Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Libertarian: Aristocratic Egalitarian Nomocratic Classical Liberal

    [A]RISTOCRATIC (rule by best) EGALITARIAN (open to all)  NOMOCRACTIC (rule of law) CLASSICAL LIBERAL (divisions into houses representing classes ) AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN (an advocate for institutional liberty.. My point in writing this is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons. What does that mean?

    It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability). It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal. Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes. Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people. So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions. To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • WE DON’T NEED A MONOPOLY PRODUCER OF COMMONS. WE NEED A MARKET FOR COMMONS AND R

    WE DON’T NEED A MONOPOLY PRODUCER OF COMMONS. WE NEED A MARKET FOR COMMONS AND RULE OF LAW

    (worth repeating) (edited for clarity)

    The state under rule of law, is a monopoly. But any complete and internally consistent logic that is also externally correspondent, existentially possible, and objectively moral, is a monopolistic definition, by necessity. So it’s interesting that if law is scientifically constructed then it’s a monopoly by consequence of logical necessity, not choice.

    The ‘state’ under rule of law is just the body of law and the institutional process of applying it by the judiciary. It’s a tool for the resolution of disputes only. or more precisely, for the suppression of parasitism.

    The ‘government’ under Propertarianism is close to a misnomer. A Propertarian government cannot make laws, only contracts. As such functions as a market for the production of commons. In that market, we can construct contracts between peoples willing to conduct exchanges. In assenting to those contracts, you don’t have to agree with another person or group’s proposition – there is no need for your approval, so your assent can’t be ‘bought’. Instead, you can only dissent by stating how it’s an imposition of costs upon those who don’t want it, and that accusation must stand legal (Propertarian) scrutiny. Just as any other person in any other walk of life can object to the imposition of costs.

    There is no need for monopoly production of commons. And therefore no need for majority rule. All laws are produced outside of the ‘government’ (commons builders). The only monopoly necessary is that of the law, just as the only monopoly in the logic of relations is mathematics. And that monopoly is purely logical.

    So there is no need to create a parasitic monopoly bureaucracy for the production of commons.

    a) politicians are parasitic.

    b) the bureaucracy is parasitic,

    c) the industrial rent seekers are parasitic.

    d) the redistribution seekers are parasitic.

    BUT

    To civilize man (suppress his free riding,and force him to produce in the market to survive) we create central bureaucracies that suppress family and local rents, then centralize rents, and use those profits to pay to civilize man and to eliminate the local middlemen.

    To further civilize man we now eliminate the central bureaucracy and rely entirely on the common interests in suppressing the emergence of statism (monopoly) using rule of law., under the common law, under the total prohibition on parasitism, directly or indirectly, by positive expression of property rights.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-12 04:27:00 UTC

  • QUESTION CONCERNING ABUSES BY REPRESENTATIVES —Question for Curt, would be phi

    http://romaninukraine.com/curt-understanding-russia/A QUESTION CONCERNING ABUSES BY REPRESENTATIVES

    —Question for Curt, would be philosopher:

    How does property rights fit into mixed economies, corporatism and cronyism?

    If a corporation has property rights is that for eternity?

    Who decides?— Beauregard.

    Beauregard,

    I’m going to try to guess at what “fit in” means. I think you mean, “How do we reconcile the apparent conflicts between the logical ideal of property rights theory, and the existential reality of mixed economies, pervasive corporatism, and cronyism?”

    The problem I’m having is that I”m not really sure what you’re asking. So I’ll stab in the dark trying to reconcile as best I can.

    Mixed economies are as simple as corporations with shareholders who receive dividends on their investments – whether those investments are in sweat equity (observing norms), acting in an employee capacity(participating in the market of production distribution and trade), or whether one is an investor (taxpayer). There is no difference between a mixed economy and a corporation. It’s an organization where different interests combine different resources, to produce, distribute, and trade.

    Corporatism exists because the state wanted to give capital a free ride, and took upon policing corporations in the legislature by removing universal standing under the common law. This is a problem of representative democracy. The answer is to revoke the corporate privilege, restore universal standing, and eliminate shareholder voting which is meaningless. (This takes a lot of explanation but I know how to address it.)

    Cronyism exists because of the combination of representative government policing corporations by rather than citizen policing under universal standing. And because funding choices (monetary, fiscal trade, and industrial policy) are made by representatives rather than held at auction, using modern technology.

    As for corporate rights, I don’t know what you’re referring to. But if the current shareholders of a corporation purchased rights to their shares, and therefore to a share of some property or other, or that organization persists as a functional organizational entity then it is hard to see how those rights should terminate. But you could be referring to some strange exception like intellectual property rights or something, and I might not really be able to guess your question.

    All of these problems arise because of three simple problems.

