Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • JOURNALISM IS EASILY REPAIRABLE The craft of Journalism is easily repairable: Re

    JOURNALISM IS EASILY REPAIRABLE

    The craft of Journalism is easily repairable: Restore Defamation, Libel, Slander, and the requirement for Truthful Speech in matters of the commons that the ‘press’ worked so diligently to eliminate from the common law. If one is accountable for one’s words, just as doctors are for theirs, lawyers are for theirs, CPA’s are for theirs, and CEO’s are for theirs, then perhaps ‘journalism’ will cease meaning ‘propaganda that provides opportunity for selling advertising’. Because that’s all it means today.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 07:47:00 UTC

  • LIBRARY AS THE REMAINING UNIVERSAL SACRED COMMONS? I understand now. A library i

    LIBRARY AS THE REMAINING UNIVERSAL SACRED COMMONS?

    I understand now. A library is the last sacred place in the commons. That is why we fund them so generously. Because, when judged by their content, they are nothing more than expensive book clubs for the underemployed.

    This isn’t so much a criticism of the over-investment in libraries nationwide. But that man demonstrates a consistent willingness over millennia to invest in sacred commons: a place where we may not speak, may not advocate, may not engage in commerce, may not compete. but merely rest in peace.

    Why is it then that we cannot simply return to the era when parks were sacred places? Surely we can have some parks sacred and some parks for play?

    I used to go to the (rather luxurious 19th century) graveyard. Graveyards still are a bit sacred. So how many sacred places do we have? is that why we hide in our homes? No sacred places in the commons? They have all been commercialized?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 15:48:00 UTC

  • I am not fond of regulations that create black-markets. I’m fond of preventing v

    I am not fond of regulations that create black-markets. I’m fond of preventing visibility in the commons. if distributing drugs is legal but a hand-craft industry between individuals, and there is no externality produced by it then that’s one thing. But what one must understand is that there is a difference between a vacation, medication, and mental-exit. We can all tolerate vacations (celebrations), and some of us need frequent medications. But if at any point one is exiting the use of reason, then one is exiting the constract of cooperation. And if you exit the contract of cooperation by forgoing reason, and you cause externalities, you have returned to animal state, and like any animal you are merely a pest that needs to be exterminated.

    In my opinion, this is the correct method of addressing the problem of drugs (and ideas) that affect one’s reason (and pleasure sensors).

    if you are human, and can participate in reciprocity then you are a candidate for cooperation, and not a burden on others. Otherwise you’re just an animal that may at times be capable of cooperation, and other times not. And as an animal rather than a human you can easily be exterminated like any other pest.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 13:58:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a pri

    QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a private space vs in a public space?

    (hints: 1-contractual commons. 2-via negativa. 3-trades)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:26:00 UTC

  • THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY. (important concept) (minor discussi

    http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmonsITS THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY.

    (important concept) (minor discussion of big box retailer phenom.)

    Philip Saunders : —“Read “Governing the Commons” by Elinor Ostrom. Very good explanation of the logical/game theoretic issues around managing common pool resources. Also refutes Garett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” argument.”—

    8 Principles for Managing a Commons

    1. Define clear group boundaries.

    2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

    3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

    4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

    5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

    6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

    7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

    8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

    In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR), also called a common property resource, is a type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system (e.g. an irrigation system or fishing grounds), whose size or characteristics makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.

    Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource (e.g. water or fish), which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.

    The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a scenario in which commonly held land is inevitably degraded because everyone in a community is allowed to graze livestock there.

    This parable was popularized by wildlife biologist Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s, and was embraced as a principle by the emerging environmental movement.

    But Ostrom’s research refutes this abstract concept once-and-for-all with the real life experience from places like Nepal, Kenya and Guatemala.

    “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behavior,” she cites as an example. “It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.”

    (Garrett Hardin himself later revised his own view, noting that what he described was actually the Tragedy of the

    Unmanaged Commons.)

    Hardin explicitly stated that we should exorcise the “dominant tendency of thought that has… interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society” (Hardin, 1968). The Tragedy of the Commons argument

    was a reaction against – not for – the contemporary laissez-faire interpretation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the marketplace”!

    —-

    CURT’S EXPANSION ON THE MATTER:

    ie: proposing the choice of anarchic commons vs private property is just another a deception by framing: a false dichotomy.

    The problem is created when the shareholder agreement is unenforcible, or because no shareholder agreement is in place, or (which Ostrom Does Not Address) when credit (or fiat money) can be used to sufficiently compensate the existing users (shareholders) so that they will permit exhaustion of the resource under their management.

    This last example is what the ‘big box retailer’ phenomenon does that local communities object to. By destroying the local micro-economy, then growing until they bust the big box retailer created fragility to which the local economy could not recover.

