Skip to main content

Common Sense in 324 Words


First people want to live peacefully because this minimises risk and uncertainty as much as possible. A society based on agreements is the result. People will agree that whoever gets real property (land and buildings) with the agreement of the prior owner is now the owner.

The alternatives are absurdities. The only protest at this is original appropriation, but since the appropriator is agreeing with nobody about the land (nobody owns it before the appropriator appropriates it) there is nobody to steal it from. Using 'society' as a plaintiff is reification, so no dice.

The access right of way over somebody else's land is a common-sense presumption uness they put a fence in the way, at which point the common-sense presumption is to leave well alone. Likely this will be the courts' approach as a person cannot know innately what land belongs to whom, what they're doing with that land, or what their position is on using paths on that land.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Contracts are the easiest-to-understand and most convenient form for these agreements to assume. Humans are biologically, epistemologically and ontologically distinctive individuals with minds and free will, or an awfully good simulacrum of free will. Therefore each individual has a personality and past-history distinct from those of any other individual.

This makes debts and property matters of personal accountability, so a debt or a property cannot automatically fall on a certain surviving person unless agreed to by the deceased person and the survivor. Therefore death wipes out a person's debts and property titles unless agreements have been made stating otherwise.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

A 'social contract' is basically an unagreed agreement, and so useless. The state is an unconsented-to parasite born from conquest or religion or some combination depending on which state one looks at. Only those who act to consent to the taxation, regulation and inflation of the state should be made to comply.

Political authority is a mirage that cannot be justified.

Popular posts from this blog

So I was reading a piece on The Outline about identity politics when the author, Sean McElwee, brought up a survey he had penned and collated to establish how positions on economic and racial issues align;
Could Democrats win over racially conservative whites with economic populism? It’s unlikely, because people who oppose racial justice also tend to oppose liberal economic policies.  To test this, I created scales of economic and racial liberalism, using two questions that have been on the American National Election Studies surveys since 1972. One question asks respondents to place themselves on a one-to-seven point scale on government aid to black Americans, the other on a one-to-seven scale on guaranteeing jobs and income for all Americans. In 1972, only 54 percent of white Americans who took the racially liberal position (supporting aid to black Americans) also took the economically liberal position (guaranteeing jobs and income).  By 2016, 74 percent did. And in 1972, 77 perce…

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Will Automation Make All of the Jobs Disappear?

... No.

There is no reason to suggest that automation will dramatically increase unemployment in the short term, or at all in the long term.

Seriously, it will not.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.