Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THAT WHICH IS NOT BAD, BUT IS A DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE, IS GOOD. Bill Joslin: –

    THAT WHICH IS NOT BAD, BUT IS A DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE, IS GOOD.

    Bill Joslin: —“defining by POSITIVA does not distinguish the necessary and essential. But by NEGATIVA – the removal of properties/operations – we identify the essentials because if the essential is removed the term is no longer possible…this is why you say operational consistency shows what is possible.. not there yet. I’ll sit with it.”—

    Bingo. Ying/Yang, Communication/Criticism, Free-Association-Hypothesis/Theory-Law, Art-Literature-Religion/Natural-Law, Cooperation/ConflictAvoidance, Negativa/Positiva. Opportunities/Morality.

    Convey the idea, and then subtract the falsehoods.

    Truth cannot be conveyed or testified to without both.

    Balance is bad. That’s asian. It’s one of the reasons for their failure.

    We practice innovation. That which is not bad, and is chosen as an action, must be good for at least the person who chose it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 13:50:00 UTC

  • REALLY? It never seems to occur to journalists (or many other people) that LOADI

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/dont-think-of-a-rampaging-elephant-linguist-george-lakoff-explains-how-the-democrats-helped-elect-trump/LIARS, REALLY?

    It never seems to occur to journalists (or many other people) that LOADING, FRAMING, OVERLOADING are forms of SUGGESTION ( which means LYING).

    There exists only one truthful form of political speech: cost. And one truthful objective: group evolutionary strategy (persistence.)

    So why does Lakoff (like Chomsky) (a) specialize in language, (b) advise people to use loading, framing, overloading, for the purpose of suggestion (lying) rather than arguments to the contribution to or cost to one’s group evolutionary strategy?

    THATS THE ISSUE: LYING TO OBSCURE THEFT.

    Why do conservatives favor Constitutionalism? Because it’s just a statement of Natural Law of cooperation: The demand for 1) Productive, 2) Fully Informed, 3) Warrantied (skin in the game), 4) Voluntary transfer, 5) limited to productive externality. In other words – the law against parasitism.

    Why do these people advance the violation of natural law consistently, and do so by means of obscurantist lying:

    KRUGMAN, DELONG, STEIGLITZ, LAKOFF, CHOMSKY.

    Group evolutionary strategy in action: lying.

    It’s not complicated.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 13:26:00 UTC

  • Nicholas Herndon: —“They’re (Democrats) missing the idea that many Americans w

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/dont-think-of-a-rampaging-elephant-linguist-george-lakoff-explains-how-the-democrats-helped-elect-trump/Via Nicholas Herndon: —“They’re (Democrats) missing the idea that many Americans who depend on health care, affordable health care, for example, have strict-father positions and voted for Trump against their interests. And this is something has been known for ages, that a lot of poor conservatives vote against their material interests, because they’re voting for their worldview. And the reason for it is that their moral worldview defines who they are. They are not going to vote against their own definition of who they are.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 13:14:00 UTC

  • WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH? 1) “I agree not to subjugate you, pre

    WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH?

    1) “I agree not to subjugate you, prey upon you, kill you, if our cooperation is more beneficial than your defeat.”

    (male-aristocracy-conservative: “Father”)

    2) “I agree to cooperate and invest in common goods as long as it’s not against the interests of me, my family, kin, and people. Otherwise I choose not to cooperate, and i am happy to defend myself, my family, my kin, and my people.”

    (male-burgher-libertarian : “Brother”)

    3) “I agree to cooperate with the group as long as I am not left behind and obtain a share of production, but I will inhibit cooperation if I am left behind or denied a share of production.”

    (female – socialist: “Mother-Daughter”)

    4) “I want to be left alone, but allowed to participate in the commercial market.”

    (male – Libertine – anarchist )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 12:04:00 UTC

  • (ok. brain is coming back on line today. I have to work at getting more sleep co

    (ok. brain is coming back on line today. I have to work at getting more sleep consistently. Too much wasted time otherwise. Hopefully work on the software will be more productive now. I’m dragging since christmas. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:56:00 UTC

  • THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY. (important concept) (minor discussi

    http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmonsITS THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY.

    (important concept) (minor discussion of big box retailer phenom.)

    Philip Saunders : —“Read “Governing the Commons” by Elinor Ostrom. Very good explanation of the logical/game theoretic issues around managing common pool resources. Also refutes Garett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” argument.”—

    8 Principles for Managing a Commons

    1. Define clear group boundaries.

    2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

    3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

    4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

    5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

    6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

    7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

    8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

    In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR), also called a common property resource, is a type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system (e.g. an irrigation system or fishing grounds), whose size or characteristics makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.

    Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource (e.g. water or fish), which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.

    The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a scenario in which commonly held land is inevitably degraded because everyone in a community is allowed to graze livestock there.

