Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Ostrom’s Argument Is ‘Misrepresented’ Like Everything On The Left.

    (important)(common property)(property rights) (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.) —-”**How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—** Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR. **Ostrom’s argument**, is that: 1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘**private corporations**’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title. 2 – **States create the tragedy of the commons** when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset. 3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely **INSURE all forms of property** (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind. In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability, OSTROM’S RULES (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS 2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules. * ****[ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].*** 1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined. ** *****[‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]*** 1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment. ***[‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]*** 2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions. ***[‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]**** * 3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules. ***[‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]*** 4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users. 4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource. ***[‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]*** 5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both. ***[‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]*** 6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials. 7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities. ***[‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]*** 8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises. ***[Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]*** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • How Do Libertarians Address The Tragedy Of The Commons?

    OSTROM’S ARGUMENT IS ‘MISREPRESENTED’ (LIKE EVERYTHING ON THE LEFT.)

    (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.)

    —-”How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—

    Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR.

    Ostrom’s argument, is that:

    1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘private corporations’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title.

    2 – States create the tragedy of the commons when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset.

    3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely INSURE all forms of property (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind.

    In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability,

    OSTROM’S RULES
    (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS

    2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules.

    [ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].

    1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined.

    [‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]

    1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment.

    [‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]

    2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions.

    [‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]

    3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

    [‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]

    4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users.

    4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource.

    [‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]

    5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.

    [‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]

    6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.

    7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

    [‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]

    8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

    [Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-libertarians-address-the-tragedy-of-the-commons

  • How Do Libertarians Address The Tragedy Of The Commons?

    OSTROM’S ARGUMENT IS ‘MISREPRESENTED’ (LIKE EVERYTHING ON THE LEFT.)

    (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.)

    —-”How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—

    Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR.

    Ostrom’s argument, is that:

    1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘private corporations’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title.

    2 – States create the tragedy of the commons when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset.

    3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely INSURE all forms of property (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind.

    In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability,

    OSTROM’S RULES
    (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS

    2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules.

    [ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].

    1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined.

    [‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]

    1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment.

    [‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]

    2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions.

    [‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]

    3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

    [‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]

    4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users.

    4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource.

    [‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]

    5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.

    [‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]

    6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.

    7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

    [‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]

    8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

    [Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-libertarians-address-the-tragedy-of-the-commons

  • If We Define Human By Agency, The Sjw’s Are Just Partially Domesticated Animals.

    Once you realize that SJW’s are incompletely evolved humans, just as children, or domesticated animals, you stop taking them any more seriously than children, or domesticated animals. The human mind can develop in utero, during childhood, and during puberty, into a condition of agency, or we can train it into agency. But it appears that some of us are born with agency, some must only be exposed to agency, and some must be trained into agency, and some must be limited in the damage that they can create due to their lack of agency. Only then can we provide normative, cultural, and institutional agency. Because until one demonstrates self agency, that individual is not yet human. Agency is what separates us from animals. We can teach a crow, a dog, and a chimp facility with words and meaning if they are smart enough. People merely possess facility with words by birth. But just as pets must be taught facility with words, many people – SJW’s – must be taught agency: facility with body, thought, and emotion. That’s what the stoics were doing. And that is why the stoic schools were destroyed by the eastern church as a means of destroying western aristocratic civilization. SJW’s are easy to lead. They are merely domesticated animals, and not yet human. If we were still in our pre-christian ethos, we would be honest about these facts. Some human lineages, and certainly the female gender, were insufficiently domesticated.

  • If We Define Human By Agency, The Sjw’s Are Just Partially Domesticated Animals.

    Once you realize that SJW’s are incompletely evolved humans, just as children, or domesticated animals, you stop taking them any more seriously than children, or domesticated animals. The human mind can develop in utero, during childhood, and during puberty, into a condition of agency, or we can train it into agency. But it appears that some of us are born with agency, some must only be exposed to agency, and some must be trained into agency, and some must be limited in the damage that they can create due to their lack of agency. Only then can we provide normative, cultural, and institutional agency. Because until one demonstrates self agency, that individual is not yet human. Agency is what separates us from animals. We can teach a crow, a dog, and a chimp facility with words and meaning if they are smart enough. People merely possess facility with words by birth. But just as pets must be taught facility with words, many people – SJW’s – must be taught agency: facility with body, thought, and emotion. That’s what the stoics were doing. And that is why the stoic schools were destroyed by the eastern church as a means of destroying western aristocratic civilization. SJW’s are easy to lead. They are merely domesticated animals, and not yet human. If we were still in our pre-christian ethos, we would be honest about these facts. Some human lineages, and certainly the female gender, were insufficiently domesticated.

  • IF WE DEFINE HUMAN BY AGENCY, THE SJW’S ARE JUST PARTIALLY DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

    IF WE DEFINE HUMAN BY AGENCY, THE SJW’S ARE JUST PARTIALLY DOMESTICATED ANIMALS.

    Once you realize that SJW’s are incompletely evolved humans, just as children, or domesticated animals, you stop taking them any more seriously than children, or domesticated animals.

    The human mind can develop in utero, during childhood, and during puberty, into a condition of agency, or we can train it into agency. But it appears that some of us are born with agency, some must only be exposed to agency, and some must be trained into agency, and some must be limited in the damage that they can create due to their lack of agency.

    Only then can we provide normative, cultural, and institutional agency. Because until one demonstrates self agency, that individual is not yet human.

    Agency is what separates us from animals.

    We can teach a crow, a dog, and a chimp facility with words and meaning if they are smart enough. People merely possess facility with words by birth. But just as pets must be taught facility with words, many people – SJW’s – must be taught agency: facility with body, thought, and emotion.

    That’s what the stoics were doing.

    And that is why the stoic schools were destroyed by the eastern church as a means of destroying western aristocratic civilization.

    SJW’s are easy to lead. They are merely domesticated animals, and not yet human.

    If we were still in our pre-christian ethos, we would be honest about these facts.

    Some human lineages, and certainly the female gender, were insufficiently domesticated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-31 14:06:00 UTC

  • Since The Ideological Core Of America Is A Individualistic Democracy, What Makes You Think That A Fascist Movement Would Be More Popular With The American Populace?

    THAT’S A FUZZY LANGUGE QUESTION…. LET’S FIX IT.

    —-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace?”—-

    America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty). This mean that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice. Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period.

    So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals.

    This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism.

    FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM

    Fascism, meaning economic and cultural nationalism, was developed to counter the spread of global communism.

    There is very little difference between FrankfurtSchool Marxism, and it’s successor, Postmodern School Political correctness – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between judaism, christianity, and islam and world communism.

    So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism.

    People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others.

    So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism.

    Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead.

    Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation.

    The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not?

    Why is that?

    The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.

    https://www.quora.com/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace

  • Since The Ideological Core Of America Is A Individualistic Democracy, What Makes You Think That A Fascist Movement Would Be More Popular With The American Populace?

    THAT’S A FUZZY LANGUGE QUESTION…. LET’S FIX IT.

    —-”Since the ideological core of America is a individualistic democracy, what makes you think that a fascist movement would be more popular with the American populace?”—-

    America was founded as a ‘third way’ free of both church and state, and instead for the entrepreneurial (meritocratic) individual. The original colonists recruited heavily ‘people of good character’ to create that ‘third way’ The constitution constructed rule by “The natural law of reciprocity”, and individual sovereignty (although they used the world liberty). This mean that all functions of society were organized into markets. You could perform service, with service you could earn property, with property you could earn voice. Meanwhile the court adjudicated differences entirely by property rights. This was ‘the third way’ that they were inventing. A third way not done before. Or at least, the third way that had continued from Anglo Saxon times, and was under attack during the colonial period.

    So it is that America was founded under rule of law. Not rule of legislation. rule of LAW. With legislation being little more than contract negotiated between the states, just as contracts were negotiated within the state, and within the polity, and between individuals.

    This is why those of us educated pre-marxism-postmoderism’s takeover of the school, academy, media and state during and the vietnam war, treat the constitution as ‘sacred’. Because for all intents and purposes – it is. It is ‘inviolate’. Unfortunately, beginning with the 14th amendment, then increasingly during the 20th century, the left was able to destroy rule of law, and re-implement rule-by-legislation, and then eventual restore the church, with a secular religion of postmodernism.

    FASCISM/NATIONALISM VS COMMUNISM/UNIVERSALISM

    Fascism, meaning economic and cultural nationalism, was developed to counter the spread of global communism.

