—“…the public education system looks like a commons so poorly tended it has gone feral.”— Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 14:41:00 UTC
—“…the public education system looks like a commons so poorly tended it has gone feral.”— Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 14:41:00 UTC
—“…the public education systems looks like a commons so poorly tended it has gone feral.”— Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 14:41:00 UTC
One of the cures for “IQ Shredding” is to follow the postwar german example, of limiting housing in cities to those for families. So that the benefits of low cost of commons (density) are only available to those who produce generations. This is a very simple alternative.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 12:56:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004346165310185473
Any description of any political system must include a population model, an economic model, a commons producing model. If you can’t state all three of those, then you aren’t stating anything that makes any sense at all.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 13:38:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1003632024068984832
(no, I don’t think of myself as a good person. In my mind a good person is kind, humble, honest, hard working, raises a family and respects or maintains the commons – an ordinary person. The people I envy are ordinary men with ordinary family lives. Because I understand the value of such things even if I am … not on such an ordinary path myself. )
Actually, I don’t think of myself as a good person. Not at all. Probably I just don’t want to be a worse person than I already am. But I screw up like everyone else does. That said, I manage to do some good stuff along the way.
If you are extremely competitive and risk, work, and stress tolerant, you are going to take more risks, and produce more failures than other people do.
If you choose a goal that all other choices are subservient to, you put yourself on a path that is uncompromising, and that will eventually effect others who don’t have such goals.
The moment you survive one or more serious illnesses, you become very intolerant of anything that interferes with that goal, and very intolerant of anything that adds work, risk, or stress.
Almost everything I ‘feel bad’ for, is a consequence of (a) taking on too much risk, work, or stress than I am capable of enduring or, (b) putting my work above all other considerations, and (c) exacerbating that narrowness due to multiple serious illnesses. For these reasons I do not treat other than a very small number of relationships as worthy of much compromise. And so this is a natural conflict one must live with to pursue certain categories of goals.
It’s not that I don’t understand it. It’s that I struggle extremely hard to stop myself. And I almost always fail.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 13:37:00 UTC
Bill Joslin
A model for this could be described as concentric rings of influence, centering on the individual and radiating out into the commons based on which domain one acts as judge-of-last-resort.
Am I judge-of-last-resort for my mind (clarity of intention)
Am I judge-of-last-resort for my body (voluntary intentional action)
Am I judge-of-last-resort for my household (do I direct my domestic life)
Am I judge-of-last-resort for my livelihood (do I direct my means of survival)
Am I judge-of-last-resort which secures (ensures) my property-en-toto
Am I judge-of-last-resort in the intergenerational shared commons (do I direct my place in history)
For each of those questions, if there is another person to which you are beholden then the answer is no.
Everyman a king of his household
Everyman a rifleman
Everyman a sheriff
Everyman a judge
….in opportunity only, secured by demonstrations of ability.
Cult of non-submission – cultivation of autonomy
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 11:41:00 UTC
Any description of any political system must include a population model, an economic model, a commons producing model. If you can’t state all three of those, then you aren’t stating anything that makes any sense at all.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 09:38:00 UTC
—“To put it succinctly, “individual liberty” is an oxymoron. Liberty is a condition that only exists in a commons established and maintained by force, which I guess has become invisible to too many who enjoy its benefits.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 20:49:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002653276741996545
—“To put it succinctly, “individual liberty” is an oxymoron. Liberty is a condition that only exists in a commons established and maintained by force, which I guess has become invisible to too many who enjoy its benefits.”—Dylan Boswell
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:48:00 UTC
5) … and we eventually converge on individual property rights with gains captured and redistributed as commons, just as we see by comparison the convergence on mathematics, and the convergence on scientific ‘grammar’ as a universal language.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:15:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002584334912638979
Reply addressees: @MartialSociety
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752
IN REPLY TO:
@MartialSociety
@curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752