Theme: Commons

  • Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urban

    Exactly.

    People actually are pretty stupid.

    The other related concept that urbanites don’t account for is HOW MUCH COMMONS the people in the suburbs, and rural areas are maintaining and defending with how few resources.

    Versus how LITTLE IF ANY commons an urbanite is, like a child living under his or her parents, responsible for maintaining and defending.

    Versus how high opportunity costs are in low population density versus how low opportunity costs are in high population density.

    If we are going to progressively tax anyone, we ought to tax people by population density AND income so that we equally pay for the commons we protect.

    Urbanites think like, vote like, and act like children. Because for all intents and purposes they have the same level of responsibility for the commons as do children living under their parents.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-17 14:10:00 UTC

  • Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urban

    Exactly. People actually are pretty stupid. The other related concept that urbanites don’t account for is HOW MUCH COMMONS the people in the suburbs, and rural areas are maintaining and defending with how few resources. Versus how LITTLE IF ANY commons an urbanite is, like a child living under his or her parents, responsible for maintaining and defending. Versus how high opportunity costs are in low population density versus how low opportunity costs are in high population density. If we are going to progressively tax anyone, we ought to tax people by population density AND income so that we equally pay for the commons we protect. Urbanites think like, vote like, and act like children. Because for all intents and purposes they have the same level of responsibility for the commons as do children living under their parents.
  • How Could The Libertarian Party Become The Replacement For The Democratic Party?

    it’s impossible. The reason being that libertarian (a prohibition on normative and formal commons) is antithetical to both left and right.

    https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-Libertarian-Party-become-the-replacement-for-the-Democratic-Party

  • How Could The Libertarian Party Become The Replacement For The Democratic Party?

    it’s impossible. The reason being that libertarian (a prohibition on normative and formal commons) is antithetical to both left and right.

    https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-Libertarian-Party-become-the-replacement-for-the-Democratic-Party

  • Let me help you. Politics is just the art of justification for creating a monopo

    Let me help you. Politics is just the art of justification for creating a monopoly for the circumvention of markets of the commons. All politics is for the purpose of theft and deception.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-15 10:07:00 UTC

  • 4- that said, why do we use MONOPOLY democracy, rather than MARKETS FOR COMMONS?

    4- that said, why do we use MONOPOLY democracy, rather than MARKETS FOR COMMONS? Why should you have what you want and others not have what they want? Why is a democratic MONOPOLY necessary? What would a market for the production of commons look like?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-12 16:00:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951846402883293184

    Reply addressees: @Mr_Cain_Thaler

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951843959827062784


    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/951843959827062784

  • 1 – Markets (people) exploit opportunities that tend toward disequilibrium as th

    1 – Markets (people) exploit opportunities that tend toward disequilibrium as the opportunity is exhausted and thought, time, energy, and capital flow to exploit the next. Markets calculate the optimum use of all resources ASSUMING natural law is pursuable in the courts.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-12 15:55:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951844985678245889

    Reply addressees: @Mr_Cain_Thaler

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951843959827062784


    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/951843959827062784

  • OSTROM’S ARGUMENT IS ‘MISREPRESENTED’ LIKE EVERYTHING ON THE LEFT. (important)(c

    OSTROM’S ARGUMENT IS ‘MISREPRESENTED’ LIKE EVERYTHING ON THE LEFT.

    (important)(common property)(property rights)

    (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.)

    —-”**How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—**

    Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR.

    **Ostrom’s argument**, is that:

    1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘**private corporations**’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title.

    2 – **States create the tragedy of the commons** when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset.

    3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely **INSURE all forms of property** (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind.

    In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability,

    OSTROM’S RULES (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS

    2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules. *

    ****[ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].***

    1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined.

    ** *****[‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]***

    1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment.

    ***[‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]***

    2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions.

    ***[‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]****

    *

    3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

    ***[‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]***

    4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users.

    4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource.

    ***[‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]***

    5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.

    ***[‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]***

    6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.

    7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

    ***[‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]***

    8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

    ***[Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]***

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-01 21:49:00 UTC

  • Ostrom’s Argument Is ‘Misrepresented’ Like Everything On The Left.

    (important)(common property)(property rights) (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.) —-”**How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—** Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR. **Ostrom’s argument**, is that: 1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘**private corporations**’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title. 2 – **States create the tragedy of the commons** when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset. 3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely **INSURE all forms of property** (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind. In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability, OSTROM’S RULES (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS 2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules. * ****[ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].*** 1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined. ** *****[‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]*** 1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment. ***[‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]*** 2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions. ***[‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]**** * 3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules. ***[‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]*** 4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users. 4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource. ***[‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]*** 5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both. ***[‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]*** 6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials. 7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities. ***[‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]*** 8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises. ***[Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]*** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • Ostrom’s Argument Is ‘Misrepresented’ Like Everything On The Left.

    (important)(common property)(property rights) (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.) —-”**How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—** Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR. **Ostrom’s argument**, is that: 1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘**private corporations**’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title. 2 – **States create the tragedy of the commons** when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset. 3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely **INSURE all forms of property** (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind. In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability, OSTROM’S RULES (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS 2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules. * ****[ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].*** 1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined. ** *****[‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]*** 1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment. ***[‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]*** 2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions. ***[‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]**** * 3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules. ***[‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]*** 4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users. 4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource. ***[‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]*** 5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both. ***[‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]*** 6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials. 7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities. ***[‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]*** 8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises. ***[Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]*** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine