(FB 1550850618 Timestamp)
CCHASE RACHAELS: THE NON-CRITICISM OF P. (COUNT YOUR STRAW MEN!)
How many times, did you say, “I dunno” and then create a straw man to argue against? Here is a list of JUST SOME of them.
—“With regard to the purpose of conflict avoidance, however, the institution of private property is definitely not just a convention, because no alternative to it exists.”—
So, the behavior we call property is a NATURAL LAW. ie: necessary and without substitute because conflict is ‘bad’, because conflict causes you harm, and because conflict reduces your incentive to cooperate and reap the benefits of the division of labor, which you cannot by your own match.
—” Only private (exclusive) property makes it possible that all otherwise unavoidable conflicts can be avoided. And only the principle of property acquisition through acts of original appropriation, performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location, makes it possible to avoid conflict from the beginning of mankind onward, because only the first appropriation of some previously unappropriated good can be conflict-free â simply, because â per definitionem â no one else had any previous dealings with the good.”—
–“only the first appropriation of some previously unappropriated good can be conflict-free”—
Which like all libertarian tropes, is absolutely meaningless. The fact that appropriation (conversion from unknown to known, and from non existent to existent) occurs without the knowledge of or conflict with others says nothing about conflict over its use once discovered or created.
This is because humans like all cooperating animals not only demand reciprocity but proportionality, and limit reciprocity to proportionality, and cheat on reciprocity and proportionality. This is what they DO. Period.
Worse, humans create opportunity by proximity (discount on opportunity cost) and any possession is the product of collective defense from continuous pressure of predation, and as such defenders by their actions have a demonstrated interests in all opportunities generated by proximity. And the only reason to stay together in groups is such defense and division of labor.
So hoppe’s statement is rather stupid really. Because the conflict NEVER ENDS, but BEGINS with original appropriation, because conflict begins with consciousness of existence.
This is P’s position, and why hoppe’s argumentation is rather childish. argument is just warfare by coercive means. It’s just that one of the forms of ‘coercion’ is only that ‘influence’ we call voluntary exchange.
So do you see in this one example how Libertarianism is just ((())) pilpul? Excuse making? Just like marxism (economic) and postmodernism (political and identitarian) and feminism?
Libertarianism, like Marxism, postmodernism, and feminism is simple because it is false and relies upon incompleteness (cherry picking) to inspire (by suggestion) your consent (agreement), by circumventing your reason (appeal to intuition) with a simple (yet false) argument. Simplicity is a tool to fool simple people. Nothing more. None of the sciences are ‘simple’. Because if they were WE WOULD NOT NEED THEM. It is because they are counter-intuitive that we need and invent the sciences. Including the science of LAW (cooperation).
Let us continue….
—“According to libertarians, the status of âpropertyâ may only be applied to goods which are scarce/rivalrous.”—
Well this is (a) PRESCRIPTIVE not DESCRIPTIVE, and (b) name that which is not scarce or rivalrous, since the most scarce and rivalrous goods are cooperation in production reproduction, and production of commons. After time, Cooperation is the ultimate scarcity because one can possess whatever one can hide and defend on his own.
Instead, under P, we are DESCRIPTIVE the status of property is applied to anything that people have a demonstrate an interest in by direct burden or forgone opportunity, act to defend that interest, and acquired that interest without imposition of costs upon others. Because it is this description that determines the scope of that which people will engage in conflict over.
Let us continue….
—âintellectual propertyâ (IP) would not be considered genuine property from a libertarian perspective because it simply concerns patterns of information (be they designs, trademarks, literary worksâ¦etc.).”—
But it would be considered a demonstrated interest under P, and therefore defensible as Property because (a) it suppresses conflict given that people retaliate against irreciprocal benefit from their interests, and (b) license to limited monopoly provides the polity with off-book R&D. (See my longer work on the limits of IP, CR, and Trademark). (c) trademarks serve as they always have, as a weight and measure in the interests of the consumer. (d) capital flees to low risk, higher return; investment risk increases with technological risk; competitive advantage and quality of life and superior commons follows patent/trademark.
Conversely (d) Patents should not be used to deny a product to market, or hold as rent seeking, rather than restore multipliers of risky R&D. (e) And copyrights should be limited to today’s Creative Commons.
So L claims that the purpose of property is to prevent conflict but then defines the limits of conflict arbitrarily in order to justify parasitism upon the investments of others, rather than requiring each of us to engage in productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer without negative externality – which is the the full scope of what is required to prevent aggression against another’s interests.
(Note that all of this body argument already exists in P if you search for it and read the attendant articles.)
