Posted by ham on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:25 | #

wasn’t this posted before?

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:04 | #

* Treat pollution as a criminal assault on the nation.
* Household bankruptcy protection is the median price of a home plus median capitalization of a job.
* Anyone or anything (including the government) can place money in escrow as a bid for any property right under British law thereby establishing an in-place liquidation value for that property right.
* Cease taxing economic activity except for international trade, which is taxed to retain sovereignty.
* National revenue is instead a use fee for property rights paid at a rate equal to the liquidation value of the property right times the short term lending rate to the government—but individual exemption is equal to one half of household bankruptcy protection.  The owner can liquidate his property right at any time by accepting the escrowed bid for his property.
* National revenue is sent in equal amounts to all citizens as monthly deposits in their bank accounts and all able bodied men are required to arm themselves and participate in county militia training for protection of private property rights as well as defense of country

Is there a link somewhere - maybe on here? - that has a (simple) explanation underneath for each of these points.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:43 | #

* Treat pollution as a criminal assault on the nation.

Pollution harms the national territory.  Individuals that harm private property may be held criminally liable under some circumstances but if there is no intent to harm, it is usually up to civil courts to award monetary damages.  Individuals that harm the national territory, however, must be held to a higher standard of discipline due to the greater harm.  Mere tort law is insufficient as a remedy when what is at stake is the national ecology.  If the choice is made to reduce regulation of private behavior because such regulations, although they prevent damage and are therefore quite economical, impinge on freedom, then those enjoying said freedom must, when abusing that freedom, suffer consequences sufficiently severe to serve as an effective self-regulating motive.

* Household bankruptcy protection is the median price of a home plus median capitalization of a job.

The origin of bankruptcy law is the recognition that a man’s homestead is as sacrosanct as his body since it is the means by which he sustains his body.  A homestead entails not only a primary residence real estate holding but also the source of his other necessities.  Hence personal bankruptcy protects “home and tools of the trade” from confiscation.  Only a society that accepts slavery can accept confiscation of a man’s body for the use of others.

* Anyone or anything (including the government) can place money in escrow as a bid for any property right under British law thereby establishing an in-place liquidation value for that property right.

Money differs from other property rights in terms of its liquidity—that is, its availability for trade upon demand.  When money is “tied up in investments” that is simply another way of saying that the owner of the property right sees more value in the property right than do others with money ready to buy that property right.  The more people who perceive a particular level of value in a property right, the more force must be brought to bear to protect it from confiscation.  In short, if you have a big pile of gold sitting around that a lot of people know about, you are going to have to invest more in protecting it than, say, the Wright Brothers needed to invest in protecting their bike shop from theft, even though they could see that their bike shop was worth the dreams of men over thousands of years.  The man with his pile of gold might very well find several bids for it that were comparable to his own valuation of it.  There is no chance that the Wright Brothers would have received a bid for their bike shop sufficiently high to motivate them to give it up during their development of the first heavier than air powered flying machine.

* Cease taxing economic activity except for international trade, which is taxed to retain sovereignty.

Economic activity is human action.  There is no reasonable way to justify a use fee for a human’s own volition in a society that rejects slavery.  Sovereignty, on the other hand, demands independence rather than interdependence or “entangling alliances” with other sovereigns.  It is therefore essential to national sovereignty that the nation control international trade so as to avoid vital dependencies on other sovereignties.

* National revenue is instead a use fee for property rights paid at a rate equal to the liquidation value of the property right times the short term lending rate to the government—but individual exemption is equal to one half of household bankruptcy protection.  The owner can liquidate his property right at any time by accepting the escrowed bid for his property.

A natural man, outside of any government, must acquire minimal territory and tools to exist—and these are represented in household bankruptcy protection.  If you take a certain amount of money and lend it to the government, you are assured of interest payments at some minimal level.  This sort of income is the zero risk economic value of society.  No one in particular can claim responsibility for generating it hence it is inappropriate to let it fall randomly on those who happen to benefit from general economic growth—typically the wealthiest and most politically powerful. The requirement for pair bonding is a singular dependence that must be accommodated or the very life of the nation is in severe jeopardy.  Unless we are going to disenfranchise females, it is necessary to divide this minimal territory in two parts so that the pair bond is encouraged within a money-based economy.  Corruption of assessment takes 2 forms: 1) Underassessment by the government of favored individuals and, 2) Over assessment by the government of disfavored individuals.  In underassessment, a private individual may come in and offer more than is the government thereby raising the pressure on the current owner to transfer title.  In overassessment, the current owner may escape payment of exorbitant fees by accepting the exorbitant bid.

