Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • Ostrom identified eight “design principles” of stable local common pool resource

    Ostrom identified eight “design principles” of stable local common pool resource management:

    1. Clearly defined (clear definition of the contents of the common pool resource and effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);

    2. The appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;

    3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;

    4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;

    5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;

    6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;

    7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; and

    8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.

    via Oliver Westcott

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 20:47:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS PER SE There is only a tragedy of the politic

    THERE IS NO TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS PER SE

    There is only a tragedy of the politically managed commons, but there is no tragedy of the privately managed commons.

    Read Ostrom and stop using that term when you don’t understand it. A government commons is abused, a private one is not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 20:12:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians ge

    LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS.

    (from elsewhere)

    Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day.

    If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish.

    The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes.

    To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers.

    Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay.

    This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism).

    (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.)

    Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it.

    The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment.

    As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations.

    Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it.

    There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 07:04:00 UTC

  • PLEASE DEFINE “COMMONS”— COMMONS – Originally, meaning Land or resources belon

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/—“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE “COMMONS”—

    COMMONS – Originally, meaning Land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. More articulately: any form of property to which members of a group share an interests, because of bearing a cost to obtain that interest, but where that interest is obtained by an unspecified membership in the group rather than by explicit possession of title. I use this term to refer to both physical commons, normative commons, institutional commons, and informational commons. The problem we face with commons is that without explicitly issued shares, even un-tradable shares, the ownership of the commons cannot be protected from confiscation by various means including immigration, or political confiscation.

    See Also

    DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/27/property-rights-and-obligations/

    A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/

    A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/

    (Honestly people, the accusation that this isn’t accessible is simply untrue. It isn’t in COURSE form, but all the insights are there to consume as fairly simple series (lists). The ‘book’ is up there. The courses are not. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 21:40:00 UTC

  • ***We only possess rule of law if in the production of commons we produce a mark

    ***We only possess rule of law if in the production of commons we produce a market, that we select them from, not a monopoly, that we are subject to.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 12:46:00 UTC

  • GOVERNMENTS AS A HIERARCHY OF PRODUCERS OF COMMONS – WHERE PEOPLE POSSESS COMMON

    GOVERNMENTS AS A HIERARCHY OF PRODUCERS OF COMMONS – WHERE PEOPLE POSSESS COMMON INTERESTS ONLY

    —“My question is how can government peruse multiple solutions while remaining expedient instead of the “one size fits all” solutions that seem to only cause more conflict.”—

    You can pursue many commons, you cannot pursue multiple norms (cultures).

    You can form i) a federal government that provides only the functions of insurer of last resort, ii) a regional government that provides only infrastructure commons, and iii) a local government that provides normative commons. And lastly, iv) a family that provides what is necessary to the particular circumstance.

    People need what they need to compete.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 12:36:00 UTC

  • LOOK AT WHAT OUR PEOPLE CAN DO!!!! —“Sovereign men make a market for commons p

    LOOK AT WHAT OUR PEOPLE CAN DO!!!!

    —“Sovereign men make a market for commons possible by enforcing natural law. They allow non-sovereign men (i.e. those men that can’t pay the cost of insuring other sovereigns) to participate in the market for goods and commons, as long as they (non-sovereigns) limit their transactions to productive, fully warrantied, reciprocal transfers that produce no negative externalities. We call this allowance LIBERTY. It is made possible by the construction of the commons we call RULE OF LAW, which is paid for by the federated sovereigns, i.e. militia, judges, and the insurer of last resort: king.”— A Sock.

    Can you imagine that argument three years ago? whoo hooo!!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-16 16:08:00 UTC

  • “Another of the main aspects of Propertarianism which Libertarianism usually doe

    —“Another of the main aspects of Propertarianism which Libertarianism usually does not recognize properly is commons.

    They accept humans own themselves, but don’t consider the ramifications of confederation.

    Relationships own themselves. Families own themselves. Communities own themselves. Society owns itself.

    To gain the benefits of economic cooperation and peaceful coexistence we must create the social acceptance of, and trust in, property rights. Cooperative society emerges from this common investment.

    Libertarians see themselves as entitled to these conditions of peaceful coexistence from which economic cooperation may emerge, but these things come at a price, and if they refuse to pay their share they seek to gain the common property of liberty by parasitic theft.”—Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 09:16:00 UTC

  • NATIONALISM FOR ALL PEOPLES: WE CAN ALL TRANSCEND IF WE CAN CREATE COMMONS NEEDE

    NATIONALISM FOR ALL PEOPLES: WE CAN ALL TRANSCEND IF WE CAN CREATE COMMONS NEEDED FOR OUR FAMILIES, CLANS, TRIBES, AND NATION.

    Monopoly government prevents the specialization of the development of commons to serve the needs of the group without creating antagonism by parasitic dependence upon other groups.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 09:09:00 UTC

  • no. malincentives. Can’t happen. Sorry. Rule of law, markets for commons

    no. malincentives. Can’t happen. Sorry. Rule of law, markets for commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 02:39:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829882527468941313

    Reply addressees: @DJ_NOW

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829872132565848064

    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/829872132565848064