It’s Not Money. It’s a Divisible Token. and That’s Fine https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/its-not-money-its-a-divisible-token-and-thats-fine/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 15:00:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267471123639386112
IT’S NOT MONEY. IT’S A DIVISIBLE TOKEN. AND THAT’S FINE BTC is not ‘money’ or money substitute. It consists of, AND ONLY OF, a fractionally divisible share in the BTC Single-Stock Exchange that can be used as tokens in transfers of interest. See Token Money, Share, Stock Market. Innovation is (a) digital, (b) divisible (c) a commons.
IT’S NOT MONEY. IT’S A DIVISIBLE TOKEN. AND THAT’S FINE BTC is not ‘money’ or money substitute. It consists of, AND ONLY OF, a fractionally divisible share in the BTC Single-Stock Exchange that can be used as tokens in transfers of interest. See Token Money, Share, Stock Market. Innovation is (a) digital, (b) divisible (c) a commons.
Just as entropy must be articulated as physics, chemistry, biology, etc, Natural Law must be articulated as natural rights for the simple reason that it’s not possible to correctly deduce all applications of entropy without the requisite domain knowledge, or is it possible to correctly deduce all applications of reciprocity without requisite domain knowledge – although when stated that way it’s kind of helpful.
Just as entropy must be articulated as physics, chemistry, biology, etc, Natural Law must be articulated as natural rights for the simple reason that it’s not possible to correctly deduce all applications of entropy without the requisite domain knowledge, or is it possible to correctly deduce all applications of reciprocity without requisite domain knowledge – although when stated that way it’s kind of helpful.
—“I do have a question regarding churches. Under P Law, would they be considered public or private property? And if considered public, would that limit what the preacher can and cannot say? Or would it being private, grant them some clemency when speaking on their faith?”—Stephen Thomas
P law doesn’t say anything other than “don’t lie”. P-law says you have no rights in the commons other than to continuously walk along property-borders and common ways, while silent, and looking at your feet. That is the only necessary exchange we must grant one another given the impossibility of circumventing three dimensional reality. So teaching ‘sacredness’ is a matter of law under threat of prosecution, not membership in a community under threat of ostracization. So yes, we restore sacredness of the commons. The church’s past and present primary function is education of the psychological, moral, and political intuition – largely in an illiterate (and possibly intentionally illiterate) society. The academy’s primary function is education in the grammars of calculation: letters, numbers, reading, writing, the logics, mathematics, the physics, the law, the economics, and argument. What occurred in the 20th thanks to the second abrahamic attack on western civilization is the invasion of the academy with training the intuition rather than training reason, argument, and calculation. And we must either prevent this from happening, or require both institutions teach universal grammars, universal ethics, morality, and politics, but different means of providing mindfulness given the different constitutions of our minds. But, in a constitution written in P-law, that restores the balance of powers between the institutions, I have suggested that the religious institutions are restored to previous condition as a competitor to the military and the government (not the judiciary), and has dominion over matters of the family, and that we fund these like the schools (instead of the schools) whether scientific, rational, traditional, military, pagan(european historical), or christian – a description of the order we want to be long to. This allows people to choose the educational and social conditions they prefer, with the only constant relation being natural law and the grammars. It allows them to construct churches in the christian ethic of natural law; the extension of christian (familial) love to all as a means of both eliminating petting conflict, eliminating petty emotional and psychological coercion, and eliminating the demand to retaliate, and thereby producing the optimum social order with optimum reciprocal incentives, that assists in the formation of an economically and politically ( commercial) political order; the imitation of jesus in expression of that christian love; surrender of responsibility for fate to god or jesus, thereby limiting self criticism due to normal human frailty and error; and limiting the burden of ethical and moral decision making to dependence upon the accumulated evidence of religious history. If that is the case then they are not only sponsored and defended by the state but competing organizations on competing ethics are prohibited. So in this sense it is difficult to disambiguate the ownership of current libraries and churches as other than state-private partnerships. In fact, hard to describe any institutions as other than partnerships. So as long as a ‘church’ teaches compatibility with natural law, and teaches the grammars, My conflict and the one I just am leaving for markets to search out is that faith and truth are not the same things, and if they were we would not need faith. So christians must be taught the difference between an expression of faith and an expression of truth, and that we deliver undo the faithful and unto our gods, what is due them (the spiritual) and we delver unto the polity and the law what is due it. This has been the practice for all of our history. No other solution is possible while preserving both. Meanwhile those of us who think in archetypal masculine terms will focus our empathy on the pagan, and those who think in archetypal feminine terms will focus our empathy on the christian, and those of us who use reason and science rather than empty will focus on history, economics, and the law. And my hope (and suspicion) is that most people will do ALL OF THEM, and some people will do only ONE of them. And that will keep us unified despite our cognitive differences – without having to oppress one another. It is impossible to make people like me have faith – we are incapable of it. it is impossible to make people who need faith abandon it. But since we all share the natural law across that spectrum – or we are the enemy of not just our people, but all mankind, then this is an amenable solution for military unity, political unity, economic unity, and spiritual unity despite our differences. “MARKETS IN EVERYTHING.” (And yeah, that was freaking hard problem.)
—“I do have a question regarding churches. Under P Law, would they be considered public or private property? And if considered public, would that limit what the preacher can and cannot say? Or would it being private, grant them some clemency when speaking on their faith?”—Stephen Thomas
P law doesn’t say anything other than “don’t lie”. P-law says you have no rights in the commons other than to continuously walk along property-borders and common ways, while silent, and looking at your feet. That is the only necessary exchange we must grant one another given the impossibility of circumventing three dimensional reality. So teaching ‘sacredness’ is a matter of law under threat of prosecution, not membership in a community under threat of ostracization. So yes, we restore sacredness of the commons. The church’s past and present primary function is education of the psychological, moral, and political intuition – largely in an illiterate (and possibly intentionally illiterate) society. The academy’s primary function is education in the grammars of calculation: letters, numbers, reading, writing, the logics, mathematics, the physics, the law, the economics, and argument. What occurred in the 20th thanks to the second abrahamic attack on western civilization is the invasion of the academy with training the intuition rather than training reason, argument, and calculation. And we must either prevent this from happening, or require both institutions teach universal grammars, universal ethics, morality, and politics, but different means of providing mindfulness given the different constitutions of our minds. But, in a constitution written in P-law, that restores the balance of powers between the institutions, I have suggested that the religious institutions are restored to previous condition as a competitor to the military and the government (not the judiciary), and has dominion over matters of the family, and that we fund these like the schools (instead of the schools) whether scientific, rational, traditional, military, pagan(european historical), or christian – a description of the order we want to be long to. This allows people to choose the educational and social conditions they prefer, with the only constant relation being natural law and the grammars. It allows them to construct churches in the christian ethic of natural law; the extension of christian (familial) love to all as a means of both eliminating petting conflict, eliminating petty emotional and psychological coercion, and eliminating the demand to retaliate, and thereby producing the optimum social order with optimum reciprocal incentives, that assists in the formation of an economically and politically ( commercial) political order; the imitation of jesus in expression of that christian love; surrender of responsibility for fate to god or jesus, thereby limiting self criticism due to normal human frailty and error; and limiting the burden of ethical and moral decision making to dependence upon the accumulated evidence of religious history. If that is the case then they are not only sponsored and defended by the state but competing organizations on competing ethics are prohibited. So in this sense it is difficult to disambiguate the ownership of current libraries and churches as other than state-private partnerships. In fact, hard to describe any institutions as other than partnerships. So as long as a ‘church’ teaches compatibility with natural law, and teaches the grammars, My conflict and the one I just am leaving for markets to search out is that faith and truth are not the same things, and if they were we would not need faith. So christians must be taught the difference between an expression of faith and an expression of truth, and that we deliver undo the faithful and unto our gods, what is due them (the spiritual) and we delver unto the polity and the law what is due it. This has been the practice for all of our history. No other solution is possible while preserving both. Meanwhile those of us who think in archetypal masculine terms will focus our empathy on the pagan, and those who think in archetypal feminine terms will focus our empathy on the christian, and those of us who use reason and science rather than empty will focus on history, economics, and the law. And my hope (and suspicion) is that most people will do ALL OF THEM, and some people will do only ONE of them. And that will keep us unified despite our cognitive differences – without having to oppress one another. It is impossible to make people like me have faith – we are incapable of it. it is impossible to make people who need faith abandon it. But since we all share the natural law across that spectrum – or we are the enemy of not just our people, but all mankind, then this is an amenable solution for military unity, political unity, economic unity, and spiritual unity despite our differences. “MARKETS IN EVERYTHING.” (And yeah, that was freaking hard problem.)
I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each https://t.co/RpcQIZi7lb
I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/i-think-youre-confused-about-property-and-commons-and-the-evolution-of-each/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 11:54:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267424163578380289
—“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler
Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people have always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers