DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CLASSICAL LIBERAL? Maybe. In the sense that we can use the increase in proceeds from the agrarian, industrial, petrochemical, technological, information, and biological revolutions to construct commons by exchanges between houses, then yes. In the sense that we should extend the franchise to those who have not demonstrated ability to decide in favor of the commons, then no. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN? Probably.Although I have come to understand that we use various terms for “Liberty”: Sovereignty for the martial class, Liberty for the middle class, Freedom for the labor class, and “Positive Freedom” (charity) for the underclasses. And that all of us mean something quite different by it. As such “Liberty” is a middle class ambition, and I do not consider myself first a member of the middle class, but of the lower (martial) aristocracy. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT?No. I consider myself New Right. Alt right is a resistance movement not a revolutionary one. Complaints not solutions. I do solutions. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WHITE NATIONALIST?No. I take the position that familism, tribalism, nationalism, under natural law will produce the best outcomes for each family, tribe, nation, and race. And as such all can transcend the animal we call man.
Theme: Reform
-
What Do You Consider Yourself?
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NATIONAL SOCIALIST? No. Although I do feel that despite its terrible economics that it was one of the greatest and most beautiful ambitions ever created by man – until they adopted propaganda, pseudoscience, and outright lying. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF? I consider myself Sovereign: An advocate for Aristocracy. Or what we might call a “Conservative Libertarian”. Even if that label tells us almost nothing useful. -
The Non-obvious Benefits Of Market Government
(important topic) William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists. b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons. c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance. d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed. If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth. While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive. Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives. Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Non-obvious Benefits Of Market Government
(important topic) William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists. b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons. c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance. d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed. If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth. While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive. Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives. Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
End Copyright
There are moral laws, and immoral laws. And copyright protection for creative works has long turned evolved an immoral law. There is no shortage of entertainment, and no evidence that limiting media copyright to terms of the creative commons will reduce the market presence of these productions. Worse, copyrights produce artificial subsidy that encourages the worst possible behavior in the media: pandering.
-
End Copyright
There are moral laws, and immoral laws. And copyright protection for creative works has long turned evolved an immoral law. There is no shortage of entertainment, and no evidence that limiting media copyright to terms of the creative commons will reduce the market presence of these productions. Worse, copyrights produce artificial subsidy that encourages the worst possible behavior in the media: pandering.
-
Its Time To Do Something Noble…
(worth repeating) I think many of us were attracted to libertarianism under the assumption that we could do something noble with what we found there. But we were wrong. We can still do something noble, however. But we must do it at the Point of a Knife, The End of a Spear, The Blade of a Sword, The Barrel of a Gun, and under the Gavel of the Natural Law. We gave the world a chance to join the aristocracy. And they failed. The experiment is over. It’s time to rule again. So pick up your knife, spear, sword, rifle and gavel. It’s time for us to make Law.
-
Its Time To Do Something Noble…
(worth repeating) I think many of us were attracted to libertarianism under the assumption that we could do something noble with what we found there. But we were wrong. We can still do something noble, however. But we must do it at the Point of a Knife, The End of a Spear, The Blade of a Sword, The Barrel of a Gun, and under the Gavel of the Natural Law. We gave the world a chance to join the aristocracy. And they failed. The experiment is over. It’s time to rule again. So pick up your knife, spear, sword, rifle and gavel. It’s time for us to make Law.
-
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT? No. New Right. Alt right is a resistance mov
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT?
No. New Right. Alt right is a resistance movement not a revolutionary one. Complaints not solutions. I do solutions.
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WHITE NATIONALIST?
No. I take the position that familism, tribalism, nationalism, under natural law will produce the best outcomes for each family, tribe, nation, and race. And as such all can transcend the animal we call man.
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NATIONAL SOCIALIST?
No. Although I do feel that despite its terrible economics that it was one of the greatest and most beautiful ambitions ever created by man – until they adopted propaganda, pseudoscience, and outright lying.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 07:57:00 UTC
-
(Peter Boettke : Thinking about your unassuming but thought-provoking quip on th
(Peter Boettke : Thinking about your unassuming but thought-provoking quip on the importance of the P in PhD. Because I wrestle with this problem of the ‘need to reform philosophy’ that Locke set out to achieve in his era – and we must do again in ours. And, since what’s missing from philosophy is any notion of cost, I might go as far as saying that it’s absence of the insights of economics – even such things as the commensurability provided by money and prices – that have doomed the philosophical profession to empty verbalisms.
I OFTEN feel like mathematicians and economists could do with a better understanding of philosophy. But I ALWAYS feel like philosophers could do with a better understanding of economics. I can’t think of any of the insights I have produced that would have been possible without econ, and particularly micro econ, and most importantly Austrian econ. And while I have been critical of the abuse of Mises by Rothbard, I am increasingly concerned that no one seems to be taking mises half-solution to the great logical problem of our age, any further.
There is a terrible need for philosophy, and terrible need for its reformation. But I am pretty sure that the reason that terrible need exists, is the lack of accounting of costs, opportunities and incentives provided by economic philosophers. Philosophy is missing “demonstrated commensurability” across differences in perceptions, experiences, memories, judgements, knowledge, labor and advocacy, by different demands of different people, with different needs.)
(Sorry if this is out of line in some way but I have very few people to think out loud to on these matters.)
– Cheers
(edited. like everything I seem to write on an iphone needs to be. ) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 10:05:00 UTC
-
WRONG WITH DEMOCRACY (AND HOW TO FIX IT)
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/propertarian-podcast-006-malincentives-of-democracy/WHAT’S WRONG WITH DEMOCRACY (AND HOW TO FIX IT)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-20 01:09:00 UTC