There are people everywhere in this world who want to create political change that just want a bit of unexpected help or info.You help them.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 16:25:00 UTC
Theme: Reform
-
ITS TIME TO DO SOMETHING NOBLE… (worth repeating) I think many of us were attr
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.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 03:31:00 UTC
-
THE NON-OBVIOUS BENEFITS OF MARKET GOVERNMENT (important topic) William Butchman
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
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 08:51:00 UTC
-
You know, every libertarian goes through his period of revelation, and almost al
You know, every libertarian goes through his period of revelation, and almost all of these poor fools write an ‘introduction to libertarianism’ of some sort as a means of trying to understand it themselves, and of sharing their revelation.
But you know, the evidence is pretty clear: Saying something synthetic about a topic (most intellectuals) requires two years of work on top of six years of specialization. Saying something innovative and intelligent in any discipline takes six to nine years of hard work, and two to three years to write down.
The world doesn’t need more intros. Revelations are for diaries and autobiographies.
A PhD takes what – on average six years? The great thinkers seem to take seven to ten, or even twenty. It depends on whether they publish in the interim (wittgenstein, Nietzche) or they don’t (spinoza, kant).
SPecialization has really hurt our intellectual movements.
A side effect of propertarianism and testimonialism is that all disciplines can use the same language, and the same structure, and all that changes are the names and processes of specific applications in the spectrum from the subatomic physical world on one end, to epistemological truth at the other.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 05:55:00 UTC
-
So let us fix that failure in soc science as we have (largely) in physical
So let us fix that failure in soc science as we have (largely) in physical.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-18 11:59:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755009046055424001
Reply addressees: @excarcini @garrettlgray @Wasian_NRx @DonRadolf @jordanbpeterson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754819726644158464
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754819726644158464
-
In this revolution, our people don’t know the words to use yet. We must give the
In this revolution, our people don’t know the words to use yet. We must give them the language to restore western aristocratic culture.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-15 06:44:00 UTC
-
(wishful thinking) Maybe the brits will get smart, make use of the royalty asset
(wishful thinking)
Maybe the brits will get smart, make use of the royalty asset, and make a play to re-lead the anglosphere, of UK, CA, USA, AUS, NZ, GIB…. You know? Reform the UN? Take some leadership away from the USA?
USA 320M, UK 65M, CA 40M, AUS 23M, NZ 4.5M
That’s 450M people.
I know. I know….
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-13 13:42:00 UTC
-
because you guys got nothing but sermons and inspiration. Political change requi
because you guys got nothing but sermons and inspiration. Political change requires institutional solutions. Not inspiration.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-02 15:50:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749269001302339584
Reply addressees: @JohnRebel14
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749187668345487360
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749187668345487360
-
Great conversation with a Dutch guy who has been working against corruption in U
Great conversation with a Dutch guy who has been working against corruption in Ukraine for a decade – even under yanukovich.
I’ll go into the various arguments later but they have thought through all the angles.
They’re too quiet. But otherwise it’s good to know a non idiots are involved.
Very smart guy. Not company.
Wants the slow route. I would use the media and stay on message with all Ukrainians but like most people without money they think small but deliberately it seems.
The idea of settling with the oligarchs is on the table. But they’re clearly worried about the fighters. His argument was that the oligarchs have private armies and we would end up with civil war.
My view was that people act as you would expect when they are well informed. And well informed people are hard to game.
Anyway. The situation is better than I thought on one hand and moving as slowly as if they were merely waiting for the generation to die off in the other.
So it’s a risk reward scenario like always. Some of us want higher risk for faster solutions and some of us want lower risk.
My concern is that it’s hard to tell if Lower risk people merely take credit for causality when observing deterministic results in deterministic time frames.
Heroism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 12:37:00 UTC
-
THE CHURCH FAILED TO REFORM AND THE SCIENCES DIDN”T HAVE TIME TO COMPLETE THEIR
THE CHURCH FAILED TO REFORM AND THE SCIENCES DIDN”T HAVE TIME TO COMPLETE THEIR EVOLUTIONARY PROGRAM
I mean, another way to look at the 20th century is that in response to Darwin, Maxwell, Spencer, (a) the church failed to reform in response by stating that god and natural and physical laws were the same expression of his divinity, and (b) our intellectual class failed to synthesize operationalism as a means of reforming scientific thought-at its new-grand-scale, and (c) the Jewish pseudoscientists (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor) filled a void that both state, academy, and finance could use to profit from the new wave of democratic voters (customers), students (customers), and consumers (customers) who they could not force to spend down their accumulated cultural and institutional capital.
We can easily argue that this is the same strategy the ancient Jews took in response to the imposition of (scientific Aryan-universalist) roman law on top of their (mystical authoritarian separatist) Jewish law. I mean, it worked against classical civilization, why wouldn’t it work against restored classical civilization of the enlightenment?
Intellectuals provide a product for a market. I am just concerned that we do not let another era of fraudulent defective products like ancient Jewish mysticism and modern Jewish pseudoscience into a civilization where second tier intellectuals, women, and the underclass are all too willing to embrace utter falsehoods at the expense of their civilization and it’s progenitors – and in the case of western civilization, all of human kind that benefits from western creativity.
So what we see, is that between the failure of democracy, the progressive failure of Keynesian economics, the failure of Freudian psychology, of Boazian anthropology, of Marxist economics and sociology, and even Cantorian infinity to survive scrutiny by late 20’th and early 21st century science, that we have at least a temporary opportunity to overthrow the Second Great Deceit’s attack on western truth, science, and eugenics.
But we have a short time before the second great deceit and it’s customers in women and the underclasses, possess such numbers that we can be forced into another dark age. And that the promise of a eugenic north America, like a eugenic Europe, insulated from the steppe, desert, and jungle, can continue to provide an engine of innovation for mankind.
For the simple reason that we pay the high cost of truthfulness: That discipline of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, that we call ‘science’.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
We must achieve by force what they have achieved in both the ancient and modern world by deceits.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 03:38:00 UTC