: Moral and ethical exchanges are defined as voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of negative externality.
4) Morality is objective and is prohibition on the transgression of the property of another : the necessary prohibition on free riding for any cooperative organism. We evolved these instincts, and our extreme intolerance for ‘cheating’ out of necessity, and these instincts remain. (see criminal, unethical, and immoral propositions below)
5) The law must sufficiently mirror known morality at any given time to suppress demand for an authority to suppress immoral actions, or the violence that results from immoral actions. While criminal and ethical standards are universal and objective, moral prohibitions consist of (a) necessary prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs, (b) ritual and signal costs that members of a polity are use for signaling commitment, and which should not be enforced by law, but can be enforced by ostracization, (c) errors that are not reducible to free riding, and cannot be enforced by law, nor should they be enforced by ostracization.
6) Transaction costs of immoral and unethical behavior increase with a decrease in capacity to defend against them. Therefore it is not rational to expect people to choose a voluntary polity in the absence of a state without sufficient suppression of transaction costs to compete with the costs of the state that does suppress either the immoral and unethical behavior, or the violence that results from immoral and unethical behavior. AS such the moral and ethical standard embodied in the common law, necessary for a polity is determined by the relative transaction costs and opportunities of different polities. Since the highest trust polities demonstrate both the most suppression of unethical and immoral actions, as well as the highest velocity of risk, production and trade, it is an empirical question as to the level of suppression of unethical and immoral action that is required to maintain a competitive polity. But in no case will people rationally choose an unethical polity, and they never have. The opposite is true: unethical polities have been the victims of conquest, oppression and genocide.
CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY
Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:
I. Several (Personal) Property
– Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”
– Physical Body
– Actions and Time
– Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.
– Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.
II. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property
Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”
– Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
– Children (genetic reproduction)
– Familial Relations (security)
– Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)
– Racial property (racial ties)
– Status and Class (reputation)
III. Institutional (Community) Property
Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”
– Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.
– Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.
IV. Artificial Property
Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?”
– Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)
– Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)
– Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).
FORMS OF INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER
1-Direct Interpersonal
– Murder
– Violence
– Destruction
– Theft
– Theft by Fraud
– Theft by Fraud by omission
2 – Indirect Interpersonal
– Theft by Impediment
– Theft by Externalization
3 – Indirect Social
– Theft by Free riding
– Theft by privatization
– Theft by socialization
4 – Conspiratorial Social
– Theft by Rent seeking
– Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism
– Theft by Extortion
5 – Conquest
– Murder, Destruction and Theft by War
– Immigration
– Conversion
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 16:53:00 UTC
-
THE GREAT DECEPTION : THE FALLACY OF AGGRESSION Aggression is a deception. A con
THE GREAT DECEPTION : THE FALLACY OF AGGRESSION
Aggression is a deception. A convenient libertine ruse, to define property as that which is aggressable against, rather than property as that which people instinctually defend, as a violation of the terms of cooperation necessary for any species that does cooperate: free riding.
Aggression by definition legalizes unethical and immoral actions. As such it is, incontestably, the definition of LIBERTINISM , and NOT libertarianism.
I really can’t understand how we were misled by this fallacy for so long. Other than out of desperation and natural cognitive biases endemic to the autistic end of the spectrum.
Liberty is like truth: there is always more of it to be had, as we constantly innovate our means of cooperation. It’s not a state. It’s a process.
It is a lie, a deceptoin, a fraud, a moral crime against men who whish to be free, to perpetuate the fallacy that property is defined by aggression rather than transgression defined by property.
The means of transgression is immaterial.
The only rule we need is property.
The origin of property is the prevention of free riding.
Free riding, as in, the imposition of costs, the imposition of involutary transfer, or any other means other than the fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property.
Period.
Rothbard is dead. His ideas are dead. His movement is dead. And we should spit on his grave for the damage he has done.
Aristocratic Egalitarianism:
1) Property rights are obtained by reciprocal insurance of one anther’s property by the promise of violence to defend it.
2) Property is that which humans demonstrate as their property: that which they act to obtain by homesteading or voluntary exchange, with the expectation of possession.
3) Morality is objective and is prohibition on the transgression of the property of another : the necessary prohibition on free riding for any cooperative organism.
4) The law must sufficiently mirror known morality at any given time to suppress demand for an authority to suppress immoral actions, or the violence that results from immoral actions.
Welcome to aristocracy. We take all comers. But not libertines. They’re free riders. Immoral and unethical by definition.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 15:02:00 UTC
-
OPERATIONALISM, PROPERTARIAN DEFINITION OF PROPERTY, AND STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM
http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Attitudinal-Model-Revisited/dp/0521789710WHY OPERATIONALISM, PROPERTARIAN DEFINITION OF PROPERTY, AND STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM ARE NECESSARY FOR RULE OF LAW
The “Attitudinal Model”: When decisions are unclear, they are made by moral intuitions. Not by reason.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 22:22:00 UTC