–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”
Bill Joslin:
What about possession?
Context:
In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours
Agreement : Property- what others agree is yours is yours
Legal : 3rd party ensurance of ownership agreement
In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain
Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel)
Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce)
The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”)
In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law.
The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching.
The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law)
To clarify further.
Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control.
So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence.
Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn.
Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters.
Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement).
I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion
Theme: Reciprocity
-
“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Josli
–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Joslin: What about possession? Context: In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours Agreement : Property- what others agree is yours is yours Legal : 3rd party ensurance of ownership agreement In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel) Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce) The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”) In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law. The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching. The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law) To clarify further. Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control. So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence. Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn. Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters. Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement). I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion -
“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Josli
–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”
Bill Joslin:
What about possession?
Context:
In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours
Agreement : Property- what others agree is yours is yours
Legal : 3rd party ensurance of ownership agreement
In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain
Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel)
Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce)
The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”)
In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law.
The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching.
The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law)
To clarify further.
Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control.
So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence.
Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn.
Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters.
Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement).
I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-22 23:15:00 UTC
-
The Virtuous Cycle Of Western Civilization
Martial Risk Produces Reward. Opportunity for Reward produces Heroism. Martial Heroism produces Meritocracy. Meritocracy produces Sovereignty. Sovereignty produces Natural Law. Natural law produces markets. Markets produce Prosperity. Prosperity increases competitiveness. Competitiveness decreases martial risk. -
The Virtuous Cycle Of Western Civilization
Martial Risk Produces Reward. Opportunity for Reward produces Heroism. Martial Heroism produces Meritocracy. Meritocracy produces Sovereignty. Sovereignty produces Natural Law. Natural law produces markets. Markets produce Prosperity. Prosperity increases competitiveness. Competitiveness decreases martial risk. -
THE VIRTUOUS CYCLE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION Martial Risk Produces Reward. Opportu
THE VIRTUOUS CYCLE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
Martial Risk Produces Reward.
Opportunity for Reward produces Heroism.
Martial Heroism produces Meritocracy.
Meritocracy produces Sovereignty.
Sovereignty produces Natural Law.
Natural law produces markets.
Markets produce Prosperity.
Prosperity increases competitiveness.
Competitiveness decreases martial risk.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-21 09:05:00 UTC
-
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids out
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids outside marriage or a marriage-like contract. The problem with rothbards idea of the parent-child relationship is that he fails to subscribe the parent to any kind of responsibility for the existence of the child and therefor sees the child more as some alien figure that the parent may wish to have company with, a relationship that can be terminated at any time as if it were similar to any other. In fact, the parents must have ultimate responsibilities for the existence of the child and therefore also for its well being until such a time where is has assumed its full set of rights (adulthood). Hence, there must be an implicit parent-child contract that takes into consideration reasonable expectations and duties in raising and generally taking care for the child. This contract must be based in reality, including historic, biological, social, and scientific, and must reject modern lies (reality denying) and pseudo-scientific conceptions. In practice, this means that a child must be raised in a stable mother-farther household where appropriate resources are given to both the general welfare of the household, and specifically to the child themselves. Economically, the most efficient and correct way of achieving this is through division of labour between a stay-at-home caretaker (mother) and industrious worker (father). Marriage and marriage-like contracts ensure this happens and traditionally are very difficult to annul, carrying significant penalties and reparations for breech or withdrawal of contract. In the case of those who do have a child outside such a contract, then they must be assumed to have entered into one on birth of the child, and breech of contract/duty must be able to be resolved in court by the other parent or on behalf of the child. -
