Theme: Property

  • MIGHT MAKES RIGHT? OR, CAN RIGHT EVEN EXIST WITHOUT MIGHT? (profound) Property r

    MIGHT MAKES RIGHT? OR, CAN RIGHT EVEN EXIST WITHOUT MIGHT?

    (profound)

    Property rights have been, and must be, instituted by the organized application of violence to prevent free riding, fraud, theft and violence.

    And while most would argue that fraud, theft and violence are intolerable acts, the majority of private sector theft in the world is perpetuated by acts of free-riding, fraud by omission, fraud by obfuscation, and theft by externalization.

    The majority of public sector or state theft in the world, is created by rent seeking, extortion, using procedural and legal obscurantism.

    So, in this sense, we who desire property rights, use our wealth of violence, as a threat, to institute property rights over the will of those who would engage in private sector theft. However, by doing so we create the opportunity for public sector theft. Public sector theft centralizes free riding and rent seeking and forces the majority of people into the market for goods and services now that their work products are extracted, and their opportunities for free riding and rent seeking have been eliminated. (*Profound*)

    The fact appears to be, that it’s not so much that government does good, but that all action that forces us into the market rather than to rent seek and free ride is in fact ‘good’.

    Now, our problem, since we have centralized free riding and rent seeking in government, is to drive GOVERNMENT into the market for goods and services AS WELL.

    If we have natural man, for whom honest competition is hard work, and now have deprived him of the ability to commit theft by free riding, various frauds, theft and violence, by forcing his criminality into the state, and his efforts into the market, there is no reason we cannot force all the free riding and rent seeking from government into the market.

    I won’t disagree that there are certain circumstances where totalitarian or at least very strong government is necessary to purge systemic theft from the population and drive the population into the market. Nor will I disagree that forcible literacy and education is merely self defense. Nor will I disagree that the use of government to create infrastructure as the only possible means of preventing privatization and free riding of common investment, is necessary – only because it can enforce the prohibition on free riding, privatization and socialization.

    But that does not mean that these activities must be pursued as a monopoly. They don’t. There is no reason why government must be more than rules and courts, and a vehicle for the construction of contracts between groups. The reason that we relied on government is that we failed to articulate all the various means of involuntary transfer, such that any individual could use the courts to prosecute any other individual or group.

    The government for the provision of goods, need only be a market for exchange between classes. But the extractive classes use the monopoly power of government and their freedom from suit as an income stream.

    So this problem – of forcing theft into the market – is not unsolvable.

    It isn’t even that difficult.

    Displacing the people in the vast rent seeking and extractive government is what’s difficult. They have every incentive to stay. And displacing them by revolution is expensive and risky.

    Nullification eventually deprives them of power and costs nothing, and forces them to use violence to change it. Secession immediately deprives them of power, and forces them to use violence to change it. Insurrection destroys a lot of capital, but effectively makes funding the state and the ability to govern impossible.

    Forcing your opposition to attack you is always beneficial. It puts you on the moral high ground.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 04:33:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN ONLY ORIGINATE IN A CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGE – therefor there ar

    PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN ONLY ORIGINATE IN A CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGE – therefor there are limits to those rights.

    If you fail to state the limits of those rights in that contract, then it is quite possible to abuse them. But the moral use of property – meaning the ban on involuntary transfers – does not include such uses as rent seeking on property rights THEMSELVES. That would mean a contradiction.

    I hope that logic is as clear as it is to me. Maybe not.

    Human moral code illustrates that we expect that if you profit, that you profit by contributing something to the agreement.

    This intuition is what confused us over interest. Interest is a necessary property of inter-temporal production. It’s not a convenience. Its a necessity. We can’t function without it.

    And it is moral, because interest is an opportunity cost paid for by the lender, to the borrower.

    However, that does not mean that you can take advantage of human suffering as a lender. That violates the principle of involuntary transfer.

    This topic is exceptionally rich turf for libertarian reformation. Because by solving it, we solve the problem of placing limits on property rights such that they are acceptable to high trust societies.

    Profound if you grasp it.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 12:37:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY WANTS PROPERTY RIGHTS – FOR THEM. “…The Family (capital F) is gett

    http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/news-analysis-a-television-news-breakthrough-333200.htmlTHE ARISTOCRACY WANTS PROPERTY RIGHTS – FOR THEM.

    “…The Family (capital F) is getting out of control; and the oligarchs want to restore exactly the types of property rights [that] they so readily tread upon…”

    -Roman Skaskiw

    (repost to capture roman’s quote.)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 11:53:00 UTC

  • WHY DOES THE MONOPOLY STATE FEAR COMPETITION? All conflicts are resolvable if pr

    WHY DOES THE MONOPOLY STATE FEAR COMPETITION?

    All conflicts are resolvable if private property rights are respected. So why can’t groups with different sets of property rights join different groups (unions, parties) and made contracts with one another?

    There isn’t any reason that they can’t.

    Except that the state, and democracy, and bureaucracies, are a monopoly.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 09:46:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY IS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT TOO Active, violent, institution of property rig

    LIBERTY IS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT TOO

    Active, violent, institution of property rights, against the will of free-riders and rent seekers, as well as against the will of the violent and fraudulent.

    Natural rights are a logical prison for libertarians.

    We can’t possibly desire to be left alone in our natural state of freedom, because that is not man’s natural state: free riding is. Community property is.

    We can only logically desire to forcibly implement property rights against the will of the majority.

    This is liberty’s prison.

    Natural rights libertarianism, is a convenient excuse to feel morally superior while taking no active action to alter the course of events.

    Liberty is made by violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 09:40:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism: Arguments to Necessity not Preference Propertarianism is a desc

    Propertarianism: Arguments to Necessity not Preference

    Propertarianism is a descriptive system of universal ethics, determined by necessity, not preference.

    –PRINCIPLES–

    0) Memory and Time = consciousness experience of differences in state

    1) The structure of reproduction

    2) The crimes of reproduction: violence, free riding.

    3) The necessity of the signaling economy for learning and reproduction

    4) The necessity of calculation for action

    5) The necessity of cooperation for scale

    6) The necessity of property in all its forms

    7) The crimes of property: theft, fraud, fraud by omission

    8 ) The structure of production (division of knowledge and labor)

    9) The necessity and properties of naturalism and instrumentalism

    10 ) The properties of language and the problem of obscurantism

    11) The three weapons of influence and the emergent class tripartite structure of the classes

    12) The properties of number, money, prices, contract, and law.

    13) The institutions of cooperation at scale: rules and commons.

    14) The development of the social capital of trust: the problem of diversity vs outbreeding.

    15) The crimes of cooperation at scale: Rent seeking, Privatization, Socialization, Corruption, Extortion, Usurpation, War.

    16) The Institutions of competition at scale : heterogeneous polities.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 06:16:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY = ANARCHO CAPITALISM + THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Libertarian institutions,

    LIBERTY = ANARCHO CAPITALISM + THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

    Libertarian institutions, reduction of all rights to property rights, propertarian grammar and terminology, and human nature scientifically demonstrated rather than theoretically conjectured, and the necessity of formal and informal institutions.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 11:15:00 UTC

  • “COLLECTIVE BONDS” = COMMUNAL PROPERTY AND FREE-RIDING VS PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHO

    “COLLECTIVE BONDS” = COMMUNAL PROPERTY AND FREE-RIDING

    VS PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT FREE RIDING

    “…the individual in (parts of) europe was liberated from the “collective bonds” because europeans started outbreeding in the early medieval period and, over the subsequent generations, the frequencies and perhaps even types of altruism genes changed in the populations. europeans quit behaving like inbred pashtuns who are always looking for revenge when their familiy’s honor is tainted because they (the europeans) were no longer inbred.”….

    -HBD Chick


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 09:15:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN MATERIALIST DIALECTIC Free Riding (thesis) vs No Free Riding (antith

    LIBERTARIAN MATERIALIST DIALECTIC

    Free Riding (thesis) vs No Free Riding (antithesis) = Private Property, and paying the free riders off via rents (synthesis)

    (Nerd humor)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-04 01:23:00 UTC

  • HIDE SYSTEM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS “for a good part of the medieval period, then, f

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)THE HIDE SYSTEM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    “for a good part of the medieval period, then, frisian society continued to be based on clans rather than nuclear families. the frisians had been christianized, which is important in breaking down tribes and clans, but they weren’t manorialized, which seems to be another key in getting to an “atomized” society based on the individual and the nuclear family.

    The hide system meant that the lord of the manor would lease out (on a long-term lease — like lasting a life-time) farms to married couples. not to extended families. not to clans. just to a married couple (and their kids). manorialism and the hide system, therefore, also broke down the clan connections, along with the loosening of the genetic ties via all the outbreeding. so in places where people converted to christianity (and, therefore, stopped inbreeding), but DIDN’T have manorialism, extended family systems and even clans could — and did — survive for longer, since the clan system wasn’t also broken down by the hide system.” — HBD_chick

    See wiki:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 16:21:00 UTC