… advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
What's The Difference
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
-
What’s The Difference
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
-
What's The Difference
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
-
What’s The Difference
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
-
Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.
–“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.
–“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
"Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights"
–“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”– (I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.)
-
“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights”
–“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”– (I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.)
-
"Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights"
–“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”– (I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.)