Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Children Are Not Private Property

    Children Are Not Private Property: https://t.co/ODUHvMrupC

  • Children Are Not Private Property

    Children Are Not Private Property: https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/children-are-not-private-property/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 16:42:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267496777655226368

  • Children Are Not Private Property:

    Oct 22, 2019, 2:44 PM CHILDREN ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY: PARENTS HAVE A DEMONSTRATED INTEREST, AND ARE AGENTS INSURING BOTH CHILD AND THE POLITY

    —“[“The children are not property but the insurer of the children, and the polity from the children like any other domesticated animal”] What did you mean by this?”—

    That the parent insures the children from others (and nature) and insures the people from the children. The same is true for any domesticated animal. This is a ‘formal’ description of parental responsibility.

  • Children Are Not Private Property:

    Oct 22, 2019, 2:44 PM CHILDREN ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY: PARENTS HAVE A DEMONSTRATED INTEREST, AND ARE AGENTS INSURING BOTH CHILD AND THE POLITY

    —“[“The children are not property but the insurer of the children, and the polity from the children like any other domesticated animal”] What did you mean by this?”—

    That the parent insures the children from others (and nature) and insures the people from the children. The same is true for any domesticated animal. This is a ‘formal’ description of parental responsibility.

  • Responsibility vs Insurer, Warranty, and Liability

      Subtle point Martin just hinted at, is that under P-law you don’t have to ‘take’ responsibility. You either insure or you don’t, and you insure because there is no alternative, or you insure because it is a choice. But “responsibility” under P, such that it’s a choice, is very limited. In almost all cases you are insure, warranty, and are liable whether you choose to be or not. And this is what will offend the free riding left most of all.

  • Human Needs Aren’t Human Rights

    HUMAN NEEDS AREN’T HUMAN RIGHTS

    —“I can’t have a right to food, but I can have a right to eat.”– JWP

    There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial. But one cannot POSSIBLY exercise a right that was not created by others, and one cannot possibly exercise a positive right that places demands upon others. As such all existentially possible rights are only via negativa: freedom from harm by others. There are many desirable GOODS that we might work together to obtain. There are however no existential rights no matter how much we pay wish there work (or lie that there are).

  • Human Needs Aren’t Human Rights

    HUMAN NEEDS AREN’T HUMAN RIGHTS

    —“I can’t have a right to food, but I can have a right to eat.”– JWP

    There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial. But one cannot POSSIBLY exercise a right that was not created by others, and one cannot possibly exercise a positive right that places demands upon others. As such all existentially possible rights are only via negativa: freedom from harm by others. There are many desirable GOODS that we might work together to obtain. There are however no existential rights no matter how much we pay wish there work (or lie that there are).

  • Libertarians Made Great Useful Idiots

    Oct 23, 2019, 2:57 PM LIBERTARIANS MADE GREAT USEFUL IDIOTS

    —“Patent nonsense. Genetics is the most fundamental element of private property and inheritance.”—Jonathan Besler

    Resource Free of Demonstrated interest. Desired Interest (not property) Demonstrated Interest (not property) Possession (non property) Consensual (reciprocally Insured proto Property Normatively Insured (social Property) Institutionally Insured (political Property) … Political Property: … … Private Property (monopoly of control) … … Private Common Property (unenumerated interest) … … Shareholder Property (enumerated interest) … … Franchised Common Property (unenumerated interest) One can demonstrate interest in children (create and maintain them) One can demonstrate possession of children by force, by convention, by institution) Property – meaning insured, possession, of demonstrated interest – on the other hand, is a consensual, normative, or political category because it is insured by others. If you possess it, and it’s not insured, it’s not property. That’s what property means: that which is insured by other parties. And good luck with rational operational and empirical evidence to the contrary. So you are confusing demonstrated interest with factional possession, and factual insurance, and factual terms of insurance. Which is why libertarianism succeeded the way marxism and abrahamic religion succeeded = by taking advantage of ignorance of people using conflationary terms, to create the presumption of logic where there is none. Libertarians shouldn’t feel too bad about being useful idiots for the enemy. But they were and are. But the authors of libertarianism come from a long tradition of deception by false promise, baiting into hazard, sophism, and critique, ad profiting from doing so. There is only one source of sovereignty and that is the reciprocal insurance of reciprocity by all men capable of bearing arms. Everything else is lying.

  • Libertarians Made Great Useful Idiots

    Oct 23, 2019, 2:57 PM LIBERTARIANS MADE GREAT USEFUL IDIOTS

    —“Patent nonsense. Genetics is the most fundamental element of private property and inheritance.”—Jonathan Besler

    Resource Free of Demonstrated interest. Desired Interest (not property) Demonstrated Interest (not property) Possession (non property) Consensual (reciprocally Insured proto Property Normatively Insured (social Property) Institutionally Insured (political Property) … Political Property: … … Private Property (monopoly of control) … … Private Common Property (unenumerated interest) … … Shareholder Property (enumerated interest) … … Franchised Common Property (unenumerated interest) One can demonstrate interest in children (create and maintain them) One can demonstrate possession of children by force, by convention, by institution) Property – meaning insured, possession, of demonstrated interest – on the other hand, is a consensual, normative, or political category because it is insured by others. If you possess it, and it’s not insured, it’s not property. That’s what property means: that which is insured by other parties. And good luck with rational operational and empirical evidence to the contrary. So you are confusing demonstrated interest with factional possession, and factual insurance, and factual terms of insurance. Which is why libertarianism succeeded the way marxism and abrahamic religion succeeded = by taking advantage of ignorance of people using conflationary terms, to create the presumption of logic where there is none. Libertarians shouldn’t feel too bad about being useful idiots for the enemy. But they were and are. But the authors of libertarianism come from a long tradition of deception by false promise, baiting into hazard, sophism, and critique, ad profiting from doing so. There is only one source of sovereignty and that is the reciprocal insurance of reciprocity by all men capable of bearing arms. Everything else is lying.

  • It’s Not Money. It’s a Divisible Token. and That’s Fine

    It’s Not Money. It’s a Divisible Token. and That’s Fine https://t.co/1izIJGaGtS