Thread Regarding Property and History (Experimental)

A question mark was used.

What do “property rights, rule of law, markets and trade” depend on? Wishing for them is not any more effective than wishing for growth and prosperity. They have their own requirements.

Which are 'not being illegal.'

Trade is what happens when you leave humans alone. Markets are what happen when you leave trade alone. Proofs by inspection. Law is what happens when disputes occur, and no third party stops them from being resolved, because humans realize they prefer an arbitrator rather than going to war every time. Losing an arbitration is, in fact, cheaper than winning a war. This is the historical root of English Common Law, and considering the convergent evolution, probably Xeer as well. Further examples of fully private law can be found in Icelandic history and Amish discipline.

Property rights happen as a consequence of logic. "Reasonable expectation of control." You don't attempt to secure something that you can't reasonably expect to secure. Some things you can't not secure, such as control over your arm muscles' contractions. However, usually by 'property rights' they want to refer to the extensions of the base rights. E.g. the technology 'civil suit' lets me own things like safe deposit boxes that I would not normally be able to secure. The extensions are cooperative property rights, rather than individual property rights. Law is one technology for cooperatively extending property rights.

You’re still not making sense. (I’ll stop pointing it out when it will stop being true.)

Dunning-Krueger. Third strike, you're out. Also contentless, etc.
Hey, imaginary younger me. What's up. If someone was really not making sense, then they wouldn't be able to tell by introspection. They need detailed instructions to make up the introspection they're lacking. Baldly stating it is simply being mean on purpose.

This is basically a tautology, if doing bad things is not allowed (rule of law)

The broken window fallacy runs deep on this subject. Because a third party is pretending to do rule of law, and controls the schools, it becomes hard to properly consider the possibility of having it done by a second party. However, I've linked no less than four examples of it not only working well, but working much better than e.g. the present.

and doing good things is allowed / not hindered (roughly the private property aspect of it), then people will do good things (economic growth). Methinks allowing doing good things is not that difficult, you just need to tell lefties/parasites to GTFO (OK, that is actually difficult).

Can't see anything wrong with this, though. Problem: making over-parasite fumigation easy instead of not-easy.

Exposure to a larger competitive environment looks like the ultimate dependency. That is to say, a compliance with (‘Atlantean’) external relations, rather than the internal relations favored by (‘Hyperborean’) romantic reaction and other strains of socialist organicism.

Clearly external exposure is not the natural state of civilization. (Or more properly, when referring to existent examples, proto-civilization.)
But Outsideness accepts that states cannot be overruled by anything. As a result, he's ontologically committed to believing external exposure is simply impossible. Since he's referring to Law, and law depends on an impossibility, Outsideness is committed to antinomialism. Not as prescription, but as immutable description.