    This scenario violates the natural law requirement that one cannot take any action that in the event of one’s failure, one cannot perform restitution for. If that were the case, all ‘ugly commercial architecture’ would have to be insured such that in the event of a collapse it was returned to natural state (clean land).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:55:00 UTC

  • THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (thinking) One of the issues I wrestle with is the poi

    THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (thinking)

    One of the issues I wrestle with is the point of demarcation. It’s clear that:

    (a) political speech (in any forum), is different from

    (b) commercial public speech (via media), from

    (c) public speech (via media), from

    (d) interpersonal speech (people you don’t know), from

    (e) private speech (people you know), from

    (f) home speech (family members), from

    (g) mental ‘speech’ (the self).

    And it’s clear that human beings need:

    (a) to vent frustrations

    (b) to test ideas

    (c) to seek allies in cooperation.

    And it’s clear that there is a difference between the form of communication:

    (a) A question: ‘What’s wrong with (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (b) A criticism: ‘I wish we could (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (c) An assertion: ‘it’s moral/right/good if we (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (d) An act of conspiracy: “Who will, or will you (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (e) An act of treason: “I propose(submit) that we legislate (insert immoral concept here)!” (or confirming it)

    But what is the point of demarcation in the audience?

    (a) It’s reasonably clear that home and mental speech are not in a commons.

    (b) It’s arguable that private speech is not in a commons.

    (c) It’s arguable that interpersonal speech is not in a commons.

    (d) it’s inarguable that public speech is not in a commons.

    And what is the point of demarcation in the form of communication?

    (a) It’s reasonably clear that a question and a criticism are not in advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons).

    (b) it’s reasonably clear that assertions, conspiracy and treason are in fact advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons)

    And it’s also pretty clear when someone is trying to circumvent those two tests of demarcation by “art and artifice”.

    It would seem PRUDENT to consider:

    (a) use of the government (any use of institutions)

    as treason.

    (b) use of the media (any form of publication)

    (c) commercial use (any form of for profit activity)

    as felonies, and

    (d) interpersonal human error, passions, etc

    as misdemeanors.

    We can easily test for due diligence (although this would take me a while)

    (a) definitions

    (b) whereas (initial state)

    (c) positiva (assertion, claim, desire)

    (d) negativa (survival from testimonial criticism)

    …..categorical

    …..logical

    …..empirical

    …..operational (existential)

    …..moral (reciprocal)

    …..scope (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

    (e) therefore (remedy)

    (f) yields (subsequent state) morally.

    The practice of law does this already but lacks the One Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) that preserves Sovereignty, that we call Natural Law. And current law fails to require positiva (complete arguments rather than simple prohibitions).

    And just as in law and every other discipline, conventions readily develop that we use as shorthand for the longer form.

    Very few of us know the law. We know only that we must not impose costs upon others without government (legislative) license to do so. And we have no current means of appeal against legilsative license – although the great lie that the ballot box can alter these conditions persists it’s empirically nonsensical. We vote by sentiment. Representation forces us to.

    Natural Law is Simple Law.

    So, the more difficult challenge is restructuring government into an insurer of last resort ONLY, eliminating all legislation, and allowing only contracts to be constructed either by direct action or representative assemblies.

    So as far as I know this is a sufficient test of the circumstantial limitations on damaging the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 10:21:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin) In

    NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin)

    In the end, any moral commons is possible, while no immoral commons is possible. This allows for competing moral commons but denies competition from immoral commons.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution except where there is evidence of conspiracy to prevent prosecution.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution of crimes against the informational commons when all citizens are interested parties and can prosecute violations of the informational commons – or prosecute attempts to prevent truth from entering the informational commons.

    Islam would not survive, some of the ‘pseudo-arts’ would not survive, just as pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-science would not survive.

    Conversely can you imagine the INDIRECT education this would provide to people in the same way that scientific reasoning has indirectly produced the Flynn effect (along with reducing the number of the low end outliers)?

    Imagine a world where disinformation and deception are readily eliminated from the public discourse. How would that effect private discourse?

    one does not need a positiva program. we need only a negativa program. every person on earth will then work to produce a host of positiva programs.

    Most of philosophical history, as most of religious history, has been attempting to develop positivia programs. And they all result in stagnation.

    Meanwhile the west incrementally evolves the common law and we invent philosophies and ideologies and narratives in each generation.

    By a monopoly negativa of the Natural, empirical, judge discovered, common law, we create the possibility of a market in everything – including information.

    But just as we have deprived people of murder, then harm, then theft, then fraud, then conspiracy, we can deprive people of disinformation and suggestion – an extension of interpersonal fraud by the use of media.

