RELIGION
I have been working on the subject for much of this year, and today has been very fruitful.
The church was very close. It could have reformed. Sad.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 06:49:00 UTC
RELIGION
I have been working on the subject for much of this year, and today has been very fruitful.
The church was very close. It could have reformed. Sad.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 06:49:00 UTC
ITS TIME TO DO SOMETHING NOBLE…
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 do something noble however.
But we must do it at the Point of a Knife, The End of a Spear, 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. Time to rule again.
Pick up your spear, knife, rifle and gavel.
It’s Time for us to make Law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 09:41:00 UTC
TOP 100 PRESIDENTS
(just a thought experiment)
So what if instead of the presidency, we added another house, and the top 100 individuals who got votes in the election got to form a parliament and select their own leader to act as president (prime minister)?
Then we return almost all power to the states, recalling the 14th amendment and all consequent legislation dependent upon it. leaving only 2/3 of the budget for the federal government(military and insurance) and returning the other 1/3 to the states (discretionary spending).
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 09:29:00 UTC
[Y]eah. I’m controversial. Although, it’s somewhat odd to me that advocating truth-telling, not-stealing, limiting public publication to truthful statements, converting to market rather than authoritarian government, and paying poor people in exchange for having just one kid, is controversial. Slaying sacred ideological cows in every era is controversial. But then, I don’t know why advocating deceitful speech, authoritarianism, theft, and systemic parasitism isn’t more controversial than truth telling and not stealing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
[Y]eah. I’m controversial. Although, it’s somewhat odd to me that advocating truth-telling, not-stealing, limiting public publication to truthful statements, converting to market rather than authoritarian government, and paying poor people in exchange for having just one kid, is controversial. Slaying sacred ideological cows in every era is controversial. But then, I don’t know why advocating deceitful speech, authoritarianism, theft, and systemic parasitism isn’t more controversial than truth telling and not stealing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:01:00 UTC
DRAW BLOOD NOT WEBSITES
I think that any form of Anarchism is a romantic notion for daydreaming about – but that people hold revolutions for a reason and that we need a revolution.
And that the only people who can earn or possess liberty are those that will use revolution to displace a predatory state with one that protects their rights.
There has not be a revolution in America since the civil war, making America one of the oldest governments currently in existence.
It’s time to have a revolution. I’m happy if daydreamers want to daydream. But history says if you have pent up demand for revolt, then you can use it and change the world forever.
So that’s my position on daydreams.
Draw blood not web sites.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 07:33:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imc_kETTSlQThis ought to get me more hate mail, reddit flames, and cursing, but it’s necessary if we are going to construct a condition of liberty rather than wish for one.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 21:41:00 UTC
REMOVING REVOLUTIONARY UNCERTAINTY
If your political solution provides an improvement at least for a passionate minority you will eventually win.
If your political solution is sufficiently tangible to be discussed and criticized, as well as procedurally implemented, then time and effort necessary to win are reduced significantly.
If your political solution solves a know source of conflict in society then it will take even less time and effort to win.
The purpose of revolution is merely to raise the cost of the status quo such that the transaction cost of switching from the current set of rents to the new solution is preferable to retaining the current rents at the expense of it.
The enemy of improvement is the predatory state.
No moral man can object to Propertarianism’s market for commons and demand for testimonial truth in all matters of the commons.
Those who object to such things are defacto- objectively immoral.
That does not stop mystics, rationalists, obscurantists, pseudoscientists, and outright propagandist liars from trying to preserve their parasitism and deceit.
But it removes moral restraint from those of us who wish to restore the world to civilization from cosmopolitan pseudoscientific barbarism.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-27 10:21:00 UTC