Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • NOVEL TAKE. MMA. by Nicholas Arthur Catton The power of a commons that demands (

    NOVEL TAKE. MMA.

    by Nicholas Arthur Catton

    The power of a commons that demands (even culturally) you deflate your claims is in capitalising on masculine intuition to protect the tribe. It naturally filters hierarchically while maintaining incentivises for betterment.

    All men are not equal in their ability to fight but taught the language of violence all men can tell a the difference between those who walk the walk and those simply talk, dance and posture. This is what you learn on Curt’s wall. The era of via-positiva conflation is over.

    ***MMA has deflated the debate of which martial art is the best in the common court of the cage and demonstrated in a matter of years that basically every martial arts ‘master’ was full of shit when it came to violence.***

    The same applies here. Most masters are full of shit when it comes to truth. If your opponent won’t grapple with you on the mat of deflated terms they’re you’re inferior despite all their inflated positiva verbiage they’re throwing around (posturing).

    Teach all men to grapple and the rest falls into place. Natural hierarchies are built according to the fundamentals and everyone who is playing honestly advances.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 17:51:00 UTC

  • Who will give up the life of an urban(commons) social democracy for a rural (pri

    Who will give up the life of an urban(commons) social democracy for a rural (private) anarchy? Who has that incentive? What will occur?

    Are you saying manorialism (a market that is capable of being ruled by an individual who makes discretionary choice over the production of capital and institutional investments is best, as long as such an individual market produces sufficient returns to defend such a market.) (iow: a plantation or manor)

    Are you saying a city state (a market that is capable of being run by a collection of individual owners of manors) who make discretionary choices over the production of commons? ( iow: a mall or market town).

    Are you saying a monarchic territory containing at least one if not more urban(commons) markets, where manors (plantations) and oligarchies (corporations), are collectively defended and differences adjudicated by a judge/general of last resort? Where some commons are produced at the manor, city-market, or monarchic-territory level?

    Are you saying an Empire containing many monarchic territories, that provide univorm laws between monarchies, resolve differences between monarchies, and provide defense of all monarchies, (or at least provide the best equipped and largest force) that prevents defectin of any monarchies to escape

    As far as I know, these are only questions of scale of population, scale of productivity, scale of territory, and the discounted cost of pooling resources (Taxes) to pay for (a) consistent internal rules that allow the organization of patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, and (b) adjudication (including forcible) of conflicts between manors, city-markets, and regions; and (c) defense of all of the above – at a profound discount.

    In general, life is cheaper the farther you get from the market. When you get to a borderland you can engage in ‘unpleasant’ activities in exchange for holding territory that no ‘better’ ruler can afford to or desires to administer. And by your occupying that territory in the name of that ‘better’ ruler, you are homesteading it on his behalf. And as such, others are denied access to that borderland without provoking your warfare, and thereby risking the loss of their territories as a consequence.

    The best freedom of choice is available at the farthest distance from value. This is why people all compromise. Some borderland, some rural, some suburban, some urban ring (ghettos), and some urban core (Elites). Cities are plantations.

    What is the difference between {empire, monarchy, city-state, manor, freeman, serf, slave, and barbarian}, AND {Federal government, state, urban city, rural town, middle class, working and laboring class, soldier and underclass?}

    The difference is corporate decidability rather than private decidability. Yes. But that is only possible because the difference beneath that is discretionary rule (arbitrary law), not algorithmic rule (natural law).

    When all men have universal standing in matters of the commons they cannot be ‘taxed’ for what they do not ‘use’. yet others who WANT to produce commons cannot be PREVENTED from producing them as long as they impose no cost on the investments of others.

    However, no one can escape all costs.

    Having failed to solve the problem of politics the libertarians threw the baby of the commons out with the bathwater of discretion.