    —“^^ okay. So now… if the rights and privileges afford police (to arrest and detain) and judges (to decide resolution) is extended to the whole populace (and incomplete terms but will leave for the moment) then anyone can enforce the law – the larger the market the less likely the market can be used for abuse. Every man and judge, every man an enforcer, every man a gaurd. One natural law makes this possible as the burden to fully understand it does not have tlnearly the same costs as a law degree today”—Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:03:00 UTC

  • MIXED AND UNMIXED ECONOMIES? 0) lets look at these terms: COMMUNISM: unorganized

    MIXED AND UNMIXED ECONOMIES?

    0) lets look at these terms:

    COMMUNISM: unorganized equalitarian production of private and commons. Collective ownership of the means of production.

    (PARASITISM UPON THE INDIVIDUAL)

    SOCIALISM: state (involuntary) organization of production. State ownerhship of the means of production. state ownership of the proceeds of production. state distribution of the proceeds of production to common or private ends.

    (INVOLUNTARY COMMONS)

    SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: state organization of some part of production. State ownership of the MEANS of production, state ownership of the PROCEEDS of production. Individual retains COMMISSION on his production for his private consumption, the remainder is held by the state for the production of commons.

    (COMPETITION FOR PRIVATE AND COMMONS)

    CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: individual ownership of the means of production, individual ownership of the proceeds of production. The voluntary organization of production. individuals contribute to the production of commons by majority assent.

    (VOLUNTARY COMMONS)

    CAPITALISM (market anarchism). Individual ownership of the means of production, individual ownership of the proceeds of production, the voluntary organization of production, and the private construction of common goods.

    (PARASITISM UPON THE COMMONS)

    1) EXTREMES FAIL

    Neither socialism nor capitalism is possible. Hence neither exists.

    2) MONOPOLIES FAIL:

    Instead we develop mixed economies.

    Social democracy (mixed economies) are the constant throughout history. At present the mainstream seeks to identify the maximum taxation possible without disincentivizing production. This appears to be dependent upon the homogeneity of the population.

    3) MIXED WORK, BUT MORE MIXING IS BETTER

    We appear to need a different economic model for each CLASS.

    … Lets look at the hierarchy of labor:

    – barbarian (outside the system – person is candidate or enemy)

    – prisoner (owner bears risk but person is disposable)

    – slave/soldiery (owner bears risk – person is tradable/releasable)

    – serf (split cost of risk) (supported by own production)

    – employee (full cost of risk) (supported by production returns)

    – professional (burgher) (supported by trade returns)

    – capitalist (landowner) (supported by management returns)

    – statist (aristocracy) (supported by proceeds of taxation)

    – warriors (aristocracy) (supported by proceeds of conquest)

    So we do not have ENOUGH of a mixed economy.

    We have no slavery, too small a military, no regiments, too small a disaster releif organization, no commons- maintenance organizations, too few syndicates and unions, and no monasteries or nunneries, and the academy functions as the only monastery. Yet we have a bloated financial sector that is clearly parasitic.

    Why? Because we allowed collective bargaining, and parasitic private and public contracts to award pensions we could not afford at our rates of inflation.

    We have created the worst possible mix of large homes and small expensive urban apartments, rather than large family apartments in large numbers in urban areas.

    We have created an empire with constant political conflict in order to gain mobility, rather than a collection of small homogenous states with constant political satisfaction of local demands, at the expense of mobility. However, that mobility is the reason for the decline of social order and the fmaily and care for the commons, and our culture itself.

    Economists are even WORSE idiots than theologians.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 13:03:00 UTC

  • Sequence: Criteria for Membership

    If you respect life, limb, property, commons, norm, and law, you obtain the insurance of juridical defense: rule of law. If you produce income, pay taxes, you gain access to membership in the Jury. If you acquire property, you marry, and you have children, you gain access to membership in the house of common people. If you Own a business,employ > 50 people,or manage an enterprise, and employ > 1000 people, you gain access to membership in the H. of Commerce. If you govern a state you gain access to membership to the House of Lords (Territories). If you demonstrate none of these, you possess juridical defense, but no influence against your peers, since voting is violence.

  • Sequence: Criteria for Membership

    If you respect life, limb, property, commons, norm, and law, you obtain the insurance of juridical defense: rule of law. If you produce income, pay taxes, you gain access to membership in the Jury. If you acquire property, you marry, and you have children, you gain access to membership in the house of common people. If you Own a business,employ > 50 people,or manage an enterprise, and employ > 1000 people, you gain access to membership in the H. of Commerce. If you govern a state you gain access to membership to the House of Lords (Territories). If you demonstrate none of these, you possess juridical defense, but no influence against your peers, since voting is violence.