    There is very little difference between FrankfurtSchool Marxism, and it’s successor, Postmodern School Political correctness – and world communism. Just as there is very little difference between judaism, christianity, and islam and world communism.

    So if you are from a good family, clan, tribe, and nation, you might choose nationalism over globalism. And if you are from a not-so-good family, clan, tribe, and nation you might choose globalism.

    People tend to follow the elites that promise them a competitive advantage. This is why people in homogenous societies vote by class blocks, and in heterogeneous societies they vote in racial and tribal and religious blocks: to obtain advantage via the force of government, rather than through market competition in the service of others.

    So Fascism is just a practical means by which KIN GROUPS (Nationalists) protect themselves from MAJORITY TYRANNY (Corporatists) by resisting universalism.

    Who do you want to get ahead? Well that depends upon what elites you can put into place to get your agenda ahead.

    Some of us are wired (like females) for the short term and experiential, and some of us are wired (like males) for the long term and capital accumulation.

    The strange thing is, nationalists are happy to separate and let others do as they will, but universalists are not?

    Why is that?

    The only answer CAN BE that one fears facing the reality of one’s inferiority in competition with kin groups.

    https://www.quora.com/Since-the-ideological-core-of-America-is-a-individualistic-democracy-what-makes-you-think-that-a-fascist-movement-would-be-more-popular-with-the-American-populace

  • What’s An Example Of An Internet Website Of The Russians That Influenced Americans Voting?

    a) As far as I know there is no evidence of Russia having any effect on voting in the past election.

    b) As far as I know the alt-right had some (minor) effect on the election by ‘exciting’ conservatives to vote in large numbers.

    c) As far as I know the reason for the out come of the last election was overconfidence on the left, and extremely high agitation on the right, plus the formerly democratic ‘germanic’ states turned conservative, because of the economy – people generally vote the economy. (see the Myth of the Rational Voter.)

    d) As far as I know direct evidence of russian activity was limited to a small number of advertisements on Facebook,

    e) As far as I know russia continues the communist era tradition of paying fringe ‘intellectuals’ to produce favorable propaganda.

    f) As far as I know Russian RT produces propaganda for world consumption, and it’s targets are most often conservative english speakers including americans.

    g) Russian propagandism has ALWAYS existed – although less than American interference in Russia (and everyone else for that matter). As far as I know, 70% of Russian intelligence budget still go to direct ‘encouragement’ of propaganda and sedition through ‘petty and pliable intellectuals, pseudo intellectuals, and activists.’

    f) as far as I know the leak of the corruption by the democratic party was paid for by Russian intelligence, and that is why the young jewish ‘leaker’ was murdered in rather typical Russian style – meaning: made to look like a convenient accident.

    It’s my job to weed out pseudoscience and other nonsense and I have more than trivial knowledge of how intelligence services operate, and as far as I know all that is going on is that the democrats cannot accept their blame for running a terrible candidate, and overestimating their draw.

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-an-example-of-an-internet-website-of-the-Russians-that-influenced-Americans-voting

  • Is Social Conforming A Form Of Lying?

    THE BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND.

    In display (dress, manner) conformity is a form of taxation. (cost)

    In action (behavior) conformity a form of taxation. (cost)

    In word, the question is whether the statement is true (scientifically), or false, not conforming or non conforming. If you state the truth, it’s a form of taxation. (cost)

    In Religion, it’s both lying and taxation. All cults other than Aristotelian (science and law) require payment of taxation by display, word, and action, as a cost of membership in the cult.

    The means of distinguishing between a theocratic government and society and a scientific (rule-of-law) government and society is whether you must pay a cost of display, action, and word that is false in order to obtain or maintain membership in the organization – where government, cult, society are all forms of organization.

    The problem is, that conformity may amplify or reduce your relative status signals (perceived market value to others). And so the lower your genetic, social, economic, and political capital, the greater your demand for obtaining signals (positive attention) by non conforming means. This is why people ‘with’ tend to conform, and people ‘without’ tend not to. Search for status signals in some other group than the dominant genetic, social, and economic status hierarchies

    All humans are rational actors. That’s necessary for evolutionary persistence.
    They just may not understand the rationality of their actions.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-social-conforming-a-form-of-lying