    This parable was popularized by wildlife biologist Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s, and was embraced as a principle by the emerging environmental movement.

    But Ostrom’s research refutes this abstract concept once-and-for-all with the real life experience from places like Nepal, Kenya and Guatemala.

    “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behavior,” she cites as an example. “It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.”

    (Garrett Hardin himself later revised his own view, noting that what he described was actually the Tragedy of the

    Unmanaged Commons.)

    Hardin explicitly stated that we should exorcise the “dominant tendency of thought that has… interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society” (Hardin, 1968). The Tragedy of the Commons argument

    was a reaction against – not for – the contemporary laissez-faire interpretation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the marketplace”!

    —-

    CURT’S EXPANSION ON THE MATTER:

    ie: proposing the choice of anarchic commons vs private property is just another a deception by framing: a false dichotomy.

    The problem is created when the shareholder agreement is unenforcible, or because no shareholder agreement is in place, or (which Ostrom Does Not Address) when credit (or fiat money) can be used to sufficiently compensate the existing users (shareholders) so that they will permit exhaustion of the resource under their management.

    This last example is what the ‘big box retailer’ phenomenon does that local communities object to. By destroying the local micro-economy, then growing until they bust the big box retailer created fragility to which the local economy could not recover.

    This scenario violates the natural law requirement that one cannot take any action that in the event of one’s failure, one cannot perform restitution for. If that were the case, all ‘ugly commercial architecture’ would have to be insured such that in the event of a collapse it was returned to natural state (clean land).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:55:00 UTC

  • Jonathan: —“This book is relevant here. There are models that predict low-IQ n

    https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation-s-Matters/dp/150360067X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid&srJon Jonathan: —“This book is relevant here. There are models that predict low-IQ nations will become indebted to high-IQ nations. Maining a high-IQ population is a requirement for a healthy economy and low corruption.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:36:00 UTC

  • ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS) PATENTS It must be product

    ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS)

    PATENTS

    It must be productive (fully informed, warrantied, voluntary).

    Therefore:

    a) IP must protect an investment (born cost), not squat an option: piss-on-a-fire-hydrant.

    b) IP cannot be used to deny a product to market, only to recoup an investment at some non-arbitrary multiple from a market.

    c) As a consequence it is hard to understand the grant of a monopoly rather than a commission. And it is hard to understand unquantified and long term IP.

    d) It is almost impossible to argue in favor of aesthetic ‘design patterns'(interpretive). It is quite easy to argue in favor of scientific, engineering, and software patterns(operational).

    e) it is human nature to retaliate against profiting from non-contribution (copying). This violates the test of productivity.

    In addition to productivity, grasping this subject requires an understanding full accounting (in this case opportunity costs),

    a) Polities form to decrease opportunity and transaction costs.

    b) Competition is the battle to seize opportunities created by density and property, and competition cannot form if one can squat opportunities (seize unhomesteaded property). Squatting opportunities is just a form of theft. Ergo IP that squats opportunities rather than recoups a risky investment is just theft by rent seeking.

    TRADEMARK

    A trademark is just another form of weight and measure that prevents misrepresentation. it is easy to argue for ‘design patterns’ (interpretive) limits on the use of them in a market – although it appears that enforcement is ridiculously overzealous because the law has no empirical means of measurement. This means of measurement is now available by the 2-3 second discretion test. Meaning that If a random group of people can glance at a pair of trademarks and not be be confused between or inferred by one another then empirically there is no confusion. Trademarks are very difficult to argue with.

    COPYRIGHTS

    Copyrights are the most questionable, although the market has solved this with the various Creative Commons and MIT etc licenses, which require consent for commercial use, but not for personal use. This preserves the demand for productivity for market participation.

    The central problem with copyrights is that they create opportunities for profitability in the ‘lower’ arts, producing low quality arts in volume and saturating the environment, the marketplace and the informational commons with low quality arts. The great works would not cease being produced by great artists if no money was available except by sponsorship. Conversely, the low arts would be impossible to fund. Revoking the total copyright on literary and artistic works, and defaulting to the creative commons instead, would collapse the hollywood market. Prohibiting dramatization of the lives of individuals would complete the suppression of their propagandism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:31:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS (important piece) —“Propert

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS

    (important piece)

    —“Propertarianism is a descriptive framework. A Propertarian would be someone who uses that descriptive framework, and then most of us who are Propertarians are also aristocratic republicans or monarchists (our particular political advocacy).”— Josh Jeppson

    Yes, and I think this gets lost. (As usual it’s my fault.) I conflate the methodology with explanation with the preference.

    1) REFORMATION OF SCIENCE:

    What we call “Propertarianism”, or the combination of Testimonialism (epistemology), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism (ethics / sociology [cooperation]), and Propertarian Group Evolutionary Strategy(group competition – which still needs a name), creates an internally consistent language and methodology for the truthful, value-free description, comparison, and judgement of human action (and speech).

    As far as I know this framework completes the scientific method, and replaces philosophy, psychology, social science, and reforms law, political science, and economics. I call this framework “The Law of Nature”, which includes “Natural Law (cooperation and competition)” and “Testimonial Law (law of information)” as extensions of Laws of Nature (physical laws).

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    …. 1 – Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

    …. …. Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    …. 2 – Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

    …. Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    …. 3 – Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

    …. Ethics, morality, law, economics

    …. 4 – Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

    …. Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    …. 5 – Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

    …. Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    2) EXPLANATION OF WESTERN EXCELLENCE:

    The combination of Transcendence, Heroism, Sovereignty, Aristocracy, and the institutional necessity of Markets in Everything as a consequence; Aryan Expansionism (attempt to obtain the status of the gods), and the consequential evolution of non-conflation / deconflation / deflationary truth, reason, rationalism, science; independent judiciary and empirical law; testimony, jury, and senate; property, contract, and competition; the domestication of man from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to sovereign; and the estates of the realm: labor(neutral), burgher(organization/”remuneration”), priesthood(education/’gossip’), aristocracy (rule/force) – all explain the rapid rise of western civilization in the ancient and modern worlds as producing *faster* experimental and therefore adaptive velocity in all aspects of human existence. In other words, it explains the rise of the west in the ancient and modern worlds, and the weakness of the west in the medieval (christian) interim.

    3) EXPLANATION OF THE FALL OF THE WEST

    How the enlightenment was only successful in science, and entirely wrong in everything else – and how the enlightenment was unique to the British, and that all other civilizations reacted *against it*, in a counter-enlightenment, culminating in the Pseudoscientific era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt) the same way that all other civilizations reacted against Greek reason and Roman law in the ancient world(christianity, rabbinical judaism, islamism, confucianism), and the same way that all other civilizations reacted against European Aryanism: ‘heroism, truth, sovereignty, contractualism, competition, and ‘domesticationism’ in the dawn of civilization by producing organized religion (the indo-iranian branch of indo europeans)

    4) RESTORATION OF THE WEST:

    How to restore western civilization to its previous rates of success by completing the scientific Enlightenment and restoring markets in everything: defense/emergency/care, reproduction, production, commons, polities. And in particular, the extension of involuntary warranty on goods and services brought to market, to *information* that is brought to market (published). And the restoration of multiple houses for the purpose of restoring a market for trades between the classes.

    CLOSING

    Propertarianism technically refers to the descriptive ethics alone. But we bundle all of these ideas under the same ‘banner’ (term) for the sake of expediency. But one can advocate for a communist, socialist, democratic humanist, classical liberal, republican, monarchic, fascist, or dicatorship polity using testimonialism, acquisitionism, and propertarianism, and create a constitution for one under strictly (formal operational logic) constructed natural law. But one must do so truthfully and honestly.

    Someone who values each of those governments may or may not have a harder time truthfully defending his preferences. But we can then create compromises between such different political orders, rather than attempt to impose such a political order upon everyone.

    It is very easy to propose sovereignty, classical multi-house monarchy, markets in everything and to do so truthfully and honestly – because that order provided the origin and evolution of the technology of truthful speech we call ‘science’. But to do so we must admit also that the outcome of such a political order is eugenic. Conversely it is harder to propose a democratic humanist order, because it is dysgenic. in the short term it is easier to tolerate a dysgenic order. In the long term it is devolutionary and will destroy the ability to produce either a democratic humanist OR a classical monarchic. For the simple reason that every person at the bottom is more damaging to the political, social, and economic order than every person at the time is advantageous. The uncomfortable history of man is that a minority of men have domesticated men, the way men domesticated all our domesticated animals. And more uncomfortable, that men domesticated women before that. And that’s the origin of our intuitionary skill at domestication.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • STATUS PRODUCTION IN THE DEFLATIONARY SOCIETY (important piece)(new insight by S

    STATUS PRODUCTION IN THE DEFLATIONARY SOCIETY

    (important piece)(new insight by Saini)

    Ricky Saini: —“Deconflation allows more status seekers to acquire status productively – as opposed to a monopoly of status acquired by a specific elite group of individuals that hoards it over everyone else.”—

    In a conflationary society one group attempts to hold all the status.

    In a deflationary society, we find elites in all methods of coercion (Martial/Paternal:Force/Threat, Economic/Brotherly: Remuneration/Payment, and Priestly/Maternal:Gossip/Advocacy-Shame), plus one method of decidability: the Judiciary, and one ‘Craftsmanly’ Art, Science, Engineering, Craftsmanship. and one familial: Paternal, Maternal, Number of Children, Manners/Culture.

    A deflationary society provides many more opportunities for high status by many other means, and therefore more incentive for personal achievement by social ‘competition’. There is more room for winners by moral means.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 22:11:00 UTC