[A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
Come Home To Aristocratic Egalitarianism – Leave The Ghetto
[I]’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability. That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans. Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest. Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is. Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism. Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.
-
Come Home To Aristocratic Egalitarianism – Leave The Ghetto
[I]’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability. That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans. Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest. Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is. Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism. Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”
–BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.
COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)
-
THE KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS –“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of
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. )
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 11:02:00 UTC
-
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unt
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) Requirement for mutually beneficial cooperation VS Prohibition on parasitism.
ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 03:42:00 UTC
-
REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM: IT’S PRETTY SIMPLE REALLY —“I think it’s pretty simp
REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM: IT’S PRETTY SIMPLE REALLY
—“I think it’s pretty simple: the NAP has proven to be demonstrably insufficient to use as the basis of the common law, because it preserves and licenses immoral and unethical behavior, which impose high transaction costs on in-group members. As such, no such polity is possible, and that is evidenced by the fact that no such polity has ever existed. … Rothbard’s ethics license parasitism, and the high trust society that created liberty requires contribution to production. It’s not complicated. Rothbard was wrong. Its impossible to form a polity on rothbardian ethics. Period.”–
In-group ethics necessary for the formation of a voluntary polity require the standard of moral action be based upon a requirement for contribution, which mirrors the human moral instincts for cooperation.
if you want an involuntary polity then you can choose any property rights (or lack of) that you want.
If you want a high trust polity that organizes voluntarily, and in which production is voluntarily organized, then you must find an institutional means of resolving ethical and moral conflicts as well as criminal conflicts.
The only institution that we have yet developed that is capable of providing dispute resolution without the presence of a central authority is independent courts under the common law, with articulated property rights.
If property is well defined such that it mirrors ethical and moral prohibitions on free riding in all its forms, all that remains is the voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, productive voluntary exchange free of negative externalities.
You may choose a less moral and ethical society. And I am not sure at what point all humans will demand the state, or a sufficient number to form a voluntary polity will prefer anarchy, but I do know that regardless of that point of inflection, this is the means by which to achieve it that we know of.
Cheers. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-20 18:08:00 UTC