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids out
Im starting to very seriously think that one should not be able to have kids outside marriage or a marriage-like contract. The problem with rothbards idea of the parent-child relationship is that he fails to subscribe the parent to any kind of responsibility for the existence of the child and therefor sees the child more as some alien figure that the parent may wish to have company with, a relationship that can be terminated at any time as if it were similar to any other. In fact, the parents must have ultimate responsibilities for the existence of the child and therefore also for its well being until such a time where is has assumed its full set of rights (adulthood). Hence, there must be an implicit parent-child contract that takes into consideration reasonable expectations and duties in raising and generally taking care for the child. This contract must be based in reality, including historic, biological, social, and scientific, and must reject modern lies (reality denying) and pseudo-scientific conceptions. In practice, this means that a child must be raised in a stable mother-farther household where appropriate resources are given to both the general welfare of the household, and specifically to the child themselves. Economically, the most efficient and correct way of achieving this is through division of labour between a stay-at-home caretaker (mother) and industrious worker (father). Marriage and marriage-like contracts ensure this happens and traditionally are very difficult to annul, carrying significant penalties and reparations for breech or withdrawal of contract. In the case of those who do have a child outside such a contract, then they must be assumed to have entered into one on birth of the child, and breech of contract/duty must be able to be resolved in court by the other parent or on behalf of the child. -
Perfect Government
We had the Best System of Government (Perfect Government) and we blew it: 1) Nomocracy (Rule of Law by Natural Law of Torts: Reciprocity) 2) A Hereditary Monarchy as Judge of Last Resort, and custodian of territory, institutions, organizations, families, and individuals. …. A State(Foreign Relations) Organization, …. A Professional Military, …. A Professional Judiciary, and …. A Treasury of Last Resort. 3) A Market for Commons consisting of: …. Regional Nobility(Persistent families) serving as a normative Supreme Court …. A House of Industry(Commons) for those with responsibilities. …. A Church Serving as a House of Labor and family. 4) A Local (Democratic) Polity(private partnership) of Property Owners …. A Militia and Sheriffs …. Voluntary Civic Organizations 5) The Nuclear Family. And Family and Nation as subject of policy 6) The Individual and Property as the subject of law. Really. You can’t do much better than that for a ‘steady state’. Because under war or stress the organization can switch from market rule to military rule (Fascism), and under plenty the organization can switch from market rule to (contingent and temporary) redistribution. The central probelm with all forms of government is nothing more complex than the demographics of the polity. The larger the demonstrated underclass, the less effective a government and the more risk involved and the more limited are one’s options. The smaller the demonstrated underclass, the more effective a government and the less risk involved and the more plentiful (variable) are one’s options. Market governments cause a natural eugenic change in the distribution, while creating the greatest adaptability, rate of innovation(competition) and highest standard of living. But they require a militia or at least a dedicated military to bring into being. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Perfect Government
We had the Best System of Government (Perfect Government) and we blew it: 1) Nomocracy (Rule of Law by Natural Law of Torts: Reciprocity) 2) A Hereditary Monarchy as Judge of Last Resort, and custodian of territory, institutions, organizations, families, and individuals. …. A State(Foreign Relations) Organization, …. A Professional Military, …. A Professional Judiciary, and …. A Treasury of Last Resort. 3) A Market for Commons consisting of: …. Regional Nobility(Persistent families) serving as a normative Supreme Court …. A House of Industry(Commons) for those with responsibilities. …. A Church Serving as a House of Labor and family. 4) A Local (Democratic) Polity(private partnership) of Property Owners …. A Militia and Sheriffs …. Voluntary Civic Organizations 5) The Nuclear Family. And Family and Nation as subject of policy 6) The Individual and Property as the subject of law. Really. You can’t do much better than that for a ‘steady state’. Because under war or stress the organization can switch from market rule to military rule (Fascism), and under plenty the organization can switch from market rule to (contingent and temporary) redistribution. The central probelm with all forms of government is nothing more complex than the demographics of the polity. The larger the demonstrated underclass, the less effective a government and the more risk involved and the more limited are one’s options. The smaller the demonstrated underclass, the more effective a government and the less risk involved and the more plentiful (variable) are one’s options. Market governments cause a natural eugenic change in the distribution, while creating the greatest adaptability, rate of innovation(competition) and highest standard of living. But they require a militia or at least a dedicated military to bring into being. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine