QUESTION OF THE DAY: SELF DEFENSE
What are the Definition, Scope, and Limits of Self Defense Under the Natural Law of Sovereign Men: Perfect Reciprocity?
( I’ve tried a few experiments and the quality of the responses has been far and away above my expectations so for those who feel capable of constructing statements of natural law, this is the next example I’d like to try.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-10 10:12:00 UTC
Individualism is untestable which is why it’s meaningless. Sovereignty on the other hand is perfectly testable.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-09 16:12:00 UTC
Market Demand for an insurer of last resort creates demand for the state. Market demand for sovereignty constrains the state. In the end result, it is the Militia that purchases either insurance or sovereignty. And it is the militia who bears responsibility for its purchases.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-06 06:32:00 UTC
LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS.
(from elsewhere)
Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day.
If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish.
The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes.
To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers.
Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay.
This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism).
(I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.)
Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it.
The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment.
As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations.
Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it.
There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 07:04:00 UTC
Terror requires the deliberate targeting of non-combatants as a means of altering policy. Sovereignty requires one’s government control non-state actors. Democracy requires one’s people control one’s government such that it controls non-state actors, such that it does not break the westphalian peace, nor the postwar peace. Justice visited upon the muslims to contain them just as the west tried to contain the communists in the twentieth century and the Islamic empires, for it’s thousand years of warfare against the west. And so apparently we must unify china, india, russia, and america to contain islam until it respects the peaces of westphalia (containing non state actors), and of the postwar consensus (maintian borders, develop human rights, and develop consumer economies).
No people yet has transformed from the medieval to the modern without a reformation, and some sort of civil war.
Islam is the only backward civilization remaining. The problem it faces, and south america faces, is that the demographics throughout the muslim world make a rational secular state nearly impossible without the promise of ever-expanding growth under fiat money capitalism.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 08:04:00 UTC
SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY
One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that’s what you mean by ‘governor’ then that kind of “government” is something I am comfortable with.
But I won’t give up my Sovereignty (My “rights as an anglo saxon”) in the choice of contracts I will prefer to pay for; which choices of contracts I prefer not to pay for; and which choice of contracts I will not tolerate.
This is the difference between Sovereigns investing in Commons (Anglo Saxons) by vote and hiring project managers, and Subjects choosing their rulers by vote, who will then choose the commons they produce for those who chose them.
We have had our rights for thousands of years.
It took those thousands of years to preserve them.
It took those thousands of years to capture them in draft form the US Constitution.
And today we can capture them perfectly in a new one.
So will you choose the Sovereignty of the Warrior, or the Servility of a Subject?
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-03 08:10:00 UTC
—“..the flag can’t fight. I can. If you won’t kneel to a flag, I’ll make you kneel to me.”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 19:32:00 UTC
Well, conservatives have failed because they cannot, under democracy, admit their strategy: domestication. Or rather “Eugenics” in pursuit of fellow Sovereigns.
That’s what you get with Propertarianism’s Natural Law: we just state western civilization truthfully.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 10:09:00 UTC
NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION
NATURAL LAW
Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech).
SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION)
Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages.
THE RESTORATION
1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about.
2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others.
3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully.
4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons.
5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence
So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state?
We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market.
My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism).
The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f
Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-02 09:42:00 UTC
#Trump Either Trump succeeds in draining the swamp or we will have a civil war ending in secession. (Honestly we’d rather have the war.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-01 17:04:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836985526616002561