Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • I have a few questions if you don’t mind. 1) –“Besides Ostrom, what can I read

    I have a few questions if you don’t 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 ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPA’s), 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 won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s 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, you’re 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 11:49:00 UTC

  • —“I have a few questions if you don’t mind.”—

    —“I have a few questions if you don’t 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://propertarianinstitute.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 ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPA’s), 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 won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s 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, you’re 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.

  • —“I have a few questions if you don’t mind.”—

    —“I have a few questions if you don’t 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://propertarianinstitute.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 ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPA’s), 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 won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s 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, you’re 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.

  • (ad hom) Yes, I attack frauds of all forms. That’s my job. To protect the inform

    (ad hom) Yes, I attack frauds of all forms. That’s my job. To protect the informational commons from ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. You can only say I am wrong. I am saying you are not wrong, but you are a fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 19:28:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017128501214957569

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017124094074994689

    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/1017124094074994689

  • We Will Destroy Them Forever

    We are going to destroy them you know: 1) Reinforce Trademarks, Eliminate Copyrights and Drastically limit patents. 2) Outlaw lying in the commons by involuntary liability and warranty of words. 3) De-financialize the credit system and eliminate consumer interest on consumer capital assets (residences and appliances and autos). 4) Eliminate the transportability (escape) of debt instruments while institutionalize the rights to income from it. 5) Reform shareholder laws to prevent hostile takeovers, and to equalize risk and exit. 6) Restructure taxation rates to reflect risk. Eliminate double taxation of dividends. This will have the effect of destroying nearly all manipulation of the population and all rent seeking. This will be the greatest competitive advantage since the invention of fiat credit. It means that there are no rents that allow you to escape the market – anywhere. Even at scale. Taxes for entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium businesses will nearly disappear. Huge reallocation of intellectual capital. Huge reduction in propaganda. Huge temporary expansion of courts and litigation until enough law accumulates on the books. STARVE THE BEAST.

  • We Will Destroy Them Forever

    We are going to destroy them you know: 1) Reinforce Trademarks, Eliminate Copyrights and Drastically limit patents. 2) Outlaw lying in the commons by involuntary liability and warranty of words. 3) De-financialize the credit system and eliminate consumer interest on consumer capital assets (residences and appliances and autos). 4) Eliminate the transportability (escape) of debt instruments while institutionalize the rights to income from it. 5) Reform shareholder laws to prevent hostile takeovers, and to equalize risk and exit. 6) Restructure taxation rates to reflect risk. Eliminate double taxation of dividends. This will have the effect of destroying nearly all manipulation of the population and all rent seeking. This will be the greatest competitive advantage since the invention of fiat credit. It means that there are no rents that allow you to escape the market – anywhere. Even at scale. Taxes for entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium businesses will nearly disappear. Huge reallocation of intellectual capital. Huge reduction in propaganda. Huge temporary expansion of courts and litigation until enough law accumulates on the books. STARVE THE BEAST.

  • WE WILL DESTROY THEM FOREVER We are going to destroy them you know: 1) Reinforce

    WE WILL DESTROY THEM FOREVER

    We are going to destroy them you know:

    1) Reinforce Trademarks, Eliminate Copyrights and Drastically limit patents.

    2) Outlaw lying in the commons by involuntary liability and warranty of words.

    3) De-financialize the credit system and eliminate consumer interest on consumer capital assets (residences and appliances and autos).

    4) Eliminate the transportability (escape) of debt instruments while institutionalize the rights to income from it.

    5) Reform shareholder laws to prevent hostile takeovers, and to equalize risk and exit.

    6) Restructure taxation rates to reflect risk. Eliminate double taxation of dividends.

    This will have the effect of destroying nearly all manipulation of the population and all rent seeking.

    This will be the greatest competitive advantage since the invention of fiat credit.

    It means that there are no rents that allow you to escape the market – anywhere. Even at scale.

    Taxes for entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium businesses will nearly disappear.

    Huge reallocation of intellectual capital.

    Huge reduction in propaganda.

    Huge temporary expansion of courts and litigation until enough law accumulates on the books.

    STARVE THE BEAST.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 16:35:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. YOU CAN”T SAVE A RESOURCE, ONLY END COMPETITI

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    YOU CAN”T SAVE A RESOURCE, ONLY END COMPETITIVE DEMAND FOR IT

    Broke: using fossil fuels because it’s cheaper than solar

    Woke: using solar because you want to be grid-independent when SHTF and to conserve fossil fuels for intergalactic travel

    Disappointed: when you realize that by not using fossil fuels you are just making it cheaper for your dysgenic competitors to do so, and outbreed you.

    (via steve pender)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 16:06:22 UTC

  • YOU CAN”T SAVE A RESOURCE, ONLY END COMPETITIVE DEMAND FOR IT Broke: using fossi

    YOU CAN”T SAVE A RESOURCE, ONLY END COMPETITIVE DEMAND FOR IT

    Broke: using fossil fuels because it’s cheaper than solar

    Woke: using solar because you want to be grid-independent when SHTF and to conserve fossil fuels for intergalactic travel

    Disappointed: when you realize that by not using fossil fuels you are just making it cheaper for your dysgenic competitors to do so, and outbreed you.

    (via steve pender)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 12:06:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    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. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 21:04:36 UTC