(Note how L’s IP claims, like blackmail, are a ghetto ethic brought by (((our enemy))) to allow violations of high trust ethics, and only people who have habituated ghetto ethics have developed it.)
—“According to libertarianism, to own a given piece of property means having the exclusive right to occupy, transfer, or use it in whatever way one sees fit, and to set the conditions upon which non-owners may use it (if at all). “—
So therefore it is impossible to create shareholders (enumerated interest) or commons (unenumerated interest), or to have an interest in defense of the norm, tradition, law of private property?
I mean how do you create private property rights without a commons and the means of insuring the defense of those rights, and the means of deciding those rights, and protect them from those who would do otherwise, and how do you prevent free riders such that the polity is not gradually displaced by competitors desirous of replacing those commons and constructed rights?
You can say it is possible but you can’t model it praxeological (operationally) or empirically(correlatively) because no such community has or can form or survive if formed because it is against the interests of members to live in such a polity rather than one with the high returns on commons. As such all such polities end up being the home of those who engage in immoral activities for a living (Jewish diaspora, jewish pale, the ghetto, the gypsy traveling band, the muslim parasitism upon accumulated genetic, cultural, and institutional capital.) Which is what rothbard is advocating for: the ghetto.
The west defeated the rest because we are better at commons, and because we use private property to improve commons, producing returns and economic velocity (monetary velocity) that is far higher than lower trust polities that did not produce commons – where commons prohibit privatization of those commons or socialization of losses in to those commons: which is precisely what Libertarian (ghetto) ethics seek to license: parasitism.
—“What makes an act âcriminalâ is that force or threats thereof may be justifiably used in response to such an act in either the form of defense or punishment.”—
Justifiable to whom? Agreed to by whom? Enforced by whom? How are retaliation cycles prevented and enforced? L -law is not monolithic (dependent upon truth) but simply utilitarian (you can make separate courts with separate laws) so how do you resolve conflicts between peoples for whom different courts are irreconcilable? Violence and retaliatory violence. You achieve thru threats of violence what cannot be obtained from the commons. ANd this is exactly what we see in history, and is the origin of enforced law: enforced law creates a standard of weight and measure. That standard of weights and measures is always (a) demonstrated interests (property), and (b) reciprocity (non-parasitism/non-predation).
(NOTE: Note how you and rothbard are using pilpul and I’m using falsification. Note WHY rothbard can scam you by suggestion and how I’m preventing being scammed by suggestion. )
—“Of course, I donât think it is necessary to delineate each individual type of action one may rightfully take with his property.”—
Then why do all courts do so and all legal theory do so? Because you don’t own what you think you do. You have permission from your peers to own what you do. And to do with it what you can. Because it is not in their interests to tolerate anything that imposes a cost against past or present interests, or future opportunity interests. And that is what people do. Andthe more suppression of such the better the commons the more returns on the commons.
—“It seems here that Curt is outlining what obligations one has with respect to his property in general as well as with the transfer of property in particular. (It wouldâve been more clear had he distinguished between obligations one has toward his property in general, and what obligation he has specifically when transferring it.)”—
It is an obligation to the limits of one’s Actions: “Display, Word and Deed”. Not even sure how you came up with this paragraph. THe rights are enumerated elsewhere and you already saw that so this paragraph makes no sense.
—“The first obligation is âproductiveâ. The way I interpret this is that, in order for one to retain title to his property,”—
So you basically made shit up and then criticized the shit you made up? The intellectually honest answer is “i don’t know” or “maybe he means this or this or that, and I don’t know”.
—“but Curt didnât really provide much context so this is my best guess.”—
Yes I did. You just cherry picked one article, and didn’t do your research so “made shit up.”
—“This reminds me of the Mutualist âOccupancy and Useâ conditions for retaining property. “–
So you just make shit up.And criticize shit you made up.
( NOTE: Productive: ie: blackmail is not productive, it is parasitic. Rents, Corruption, are not productive, but parasitic. Many ‘voluntary’ exchanges are unproductive (coercive). )
–“I have several issues with this. First it is completely arbitrary. How are we to objectively determine what qualifies as a âproductiveâ use? How are we to determine how long property can remain dormant or âunproductiveâ before it can be legally taken from the owner? A day? A week? A month? A year? Again, completely arbitrary. Such arbitrary standards serve only to generate conflict and strife and thus undermine social order.”–
So, again, you just made shit up.