* National revenue is sent in equal amounts to all citizens as monthly deposits in their bank accounts and all able bodied men are required to arm themselves and participate in county militia training for protection of private property rights as well as defense of country

As the national revenue derives from the risk free economic growth of the society, it is the proper source of social expenditure.  As political systems are notoriously corruptable when involved in deciding social expenditure, it is prudent to remove discretion from political systems, “the political class”, in allocating social expenditure—and this includes discretion in interpretation of complex rules of allocation.  It is therefore essential that money gathered by the government be immediately dispersed evenly to all citizens so their personal market decisions drive investment capital toward serving the demands citizenry rather than some elite.  The ultimate social expenditure that cannot be left to charity is military defense of national territory and, secondarily, private property rights.  The Swiss model of defense, based around mandatory military service by all able bodied men, commanded by the Cantons has proven quite effective in defending territory while also avoiding entangling military alliances that result in world wars.  Individual responsibility for using the citizen’s dividend stream to self-equip according to local standards under local command minimizes the likelihood of central government corruption of the military and maintains a force at-the-ready throughout the land for defense of the nation as well as the law.

Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:26 | #

good ideas

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:19 | #

From a bilderberger: “This is the negative side of the welfare state. People have enough income, so they can do this – it’s like a permanent threat.”

What he really means is:  “We must rob the populace of more of their subsistence lest they start defending themselves.”

Guys like this would have a life expectancy of around 3 days in a world of real individual sovereignty.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:12 | #

Changing the subject: we cannot only talk amongst ourselves. We need to get in the faces of race-deniers everywhere, but especially amongst our ideological competitor groups on the “Right”. Here is another of my racialist posts meant to stir up the race-denial pot among libertarians (at mises.org), this in response to a post on libertarian legal theory:

Looks very interesting. But here’s a conundrum. How do you deal with a race of savages who commit crimes at such appalling rates that applying an individualist standard to each instance of their criminality becomes most onerous for the law abiding members of other races?

Let’s consider American blacks (though we could consider black criminality across the planet; same behavior obtains everywhere). While not every black is a criminal, an inordinate (from a “white” standard of judgment) number of them are. Moreover, blacks must be the most racist race of all, they have no conception of individual rights, and everything they do (politically or ideologically) is accordingly based on their perception of what is good for their race, not what is abstractly good, just, proper, etc. We saw this with the OJ Simpson case, with the 96% of blacks who supported Obama in 08 (and continue to support him today), with the absolutely racist and perfectly predictable voting patterns of the Congressional Black Caucus (where, btw, is the Congressional WHITE Caucus?!), etc.

White America would be far better off in public order terms if we could remove blacks from US soil. This seems inarguable. Fewer blacks, safer streets. How does this fit into a libertarian legal framework, with its naive overemphasis on the rights of the individual?

My point is that that framework, like the Constitution and its protected liberties, was meant for whites only (literally, legally, at the time, but also metaphysically and morally). There is a world of anthropological fact underlying a libertarian society, which unfortunately, most libertarians are virtually congenitally incapable of recognizing. Liberty works -for white people, with their mostly (well, ideally, at their best) individual dignity-oriented outlook. It does not work in multiracial or nonwhite majoritarian environments (eg, the New South Africa, where very gentle white supremacy has given way, predictably, to horrific black savagery, endemic black corruption, and ever-worsening standards of civilization, first and foremost for our white brethren, but finally for the black majority itself).

Libertarian theorists have barely begun to incorporate sociobiological realities into their thinking.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:30 | #

Leon,

ideologies offer simple answers to complex problems. They’re for the masses, and they never make sense. You have as much chance at talking a libertarian out of his faith as you do a Muslim out of his.