    Truth is only discovered through competition between the market and the law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 11:08:00 UTC

  • “All anarchism involves accepting costs (e.g. the cost of rampant immorality or

    —“All anarchism involves accepting costs (e.g. the cost of rampant immorality or non-contributing to commons) in the hopes that there will be benefits to compensate. Ancaps sometimes posit that increased productivity from economic liberty will help offset difficulties from collective action problems in providing defense or the cost of defending free riders, etc… But this is nonsense because ancaps can’t even generate economic productivity because they can’t maintain trust or control transaction costs because they don’t even attempt to constrain parasitism, fraud, or freeriding. So you end up paying costs to get, more costs…”—Ely Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 07:40:00 UTC

  • THE EXPLANATION OF DEFLATIONARY GOVERNMENT By Bill Joslin If we deconflate commo

    THE EXPLANATION OF DEFLATIONARY GOVERNMENT

    By Bill Joslin

    If we deconflate commons management from law (remove rule by legislation – remove the use of the Monopoly on force backing legislation) – and return to pure Nomocracy, there would be no use for voting.

    Judicial supremacy accountable to a a judge of last resort (governor general) and deflate legislation to nothing more than a management team held accountable to law. Here are the rules here is the budget, get to work.

    Those management teams could be elected, but I don’t know why, they should be hired- literal employees. They don’t pass laws, they administer budgets and negotiate deals.

    Because of conflation between church (social conformity – social conservation) and state (monarchs which enforced church law) our governments believe they are in the business of social engineering.

    With conflation of commons management and law, our politicians sell the power of law (cartel protections) and the commons.

    Combined with the presumed ‘right’ to social engineering, democracy functions as a means to manufacture consensus in selling these products… The tendency then is to engineer society toward support for these corruptions either toward consumption (the left) or exploitation (libertarians).

    Culture and social change are natural forces – human nature expressed. Trying to control nature results in supressive and oppression. Culture changes constantly – let it, let nature takes its course but provide constraints.

    Society and culture provides the enriched society needed for the development of the individual – the development of agency in a human.

    By grounding law in creation and preservation of agency, rule of law provides the proper constraints to preserve the enriched environment.

    It’s simply this.

    ***No imposition on autonomy in all forms.***

    Impositions on culture and society which interfere with the development of agency of the polis would be against the law.

    Undue constraints on culture (Puritanism) would constitute damages to those conditions and thus against the law.

    Pomo assaults on reason and identity would pose damages against those conditions and thus against the law.

    This allows optimal social adaptability and cohesion simultaneously.

    ***Property in toto does not capture this intangible – no imposition on agency in all its forms (property in toto included) does.***

    One law – many resolutions – no need to write laws ever.

    Patriotism (ownership incentive) becomes a necessary pillar in the conditions for developing agency in the polis as it stands as the appreciation and protection for the conditions as a whole.

    -Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 11:15:00 UTC

  • SERIOUS QUESTION: ADVERTISING If all advertising disappeared from the “interrupt

    SERIOUS QUESTION: ADVERTISING

    If all advertising disappeared from the “interruption” commons, including the postal service, vehicles, billboards, television, radio, youtube, email and facebook, and all you had was yellow pages, google (seek-advertising), store signage, in-store advertising. What would change? How would you change? How would business and industry change? How would entertainment change? How would marketing and advertising change? How would society change?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 11:46:00 UTC

  • 6) But Rothbardianism is merely Marxism for the middle class (jewish separatism)

    6) But Rothbardianism is merely Marxism for the middle class (jewish separatism) in an attempt to justify parasitism on others’ commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:13:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882905240290328576

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    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/882819237009649664

  • 5) Ergo the problem of the production of commons under the preservation of liber

    5) Ergo the problem of the production of commons under the preservation of liberty can be solved.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:12:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882904959364341760

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    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/882819237009649664

  • 3) The challenge for liberty is scale since production multiplicative competitiv

    3) The challenge for liberty is scale since production multiplicative competitive commons is the penultimate competitive advantage.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:08:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882904149205147648

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    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/882819237009649664

  • 1) Any national militia, with distributed econ. production, under the common law

    1) Any national militia, with distributed econ. production, under the common law of torts, w/ independent judiciary, will produce ‘liberty’.

    2) The discourse on liberty is byproduct of religion (belief), whereas all existential liberty is byproduct of rule of natural common law.

    3) The challenge for liberty is scale since production of multiplicative competitive commons is the penultimate competitive advantage.