    First, a technological problem of the pre-industrial era where time and the speed of communications were problematic. We are not challenged by these problems any longer.

    Second, by the conflation of law-making (the judiciary) with commons-creation (the government), into a law-making-body called the legislature. Instead, if the government could not make law, only contract enforcible under law, and so the legislature can only produce contracts and not laws, and contracts all expire with the people who wrote them, then there is a time limit on all relations between the public (commons) and the private sector, and laws cannot be constructed to favor corporations for the benefit of politicians.

    Third, there is no reason whatsoever for majority rule. Monopoly government is pointless. Law must be decidable, so the law must exist as a monopoly definition of property and rights. However, the construction of contracts under that law, for the production of commons, do not need universal approval. They need only prevent imposition of costs on non-participants under the rule of law which protects non-participants property rights from exactly those kinds of attacks.

    So as far as I know, all of the questions you’re asking are entirely compatible with property rights theory (or at least by Propertarianism), and in fact, they are only confusing in the absence of property rights theory.

    There are some interesting human cognitive biases in play in the populace but that’s another story for another time..

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 09:05:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY PROVISIONS Bruce, Another great piece for nomocracyinpolitics. Excuse m

    http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2015/06/10/when-does-copyright-become-wrong-by-bruce-frohnen/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS

    Bruce,

    Another great piece for nomocracyinpolitics.

    Excuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

    We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

    In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Moralis(morality- necessary for preservation of cooperation and prevention of retaliation for free riding) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

    1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.

    – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

    2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.

    – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

    3) ‘MORALIS’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).

    – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

    *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

    REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES

    Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

    (a) patent trolls (our friends in Seattle for example)

    (b) patents as total market prohibitions. (the rubber tires example)

    (c) lawsuits the content of which we cannot construct juries capable of adjudicating. (Samsung and Apple for example).

    (d) the need to defend patents even if you don’t want to in order to prevent reverse-prohibitions.

    (e) The absurd costs of researching and filing and defending them.

    (f) The result that it’s not the patent that secures your invention, but the financial ability to wage a lawsuit at high risk.

    But some externalities are less obvious:

    (a) How would plot lines, and movie portfolios, and bookstore catalogs differ, without copyrights? How would the high arts be affected? At present, we produce almost none, and we produce almost entirely what can be considered folk arts and vaudeville at best. Wouldn’t the elimination of copyrights change arts back to a form of conspicuous elite consumption, and the product of the aristocracy rather than the proletariat? (I am more concerned about this then the other factors combined.)

    Hope that gave you a few ideas.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 06:45:00 UTC

  • Without Propertarianism strict construction of law ( operational ism in law) is

    Without Propertarianism strict construction of law ( operational ism in law) is not possible.

    With Propertarianism strict construction is possible.

    And not particularly difficult.

    “Given this means of involuntary transfer/free riding,

    We prohibit such transfers,

    And define these rights,

    By this reasoning,

    Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.”

    We require no legislature. We require only a formal market for the construction of commons by contract.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 03:41:00 UTC

  • We have series 7 for investment. We have the md for medicine. We have the rn for

    We have series 7 for investment.

    We have the md for medicine.

    We have the rn for medicine

    We have the bar for law.

    We have the cpa for accounting

    Why not an equivalent for lending?

    Why not an equivalent for handling money in any capacity (all employees)?

    Why not the same for speech-for-fee? (journalism)

    The academy makes no warranty.

    The Libertarian solution is private insurance.

    But losing your ticket is insurance enough. Insurance creates perverse incentives also.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-07 10:57:00 UTC

  • NOMOCRATIC INSTUTUTIONS The People : A partnership of reciprocal insurance inclu

    NOMOCRATIC INSTUTUTIONS

    The People : A partnership of reciprocal insurance including every living soul in the polity.

    The Militia : Defense and Emergency Services

    The Military : Defense, Strategy, Offense.

    The Judiciary : The Common Organic Law

    The Houses of the Commons : Production of Commons

    The Treasury (The corporation that manages shares of stock as money)

    The Academy : Education

    The Monarchy : A family whose head has veto over the houses of the Commons.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-07 04:41:00 UTC

  • @paulromer #mathiness Why cannot not yell fire in a theatre, but I am free to ma

    @paulromer #mathiness Why cannot not yell fire in a theatre, but I am free to make un-warrantied statements on paper? Risking the commons.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 09:16:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606389164339249152

  • “Second Amendment is intended to defend against “the supreme power of a corrupt

    —“Second Amendment is intended to defend against “the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-02 06:09:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE ANARCHY IS CONSTRUCTED BY NOMOCRACY – WHEREIN NO

    THE ONLY EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE ANARCHY IS CONSTRUCTED BY NOMOCRACY – WHEREIN NO ONE RULES BECAUSE EVERYONE RULES.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-26 04:09:00 UTC