You should pair up with Jared Howe who makes shit up regarding operationalism and ePrime. you two could write children’s books for libertarians and christians… oh…. wait… sorry…)
—“The second obligation is âfully informed.â I assume this is in regards to transactions; that they must be âfully informed.â However, this too is an arbitrary criteria. How are we to establish what âfully informedâ is?”—
What you mean is you didn’t do research and so you just, again, “made shit up, and then criticized the shit you made up”.
“Fully informed” is what separates ethics from morality. Whenever there is an asymmetry of information the party with greater knowledge must make due diligence against suckering the other party. This is even required in speech. For example, in this entire ‘article of yours’ you failed to engage in due diligence against falsehood before you published it. But in commerce we require it – ask any tradesman who has bid a job only to discover something he didn’t anticipate (and the homeowner couldn’t) and the tradesman has to eat it for failing his due diligence because he was the more knowledgeable party. This is the foundation of ethics (not morality) but ethics. Due diligence when one is the more knowledgeable party and not withholding information (fraud by omission).
(NOte again how the purpose of L is to license ((())) the parasitism of the enemy that has lived off host civilizations for thousands of years by these precise means of parasitism. Yet those same people seem to deny they have done wrong, when they are ‘cast out’ or exterminated for it. Ergo, empirical evidence of asymmetry of responsibility in due diligence given asymmetry of knowledge.)
—“For libertarians, it is sufficient that …”—
Again, arguing against your own “making shit up.”
—“However, there still exists a natural incentive for the seller to not develop a reputation for being a shyster, otherwise his future business prospects will be damaged.”—
This is false because the cost of pursuit of these parasitisms is higher than the cost of producing these parasitisms. Just like it is a higher cost to me to correct you sloppy strawmanning and sophisms, than it is for you to lazily forgo research, and simply make shit up to justify your malinvestment in Rothbardian and Hoppiean excuse making for parasitism upon(rothbard) or free riding upon (hoppe) those commons produced by others. (using pilpul and critique).
Especially since the industrialization of fraud made possible by high court costs and cheap mass advertising.
–“The market effectively regulates such things, “–
There is zero evidence of that. Instead the evidence in all cultures is that the law must suppress every possible means of parasitism in order to produce returns for the polity both private and common, and that the rate of suppression produces multipliers not linear growth. Further that humans demonstrate a preference for relocation to polities with higher and higher states of suppression of malfeasance.
The purpose of P is to FURTHER increase suppression of parasitism in the information economy, just as we have in the pre-agrarian, agrarian, light industrial, industrial, and informational eras. The purpose of L is to LICENSE PARASITISM ((())) upon the demonstrated interests of others.
In other words, P follows Tort Law of ACTION, not pilpul of ‘justification.
—“The third obligation is âwarrantied.â According to Dictionary.com, âwarrantiedâ is defined as âa covenan””—
So you didn’t research or read and again “Made Shit Up” and criticized the Shit You Made Up.
(NOTE: Warranty: and involuntary warranty of due diligence that you’re engaging in productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer free of externality – meaning you are fully accountable for your display word and deed. Not ‘able to lie cheat and steal’ in the ghetto ethics of the enemy, by means of ‘false promise, baiting into moral hazard, and asymmetric information., using pilpul and critique.”)
â¨Just Plain Stupid â¨âââHowever, it is virtually impossible to eliminated all ânegative externalitiesâ âââ¨â¨Warranty of due diligence. This is what the courts use and have used. However, regardless of whether you have done your due diligence you are responsible for your display word and deed. Because that is what prevents retaliation for actions or failure to take action. This is the empirical result of thousands of years of law. Not excuse making. The kingâs peace produces revenue for all – not just the king. â¨â¨Before the 20th century, the principle problem was the inability to produce money and credit it money which is how the jews engaged in 300% interest rates. Since the 20th we can use fiat money (shares in the polity) as a money substitute, and prevent parasitic interests rates (usury). In the 21st we will eliminate consumer interest (itâs parasitic) but preserve commercial interest (calculability of time in production).â¨â¨â¨Straw Man in Ignorance (again)â¨ââAnother example may be if an ice cream parlor dramatically lowers the price of its ice cream thus âcostingâ its competitors business.âââ¨â¨No that is not a private investment in the opportunity but in the privatization of opportunities won.â¨â¨All costs are opportunity costs. When people come together in proximity they decrease opportunity costs. We rivalrously compete to privatize opportunities at this lower cost. The result is a benefit to the commons called continuous decrease in prices, continuous innovation, and continuous improvement of consumer choice, superior commons in general, and the SURPLUS captured as revenue for investment in the production of additional commons which produce additional multipliers. Those opportunities are a commons (inventory) that we compete for. â¨â¨If you cannot understand this then you do not understand that all economics is simply a competition for the optimum use of time; that commodities are a store of time; that money is a store of time; and that proximity provides a discount on time.â¨â¨â¨
