Capitalism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than parasites without producing commons open to free riding or defection. The question is only the method for producing those commons while suppressing free riding and defection. Communism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than predators and parasites, by producing commons to the exclusion of private property, because all are incentivized only to free ride (do as little as possible) and defect (engage in black markets and corruption). State (corporation) private (shareholder) partnerships have the best record in history, when the state provides roles of insurer and banker in exchange for returns to the commons. At present the only reason the USA is not competing successfully in the world market is a failure to produce public-private partnerships. The reason we cannot do so is because the left can seek rents on these public private partnerships both politically, economically, and socially by the use of syndicalism (unions etc). Unions are only necessary because the courts do not provide universal standing in matters of the commons – ever since the british began violating the ancestral common law of reciprocity and universal standing.
Theme: Commons
-
More on Non-Hetero Behavior in The Commons as A Matter of Law
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
-
More on Non-Hetero Behavior in The Commons as A Matter of Law
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
-
It’s Simple: Life, Liberty, Property, Reciprocity
The Constitution defines how the government (production of commons) is organized. The bill of rights defines the law that may not be discovered, legislation and regulation that may not be passed. The constitution does try to implement natural law (life, liberty, property), but it does not state such concretely in the bill of rights, nor does it state the law of reciprocity despite the fact that reciprocity is the basis for germanic common law back into pre-history. We could quite easily reorganize the constitution life(existence), liberty(action), property(thing), and reciprocity (volition), and then tie every one of the articles and amendments back to these (reciprocity and three dimensions of its demonstration). This set of three rights (existence, action, possession) and the single law of reciprocity are very simple criteria by which any constitution can be strictly constructed.
-
It’s Simple: Life, Liberty, Property, Reciprocity
The Constitution defines how the government (production of commons) is organized. The bill of rights defines the law that may not be discovered, legislation and regulation that may not be passed. The constitution does try to implement natural law (life, liberty, property), but it does not state such concretely in the bill of rights, nor does it state the law of reciprocity despite the fact that reciprocity is the basis for germanic common law back into pre-history. We could quite easily reorganize the constitution life(existence), liberty(action), property(thing), and reciprocity (volition), and then tie every one of the articles and amendments back to these (reciprocity and three dimensions of its demonstration). This set of three rights (existence, action, possession) and the single law of reciprocity are very simple criteria by which any constitution can be strictly constructed.
-
The Basis of Community Is Self Interest
The underlying basis of community is self interest, and the production of commons because commons provide returns for self interest. It is, as far as I know, not possible to contradict morality as stated in propertarianism (reciprocity) since it is both a logical necessity and empirically evident in all judicial proceedings known to man.
-
The Basis of Community Is Self Interest
The underlying basis of community is self interest, and the production of commons because commons provide returns for self interest. It is, as far as I know, not possible to contradict morality as stated in propertarianism (reciprocity) since it is both a logical necessity and empirically evident in all judicial proceedings known to man.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY IS SELF INTEREST The u
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY IS SELF INTEREST
The underlying basis of community is self interest, and the production of commons because commons provide returns for self interest. It is, as far as I know, not possible to contradict morality as stated in propertarianism (reciprocity) since it is both a logical necessity and empirically evident in all judicial proceedings known to man.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 17:00:24 UTC
-
THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY IS SELF INTEREST The underlying basis of community is sel
THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY IS SELF INTEREST
The underlying basis of community is self interest, and the production of commons because commons provide returns for self interest. It is, as far as I know, not possible to contradict morality as stated in propertarianism (reciprocity) since it is both a logical necessity and empirically evident in all judicial proceedings known to man.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 13:00:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. I have a few questions if you donât mind. 1
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
I have a few questions if you donât mind.
1) –“Besides Ostrom, what can I read if I want to understand more of the commons?”–
Honestly, I don’t think there is else much worth reading. I would read the history of the common law which is in my book list. And I would read my definition of property in toto.
2) –“Who would you consider influential in the Chicago school for the insurer of last resort argument for the state?”–
Becker and Friedman. Becker for method, and Friedman for Solutions, Hayek for integration with law, Coase for institutions. Just go thru the list of famous people from Chicago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics
3) —“And lastly, where can I read more on the proposed propertarian financial/monetary/banking system?”—
I haven’t categorized (tagged) that group of ideas on the site, so it’s spread all over the place. I can’t spend 30 minutes doing a bunch of searches right now but I can think of a few that might be helpful. But understand, this is a very small part of the program:
1) https://propertarianism.com/2016/12/10/whats-your-position-on-ubi-welfare-2-0/
2) ***DE-FINANCIALIZATION:
Definancialization of the Financial System. There is no reason we pay interest on consumer loans (and every reason we pay it on business and industrial loans).
By nationalizing Mastercard, and issuing one every LEGAL AND FULLY INTEGRATED citizen, we can distribute liquidity (increase the money supply) by direct redistribution to the citizenry (in which case our homes would all be paid for because of the last recession), and consumer loans can be provided directly from the treasury.
Furthermore, by professionalizing âbankingâ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPAâs), we can eliminate consumer interest, and cut payment periods in half or to one third. Additionally we make universities carry the zero interest loans on behalf of any student, and to obtain payment as a payroll deduction over a period of no more than ten years.
This combination will mean that after about 15 years, the first time home owner will own his home free and clear, and the universities will no longer be able to offer junk degrees. I wonât go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american peopleâs way of life and destroy the predatory financial, academic, and government sectors. There will be no other way to profit than the Silicon Valley (monarchy) model of investment in research, development, and industry.
Financialism will be destroyed forever.***
4) —“If I understand correctly, youâre proposing 100% reserves under fiat,”—
No, you must publish your ratios at all times, and hold to any ratio whenever a debt was initiated.
You many not transfer originated debt. You can sell interest in that debt but must carry it.
And lastly, given that most consumer lending would be from the treasury and without interest, this would apply largely to commercial relations.
5) —“while having at least two if not more parallel monies, one for savings (probably a gold standard) and one as a means of exchange (fiat e-cash),”—
Multiple monies in general. I think my view is of far more than two.
6) —-With savings and investments happening under private banks while current accounts controlled by central bank). Is that correct?”—-
I see individual agents having relationships with the central bank for consumer credit, and very little need for them, without a bank as an intermediary.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 15:49:59 UTC