Form: Reply

  • Living in Ukraine (Where you’ve been recently) is a daily exercise in ridiculous

    Living in Ukraine (Where you’ve been recently) is a daily exercise in ridiculous fake news filtering – esp. via RT.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 01:43:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801964506427621376

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb @FamesBlond

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801960686876323841


    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    The meta question: is the news that Russia is spreading fake news fake news.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801960686876323841

  • We are the #NewRight. The Hopeful Old Right vs The Resigned #NewRight: There is

    We are the #NewRight. The Hopeful Old Right vs The Resigned #NewRight: There is no possibility of compromise.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 01:40:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801963798445879296

    Reply addressees: @VonMacht @digitalErmit @Salon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801956205329575936


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801956205329575936

  • Different Economies for Different Classes

    Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES? —“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).

    SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes. The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market. So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes. I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • RT @carolinepennock: I welcome this opportunity to highlight what I have always

    RT @carolinepennock: I welcome this opportunity to highlight what I have always felt was very irresponsible academic behaviour… #trollpro…


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-24 15:57:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801817134892466176

  • RT @curtdoolittle: JUDGEMENT: Apple’s rebranding of the ‘Air’ as ‘Pro’ is the bi

    RT @curtdoolittle: JUDGEMENT: Apple’s rebranding of the ‘Air’ as ‘Pro’ is the biggest exec failure since New Coke. “@Apple just pulled a Mi…


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-24 15:22:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801808140073390081

  • @Apple I’ve been advocating Apple take the Microsoft market when the iPhone mone

    @Apple I’ve been advocating Apple take the Microsoft market when the iPhone money stops. MacBook Pseudo-Pro confirms: leadership impossible.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-24 14:01:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801787742686478336

  • “What about regulation? Can you offer an explanation in Propertarian terms?”—

    —“What about regulation? Can you offer an explanation in Propertarian terms?”— Jeremie Makell

    EXCELLENT QUESTION

    Law is discovered, contracts are constructed with terms. Regulations cannot exist unless provided by an insurer of the contract. So as far as I know only Discovered Law, Strictly constructed productive contract, and strictly constructed insurance contract, can exist.

    The reason the state ‘got into the regulatory business’ is that the primary function of the state has been as the insurer of last resort.

    My position is that the state implicitly insures by the court of law, all insurers within the domain.

    And that as the insurer of last resort, rescuing an insurer in the common interest, is accomplished by just another contract.

    A contract cannot be made without the ability to ensure restitution and reparation in case of failure.

    Under this model there is no agent that can issue regulations except the insurer. And as an insurer these are not ‘regulations’ but simply contract terms.

    So regulations cease to exist under propertarianism since only a monopoly can create regulations – and there exist no monopolies other than the monopoly of the one law of natural law of cooperation.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-23 19:29:00 UTC

  • (Paul. We should talk about framing this argument. Strategically, dynamics will

    (Paul. We should talk about framing this argument. Strategically, dynamics will change quickly.)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-23 10:56:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801378821421338624

    Reply addressees: @VonMacht @PrisonPlanet

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801264728911777792


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801264728911777792

  • Q&A: –“Curt, is decentralisation a misnomer?”— GREAT QUESTION: Yes. Decentral

    Q&A: –“Curt, is decentralisation a misnomer?”—

    GREAT QUESTION:

    Yes. Decentralization merely refers to redistribution of labor to additional locations without necessarily affecting the methods of decidability and degree of homogeneity. Whereas devolution, disempowerment, and secession are accurate terms since we restore the market and our ability to use it to calculate.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-23 07:51:00 UTC

  • Nor my work on market for commons. -cheers

    Nor my work on market for commons. -cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-23 03:46:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801270555781402624

    Reply addressees: @SamuelStringman @JulieBorowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801240700335452162


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801240700335452162