Straw Man, Just Plain Ignorant (and maybe dumb)â¨
ââAny attempt to enforce it would quickly devolve into arbitrary decreesââ
â¨â¨I think libertarians should just stop talking until theyâve read at least Milsom. Theyâre just too ignorant to make such statements. There is a reason I teach the law as natural law: to eliminate this kind of â¦ ignorance.â¨â¨
ââ have a bit of a semantic bone to pick with his use of the term âmonopoly.â A monopoly has traditionally been defined as an exclusive privilege provided by the State. More on this in my chapter on âMonopolies and Cartels.â However, this aside I will proceed to use his presumed definition of the word which is likely something to the effect of âexclusive right to controlââ¦etc.âââ¨â¨
Um. What do you think property rights are? A monopoly of exclusive privilege under juridical defense in rule of law (nomocracy). â¨â¨Property Right: insured scope of controlâ¨Property: agreed upon scope of controlâ¨Possession: in fact within physical controlâ¨Interest: demonstrated investmentâ¨â¨
You can repeat rothbard, block, and hoppe, and put your name on it as if youâre making an argument, but all you want but it just makes you âdumber by the minuteâ¦â A useful idiot for the ((())) enemy that seeks to destroy our people through undermining our high trust and ability to produce commons that make us the envy of the world.â¨â¨
Property rights are in fact generated by universal juridical defense (insurance) under rule of law of reciprocity. A right means a right of appeal for defense before the insurer (court, polity, whomever). â¨â¨â¨
CLOSING â¨â¨Thatâs enough.â¨
FB Crashed and truncated the rest. And itâs not worth my repeated investment in criticizing this âqualityâ of âworkâ. Itâs intellectually insulting to do so. Itâs an utter waste of my time. And it is a violation of reciprocity, because you are using cheap lazy incompetent criticism to pollute the informational commons and harm a brand I have spend time developing. So you forced me to pay the high cost of defending my work (information) against your failure to invest (perform due diligence) before causing harm (aggressing against) my brand through false statements.
â¨â¨There are plenty of others who have made the investment.â¨And even someone like John Mark is very cautious about his claims.â¨Yet you are not cautious. You did not perform due diligence. â¨You cannot claim you understand the material. â¨And you demonstrate that you are almost certainly above all but parroting existing text, because you clearly lack the ability to spot the obvious self contradiction in Rothbardian Hoppeian thought: that the purpose of law is to prevent conflict, and the unit of measurement (weight and measure) is property, because it is the only demonstrated evidence of investment, and it is investment that the physic of the universe, the incentive to cooperate, and a necessity of the construction and preservation of the division of labor in a polity sufficient to survive competition from other groups.â¨â¨
I beg you libertarians and christians and jews to stop trying to construct and preserve your systems of lying. Because all you have done is cost me seven days of work fending off one moron after anotherâs amateurish attempt, that takes advantage of the fact that I am the only substantial intellectual working in public that gives you access and attention.â¨â¨
Christians are liars. Libertarians are liars, Marxists are liars. Postmodernists are liars. Feminists are deniers, and all of you are liars and deniers because you want to avoid the only possible means of cooperating at scale: the nomocratic limits on human action by display word and deed, to those actions that are productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of negative externality.â¨â¨
Stop using attempted monopoly of your reproductive strategy, False Promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul, and critique – the weapons of our enemies – and instead embrace, defend, and enforce our group reproductive strategy: sovereignty reciprocity truth and duty, jury and markets in all walks of life, that force us into productive voluntary service of one another, producing those commons that have in the ancient and modern worlds dragged us and humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance and poverty, starvation and hard labor, disease and suffering, child mortality and early death.â¨â¨
If you are a libertarian or a christian or a postmodern or a marxist or a feminist then you are ((())) an agent of the enemy because you rely upon the means lying and parasitism invented by the enemy in our ancient battle between the feminine reproductive methods of the semites and the masculine reproductive strategy of the indo-europeans and East Asians.â¨â¨
You are not only wrong – you are the enemy our our people in every display word and deed.â¨â¨â¨â¨â¨
STOP. Stop imitating the jews (underminers)and muslims(destroyers).
LEARN. Learn the the group strategy of our people. the natural law truth and duty and sovereignty and punish the wicked until none remain.
And for chrissake stop wasting my fucking time.