—“I agree with a good deal what you say. But none of this is particularly new. Propertarianism is a sort of restatement of English Common Law combined with modern Economics 101. Economics tells us that the proper role of the state is to prevent/punish externalities. English Common Law developed over centuries – albeit in a groping-in-the-dark sort of way – precisely to prevent/punish externalities even though the theory of externalities wasn’t fully understood until last century. Propertarianism seems to me to be basically true because Economics 101 is theoretically elegant as the English Common Law is empirically robust. All I’m saying is that I fail to see anything innovative in Propertarianism. What theoretical advance does Propertarianism assert for itself?”—Calixto Muni
Formal operational logic, extension of commercial suppression of hazard to political speech, ending baiting into hazard, and rent seeking, and undermining of the natural law. For example, how do you test Truthful speech in court? What is the test of tort (reciprocity)? How can we prevent redefinition of legal terms that are insufficiently defined in order to circumvent the law’s dependence upon them. How can we strictly construct law closed to interpretation? How do we return undecidable cases to the legislature? How do we stop the legislature from constructing unconstitutional law before inserting it into the polity? Was via negativa constitutional monarchy really worse or better? Why do we need multiple houses for the classes instead of single house parliaments. Why has democracy failed, and where did we go wrong?
What was the west’s group evolutionary strategy and why was it different from other civilizations, and why did it produced outsized responses? How do we stop another overthrow of our civlization through the abrahamic technique of undermining by false promise of escape from physical and natural law in exchange for undermining host polities and creating dark ages – this time with boasian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism – the use of pseudoscience and sophism to undermine our market for cooperation between the classes at the cost of suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, so that we can devote surpluses from those savings to the production of increasingly productive high trust commons?
How do we reform the polity given what we’ve learned in the past century and a half (almost two)? The economic reforms will restore the family and the middle classes. The legal reforms will prevent future conquest of our peoples. The intellectual reforms will crush the academic-media-entertainment propaganda system of organized undermining of our people. The scientific reforms will end the incompatibility of the disciplines.
You’re seeing correctly, that we restore common law, add the lessons of economics, and the lessons of the experiments with an open franchise government. What you’re not seeing is the completion of the construction of a constitution of formal natural law. You’re not seeing is the completion of the Aristotelian program, the end of the left’s second attempted dark age, and the renaissance that must result from the completion of the sciences by extension from the physical to the metaphysical (linguistic), psychological, and sociological, so that it is no longer possible to lie about the universe man and how we survive and evolve while in a condition of excellence.
P is a huge program. This is why it takes someone like John Mark to explain it.
I built it for intellectuals who must rule and defend against ill rule.
John takes it to ordinary people who desire good rule, and to avoid ill rule.
And those who cannot grasp either, must follow only because of the material benefits that will be the greatest restoration of the middle since the roman reforms.