I suspect the approach then is to get them attached to something, a people, place, achievement, etc. And then point out that libertarianism threatens it.

The original US design allowed for greed, monopoly, and short-term thinking; so if we return to it we’ll just repeat history.

Libertarians and socialists tend to reduce life to pleasure-seeking materialism. And they tend to view man as an atomised individual. They tend to lead to centralisation (e.g. big business and / or big government interacting with many far off strangers).

Despite how much fun it is to deride Solons, no one really knows the goal other than a fuzzy “white nation” idea. There are clear problems that haven’t been resolved, and it is worth discussing them. However, it’s also worth reading better minds who have discussed them too. The authors of the US Constitution also discussed what form of government the US ought to have.

People who want to stop immigration into the US ought to join NumbersUSA… And such people ought to realise that it is damage control and not a “solution”. A solution is to dig in somewhere and survive. Parts of the US will survive and only parts.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:39 | #

Actually since ideologies tend to be taken up when serving people’s interests, the solution might be to create a competing ideology that offers more than does libertarianism… Conservatives tend to appeal to tradition though.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:56 | #

I like to tell libertarians that their ideology leads to communism (for the same reasons Marx said capitalism paved the way for it).

The original US was too liberal, but it was not libertarian. Tariffs were used heavily, and the state governments did use things like workfare. The original US was 13 states. Post-Civil War, they became 1 state. So, if looking at the original US government, you have to look at each state.

Virginia was seen the same as Germany: a sovereign state protected by the Bill of Rights.

As with the EU’s direction, the US economic union led to political union. But it didn’t happen immediately.

-

The cause for the American secession from Britain was partly a perceived violation of the “Rights of Englishmen”. We’re no longer English though. Appeals to America’s founding by “whites” is somewhat laughable. We’re not even from the same source countries as they. “White” is as much a nationality as “Hispanic”.

We’re partly a proletariat mass and partly a mix of ethnicities that see commonality. As more Hispanics enter, race is becoming a matter of degree. The arguments of “they’re white enough” are going to sound strange when those Hispanics who look whiter than Greeks ask which category they belong in. We’re increasingly like Indian.

The South’s policy at one time was “one drop”. A choice is between quality v. quantity.

Posted by Hamish on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:23 | #

Is there a link to substantiate this accusation?

Besides the fact that Greg Johnson has unreservedly praised the works of Guillaume Faye, there’s the fact that he published a review of his book Archeofuturism in which the reviewer recounts Faye’s idea of creating human-animal hybrids with no objection to the plan other than some details concerning the shadowy organization Faye wants to oversee the creation of the chimeras.

The Eurosiberian Federation is to be characterized by a two-tier economy. The elite (20% of the population) will continue to live according to the techno-scientific economic model based on ongoing innovation. They would form part of a global exchange network of about one billion people, including the elites of other civilizational blocs. As Faye notes, “the essence of technological science is not connected to egalitarian modernity, but has its roots in the ethno-cultural heritage of Europe, and particularly ancient Greece.”

Among the first exploits of this new elite shall be exploring the “explosive possibilities of genetic engineering.” These include inter-species hybrids, man-animal chimeras, semi-artificial “biolithic” creatures, and decerebrated human clones…

But it is not clear how the elite could avoid “interfering” in the affairs of people they are supposed to govern. Moreover, how would the elite perpetuate itself? It seems clear that Faye does not intend a hereditary aristocracy. Perhaps there is some sort of test or initiatory ordeal for prospective members. But then families would be divided between the classes, which would involve many difficulties. In the fictional portrayal of his ideal future society which closes the book, Faye refers in passing to something called “the Party.” This reviewer would need to hear a lot more about this shadowy organization before signing on to Faye’s proposals.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/12/a-serious-case/

This review Greg Johnson saw fit to publish clearly shows a profoundly warped sensibility.

A normal person, even a half-way normal person, would object to creating human-animal hybrids just on principle.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:05 | #

Greg’s said some liberal things about Rome and Christianity that I don’t like.

I’m not really surprised reg. Faye. Daniel sensed something was up with him at Alt Right when a review was posted there followed by a comment “outing” Faye for having been in the porn industry. Looks like Daniel was right…