    4) The mistake in english parliament was majority discretionary assent, vs minority legal dissent – overriding common law. (We can fix this)

    5) Ergo the problem of the production of commons under the preservation of liberty can be solved.

    6) But Rothbardianism is merely Marxism for the middle class (jewish separatism) in an attempt to justify parasitism on others’ commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 06:15:00 UTC

  • OBJECTIVISM, LIKE LIBERTARIANISM, IS MERELY MARXISM FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS: PARASI

    OBJECTIVISM, LIKE LIBERTARIANISM, IS MERELY MARXISM FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS: PARASITISM UPON THE COMMONS.

    All, ( h/t: Reece Edward Haynes )

    Um. I will crush a lot of egos and expose a lot of malinvestments if I say that objectivism provides us with moral justification to be skeptical of demands for contributions to the commons. Particularly “positive demands” in payment for “positive freedoms.” In other words “violations of reciprocity, masquerading as demands for reciprocity, by casting preferences or goods as necessities. (You might have to read that a few times before it sinks in.)

    But just like the NAP is a half truth, Objectivism is a half truth. Meaning, how do we demarcate the between productive reciprocity (trades), free riding, parasitism, and theft?

    You see, this is why there are no advanced literatures on Libertarianism, and why libertarianism was intellectually abandoned.

    You can’t control what others will retaliate against you for (the definition of property), and you can’t control when you are free riding on the investments of the commons by others (except to leave the area).

    So it is one thing to say ‘I wish control over my life’ and another to say ‘Here are the limits to the control I have over my life’. Those limits are products of human nature (retaliation against investments in obtaining an interest) or products of consequence (I can no longer remain in this polity without benefitting from the construction of said commons.)

    Crusoe’s Island is, like all of marxism, an elaborate deception. And like the border-regions where states have little influence, or like the ghetto that obtains permission to use its own customary laws internally, Crusoe’s island is surrounded by water that serves as the walls around the ghetto or the borders of neighboring states. Instead, the problem of ethics is not one of choice, but that given an territory normally distributed with other people, how do I cooperate with others so that I have the maximum choice possible given that humans are super-predators, and will only cooperate if it is more beneficial than killing you or enslaving you and taking your things. The answer is total non-parasitism. Not just the parasitism I choose to avoid. But total non parasitism, even if my parasitism is created by my benefit by externality.

    The question is not one of preferential philosophy. It is not one of optimum ethics. It is not something that requires belief. And it isn’t the product of rationalization. It’s a very simple empirical question: what will people not retaliate against me for? What commons do I need to pay for to not force these people to retaliate against me for not paying? How can I create enough economic and social incentives to create an alternative polity if this one is unsuitable? Am I better off in this commons or another?

    Libertarianism was a failed experiment in converting the cult of jewish separatism evolved among pastoral people who never developed the ability to hold territory and the required ethical code of land holders: either a professional warrior caste and the tax structure to fund them, or a universal militia that is self funded and risks personal life and property.

    Just as marxism was a failed experiment in universalizing ingroup equalitarianism, so was Libertarianism. In other words, marxism consists of justifying parasitism upon direct production, and libertarianism consists of justifying parasitism upon the commons – which is, as much as private property, the unique feature of western civilization: we produce high trust as our most valuable common. And that trust is created not only by prohibition on the parasitism upon private production, but by the parasitism upon commons production. So libertarianism is just a middle class application of marxism.

    Objectivism ( skepticism ) as a means of questioning (in the Nietzschean sense) whether moral demands were created in pursuit of positive freedom (parasitism), or demands for dysgenic reproduction (parasitism), or demands for institutionalize rents (parasitism), or malinvestments in a commons that would not produce returns only produce additional rents for some sector (parasitism) – it’s a purely empirical question.

    But like all (“bullshit”) claims that operating by general rules (deontological ethics / rule ethics / black and white decisions so to speak) obviates you from performing the work of investigating whether you are the victim of free riding, rather than a free rider. And I have never, ever, seen any such ethical claim that was other than an attempt to justify free riding under the pretense of moral principle.

    Never.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 12:49:00 UTC