DEAR UN. IF THE USA + RUSSIA UNITE TO PRESERVE WORLD ORDER – YOU DON”T MATTER ANY LONGER – AT ALL
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 18:23:00 UTC
Theme: Sovereignty
-
@StephenAtHome Yes. We should never have another election like this one. Because
@StephenAtHome Yes. We should never have another election like this one. Because we should never have another election as one country.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 16:05:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796383221072003072
-
#NotMyPresident … because it’s not your country. So start packing. Ship yourse
#NotMyPresident … because it’s not your country. So start packing. Ship yourself rather than forcing us to do it for you.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 15:59:00 UTC
-
“That is globalism vs. nationality.”– Ann Coulter
“That is globalism vs. nationality.”– Ann Coulter
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 13:39:00 UTC
-
(The only fix is devolution of legislation to the states, or secession.)
(The only fix is devolution of legislation to the states, or secession.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 11:54:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796320094137815040
Reply addressees: @seanhannity
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796298009013264384
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/796298009013264384
-
Then apparently we need to limit voting to those who had four grandparents here
Then apparently we need to limit voting to those who had four grandparents here before the Voting Rights Act.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 23:59:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796140114703433728
Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter @RichardBSpencer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795833821501460480
IN REPLY TO:
@AnnCoulter
If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795833821501460480
-
Of course not. But then I’m a little more rigorous. Sovereignty, nomocracy, prop
Of course not. But then I’m a little more rigorous. Sovereignty, nomocracy, property in toto = fully decidable markets.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 01:34:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795801665492361217
Reply addressees: @jeffreyatucker
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795800322870562817
IN REPLY TO:
@jeffreytucker
@curtdoolittle are you just playi g dumb here ?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795800322870562817
-
Yes, a head of state is required to negotiate with other states if for no other
Yes, a head of state is required to negotiate with other states if for no other reason than to prevent internal factionalism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 22:35:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795756712364011520
Reply addressees: @AlHernandez21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795755881858236416
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/795755881858236416
-
“DEMOCRACY HAS IT’S OWN CALCULATION PROBLEM” (by Jeremie Makell) —“Natural law
“DEMOCRACY HAS IT’S OWN CALCULATION PROBLEM”
(by Jeremie Makell)
—“Natural law informs how we choose to cooperate to establish and maintain sovereignty. Some backwoods libertine can stake a plot of land and proclaim himself sovereign, but that’s not sovereignty, that’s just LARPing.
Sovereignty requires that we cooperate to insure each others’ property from imposition. As we develop new technologies (bronze, iron, etc.) the complexity of our social institutions must evolve as well.
For every new advancement also creates more opportunity for parasitism and externalities that increase overall transaction costs while reducing trust. The more rigorous your institutions the more adaptable you are to inter-generational change.
This explains why China despite being an ancient civilization, had centuries of stagnation while the Europeans were innovators and drove forward industry.
Each of the markets that Curt lists (rule, commons, reproduction, production, etc.) become more prevalent and necessary the further civilization advances.
This is what I believe Curt means when he refers to DECIDABILITY: just as prices aid us in determining how to most efficiently buy and sell goods, the exchanges conducted voluntarily between markets under rule of law help us to determine how to most efficiently advance civilization.
Democracy fails to adapt to change because it has its own calculation problem.”– Jeremie Makell
(ed.: So perfect, so eloquent, I want to weep with joy. — Curt)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 15:49:00 UTC
-
BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE
BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE TO SURVIVE? (NO)
I think that the decidability of sovereignty forces natural law, which in turn forces markets for rule (monarchy), and markets for commons (government), and markets for goods and services (economies), and markets for reproduction (marriage), and markets for consumption (voluntary exchange).
i think that if you have sovereignty then liberty and freedom and subsidy are possible, so long as you limit the scale of those who need subsidy to that which does not impeded competitive productivity among competing polities.
i think if you are stating a preference for poly logical law then that is no sovereignty, nor liberty, nor subside, but discretionary rule.
I think if you construct a polity out of contracts for exchanges within the limits of sovereign natural law, then you can do whatever you wish that allows you to survive competition with other polities for members — and for tolerating your existence.
I think that if you do not produce competitive commons than no such polity can create sovereignty, liberty, freedom and subsidy, and I think that no such polity can survive competition for people, and the record would indicate no such polity can survive tolerance from competitors because of the people that prefer such a polity (pirates and free riders), and I think that the only evidence of such polities is as outposts under strong empires who grant greater free riding in exchange for holding claims on the territory in the empire’s name, thereby giving excuse to that empire to war with others if they seek to obtain futures on the resources there.
As far as I know that set of paragraphs is the end of libertarianism except as cheap option-buying of resources by empires and states of sufficient military power to ensure them.
Just as I am sure that all Jewish colonies are merely options on using them as tax collectors, money changers, and loan sharks without subjecting the nobility to the risk of disapproval that is a necessary byproduct of taking advantage of consumers by means of interest.
There is no value in consumer interest on consumption. There is only value in interest on experiment that might lead to cheaper and more varied consumption.
That again, is an end to yet another mythos.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 13:35:00 UTC