—“The inescapable fact that Carl Scmitt pointed out is that the rule of law nevertheless requires a sovereign to declare it the rule.”— Rik Storey
And the inescapable fact that a militia is nevertheless required to demand it of him.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 13:07:00 UTC
Via negativa we construct the sovereignty of the aristocracy, the liberty of the burgher, the freedom of the craftsman, the subsidy of the mother.
We eliminate the false and immoral and only the true and moral remain.
It is by the decidable, non-discretionary, rule of judge discovered, natural, empirical, common law, that we incrementally discover means of parasitism that violate natural law, and then prohibit them, thereby informing others not to repeat those violations and insuring one another if they are repeated.
We produce sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy through the incremental suppression of parasitism using the incremental discovery of applications of the one law of non-parasitism.
We build a condition of liberty like a sculptor with his chisel removing stone to discover the figure beneath – not like an engineer who designs it or a clay or wax sculptor building it up in layers by design.
In this way we do not require anyone to believe in the good, and they cannot disagree with the bad. This leaves us with no other choice for our survival than a market for ‘good’ actions.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 17:16:00 UTC
STOP DENYING WHO WE ARE
I mean, you can choose: Western sovereignty by which we and humanity profit from our incremental transformation of man from impulsive animal into human with agency in the pursuit of sovereignty for all, or the Semitic, Persian profit from the expansion of the underclass and the continuous devolution of man. Or the Chinese authoritarian version that seems to always end in stagnation.
only one of these models has served to raise man out of ignorance and poverty in the bronze, iron, and steel, ages,
That’s the west.
Stop denying who we are.
We are the people who domesticated the animal man for fun and profit by breeding for agency, such that with agency we can produce a population of sovereigns – equal among the gods.
Every group of humans can take this strategy if they choose.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 10:39:00 UTC
YOU DON”T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 😉
Great questions.
—1) From where does a polity gain more rights or powers under Natural Law than the individual has in the first place?—
a) a right is a demand upon others. one does not intrinsically possess rights, one intrinsically requires them. Just as one does not intrinsically possess property he acquires it.
You can REQUIRE, and DEMAND others not impose costs upon your possessions, but you cannot possess property in fact, or property rights in fact, without a contract for those rights in some form, and a polity or institution to insure them on your behalf, and you on theirs. Else we would not have this discussion.
b) natural law provides decidability in matters of conflict regardless of the difference in opinions of the individuals in that conflict.
c) using decidability one can judicially discover and outlaw the new means of parasitism, and the new forms of property, that we consistently invent.
d) so regardless of initial presumptions the scope of our property rights can increase indefinitely under natural law regardless of the opinions of others (or ourselves). Ergo, under natural law, no matter what we expend our efforts and resources upon, we are able to convert it into property (exclusion of others from its use, taking, or consumption), as long as we do so without violating the exclusion others ask of us via reciprocity.
—“2) How is productivity quantified in your system of validation for voluntary agreements and their externalities?”—
a) preamble: i) possessions provide us with agency. ii) cooperation provides us with multipliers upon our agency. iii) it appears that we cannot compete (survive) without the agency provided by the transformation of personally insured possessions into cooperatively insured property. iv) And it is difficult to compete and survive without the agency provided by external cooperation (cooperation at scale via markets). v) ergo we must cooperate to produce property rights that provide us with agency, multipliers, and greater multipliers of the market. vi) and we must possess a means of decidability upon the scope of property to be insured (a property right), before we can cooperatively insure property.
b) conversely, i) humans retaliate against impositions of costs upon the investments they have made, in order to obtain an interest in some good, service, information, or association. ii) humans retaliate more severely than the original cost imposed upon them as a means of dissuading future such violations. iii) we evolved these behaviors precisely because of the necessity of cooperation in our survival, competition, and prospering, in relation to nature and the competition of other groups. iv) and we evolved the institutions of property, property rights, and law, to prevent cycles of retaliation (feuds) that were endemic to human groups prior to the invention of the prevention of retaliation by the institutions of property, property rights, and law. The law – our first ‘commons’ – evolved to preserve cooperation and the benefits of cooperation. v) and humans organize to embrace familial generosity, in-group reciprocity, and out group cooperation, competition, or war, by the importance of cooperation in each of those domains of action.
c) one cannot quantify changes in state only qualify changes in state – or we cannot yet do so with the instrumentation we have available to us today. And while we can qualify changes in state, we do not need to qualify, positive changes in state. We need only know if there have been negative changes in state – whether someone will retaliate. And those changes in state are limited to property in toto (demonstrated property – property in fact). That which we have obtained through homesteading, transformation of possessions, or exchange. And to prevent retaliation, we must limit ourselves to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges limited to productive externalities.
d) because when we limit ourselves as such, no possible retaliation can be instigated. cooperation is preserved. the fruits of cooperation are preserved: possessions, property, property rights, and markets.
e) we do not choose the scope of property – others choose to invest their energies in obtaining interests by bringing changes in state of the universe into being through their actions. This interest serves to exclude you from imposition of costs upon that interest. And they choose to retaliate against impositions of costs upon them. So while we express via-positiva our necessity of a commons of property rights, the via negativa restatement of that demand, is that we seek to preserve cooperation and its fruits, by violating the terms of cooperation: the imposition of costs.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 10:22:00 UTC
http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#gT0rvAD5mjrpGtAi.01IS SECESSION A SOLUTION TO CULTURAL WAR?
Pat Buchanan: ‘Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion’
As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.
Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.
After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were.
In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.
One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.
Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era.
Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.
While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the “bathroom debate” calls to mind Marx’s observation, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls’ bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?
Remarkably, there was vigorous dissent, from DeVos, to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.
After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a “moral obligation” to protect children from bullying and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment “against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”
Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior.
But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?
Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.
Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.
But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?
While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trump’s solution – send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out – may point the way to a truce – assuming Americans still want a truce.
For Trump’s solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII – that social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.
In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.
This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism – that the national government should undertake those duties – securing the borders, fighting the nation’s wars, creating a continental road and rail system – that states alone cannot do.
Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges – to which there is no appeal – that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.
Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secessionism that is spreading all across Europe, and is now visible here.
Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.
Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels.
And as she wants to “Let France Be France,” and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.
California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.
A new federalism – a devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principles – may be the price of retention of the American Union.
Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#vIJMIPah96ZBjj5U.99
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 20:05:00 UTC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/donald-trumps-love-royal-family-may-see-united-states-join-commonwealth/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fbPLEASE YES YES YES
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 15:30:00 UTC
The Cult of Non Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Institutional Production of Human Agency
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 20:43:00 UTC
WESTERN CIVILIZATION MADE WHOLE The Cult of Non-Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
WESTERN CIVILIZATION MADE WHOLE The Cult of Non-Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
WESTERN CIVILIZATION MADE WHOLE
The Cult of Non-Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
…. Acquisitionary Psychology
…. …. Testimonial Truth and Epistemology,
…. …. …. Propertarian Ethics and Sociology
…. …. …. …. The Politics of Markets In Everything, and
…. …. …. …. …. The Aesthetics of The Transcendence of Man
The universe is written in Truth – the language of the gods. And we must only learn to read it if we are to become the gods we seek.
Those who know this language of the gods better than others always possess the advantage by which to transcend into gods faster than the rest, and dragging the rest with them into godhood through their jealousy.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Sovereignty
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 10:57:00 UTC