There are these days when you construct a philosophical argument, develop a business strategy, or design a piece of software – and you think ‘damn’, that’s good… And today was one of those days.
Oversing is not an entry level user product.
And that is precisely why it is a competitive advantage.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-25 10:18:00 UTC
Season one of true detective last night.
History will mark band of brothers as the end of the dominance of the movie as other than a vehicle for technology.
The reason being that the format cannot accomodate story arcs.
Movies are short stories.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-25 10:10:00 UTC
(While the USA may not be helping ukraine ENOUGH, any impression that the USA is not helping Ukraine at all, is falsified by the absurd number of young, fit, extremely muscular men in fatigue pants ordering beef at local restaurants talking about their travel plans to and from US military bases. Made a little more obvious by the few nerdy older guys running around with DOD secret stickers on laptops. And made even more obvious by their ignorance.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-24 05:40:00 UTC
Aristocratic Coffee Flavoring: Add Rothbardian And Progressive Tears
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-24 02:08:00 UTC
http://thechive.com/2015/04/23/man-single-handedly-plants-a-forest-co-exists-in-it-with-animals-19-photos-video/MY HERO
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-24 02:03:00 UTC
http://www.panarchy.org/kohr/1941.eng.html
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 15:28:00 UTC
COMMON (CIVIC) PROPERTY VS SHAREHOLDER (PRIVATE) PROPERTY
Ownership of property consists of the following permissions:
Usus: the use of it but not consumption, the fruits, transfer or damage to it. ex: a park.
Fructus: the right to the fruits of it. ex: a common grazing area.
Mancipio: the right to transfer (sell). ex: farm land
Abusus : the right to consume or destroy. ex: a mine.
Common Property in property in which one is a shareholder, with limited shareholder rights. Generally you can use (usus) but not privatize or damage (fructus, mancipio, abusus).
The difference between common property and shareholder property is that your ownership of commons is determined by citizenship in a polity and your ownership of shareholder property by citizenship in a private corporation consisting of private capital.
Curt.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 13:13:00 UTC
(north sea libertarian liberty)
[T]he only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.
The state provides just these services:
…1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
…2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
…3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
…4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.
The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
…1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
…2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
…3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.
A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.
[F]ukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.
The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.
[A]s advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
…1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
…2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
…3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
…4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
…5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
…6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law….7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.
The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.
Insurance of one another against error and failure, and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(north sea libertarian liberty)
[T]he only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.
The state provides just these services:
…1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
…2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
…3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
…4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.
The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
…1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
…2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
…3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.
A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.
[F]ukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.
The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.
[A]s advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
…1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
…2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
…3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
…4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
…5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
…6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law….7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.
The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.
Insurance of one another against error and failure, and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(worth repeating)
Ukraine does not need a big mechanized military, but universal training on the swiss model; near universal small arms; to fill the armories with RPGs, and to focus on training soldiers with mobile artillery, including air defense, and to keep the army limited to very good special forces that rotate training of the civilians. If ukraine has this and six nuclear weapons they will be a free people. Russia is a one-city country. The centrality is its weakness. Nuclear arms guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty. special forces and a militia (which ukrainians are culturally disposed to anyway) will make occupation of the country literally impossible.
The central point being that large mechanized infantry is not necessary for the defense of ukraine. Large vehicles and concentrated forces are just targets.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-23 10:00:00 UTC