Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • “So we do need a government.”– We need a market for the production of commons.

    –“So we do need a government.”–

    We need a market for the production of commons. And we need a legal system. Whether we need government is still unsettled but I would argue ‘no’.

    –“So it could still be privatized society, but we need to apply new laws to promote cooperation, trade, and prevent parasitism.”–

    Correct. One law, natural law, total prohibition on parasitism: physical, verbal, and by externality. A market for the production of commons. And as far as I know there is no ‘government’.

    It is useful to have a state department that foreign nations try to negotiate with.

    But even this is better conducted in public.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-03 13:05:00 UTC

  • Interesting take on crypto-currencies without blockchains that involve a product

    Interesting take on crypto-currencies without blockchains that involve a production of commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-02 13:40:00 UTC

  • The point at which commons FEES transform into TAXES is the point at which a pol

    The point at which commons FEES transform into TAXES is the point at which a politician can employ DISCRETION in their use. #NewRight

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-02 11:08:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/716220825335173120

  • The point at which commons FEES transform into TAXES is the point at which a pol

    The point at which commons FEES transform into TAXES is the point at which a politician can employ DISCRETION in their use. #NewRight

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-02 07:08:00 UTC

  • DEMARCATION: FEES VS TAXES The point at which common fees transform into taxes i

    DEMARCATION: FEES VS TAXES

    The point at which common fees transform into taxes is the point at which a politician can employ discretion in their use.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-02 05:09:00 UTC

  • WE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IGNORANCE AND MYSTICISM IN THE COMMONS Why do we have

    WE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IGNORANCE AND MYSTICISM IN THE COMMONS

    Why do we have the right to ignorance and mysticism (in the commons)?

    –“…the question is unanswerable…”–

    Quite the opposite. The question is answerable either way.

    That one cannot have a right to impose costs upon others.

    You can hold any falsehood you want, any immorality you want, as long as its in your head. But once you bring it into the commons then you are forcing a cost upon others.

    So,

    why does one have the right o act mystically?

    why does one have the right to act ignorantly?

    why does one have the right to act immorally?

    why does one have the right to act unethically?

    why does one have the right to act criminally?

    why does one have the right to act malignantly? (evil)

    You see, when you place ideas on a spectrum of similar ideas it becomes clearer that ignorance, and mysticism are merely increasingly indirect means of exporting costs upon others: another form of crime.

    In the past we have been tolerant of every form of malignant, criminal, unethical, immoral, ignorant, and mystical behaviors.

    But we have incrementally suppressed each form of crime over the generations and it is this suppression of crimes of imposition that have created our ‘domestication of man’. Our prosperity is the result of eliminating criminality as much as eliminating error.

    So again, why does one have the right to ignorance and mysticism any more than the right to immoral, unethical, criminal, and malignant behavior?

    One only possesses that right if others reciprocally grant it.

    That is the origin of all rights: reciprocal insurance.

    Why do we suppress imposition of costs? to force people into beneficial behavior rather than parasitic behavior. And ignorance and mysticism are a cost, and truth and spiritualism are not.

    There is nothing unscientific about spirituality any more than there is anything unscientific about the experience of seeing color in visible light.

    Mysticism is a drug. Ignorance is a form of free riding.

    Drugs are fine in your home. Ignorance is fine in your home.

    Don’t do drugs in public. Don’t speak ignorance in public.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-02 04:28:00 UTC

  • IN PROPERTARIANISM: COMMONS – Originally, meaning Land or resources belonging to

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommonsCOMMONS IN PROPERTARIANISM:

    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, 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 physical property, normative commons, informal and formal institutions. The problem with commons is that without shares, even un-tradable shares, the ownership of the commons cannot be protected from confiscation by various means including immigration, conversion, propaganda, or political confiscation.

    That which we pay for either i) by contribution, or ii) by demonstration, or iii) by refraining from consumption and use.

    Unquantified, non-transferrable, non-monetizable shares in property ‘held in common’.

    a) Physical property: The territory, parks, ”ways” (roads), Water, Air, Resources

    b) Normative Property: manners, ethics, morals

    c) Informal Institutional Property: Rituals, Traditions, Myths, History, ie: Religion.

    d) Formal institutional property: people, organizations, processes, procedures: ie: Law.

    e) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

    HERE IS WIKI’S DISCUSSION

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-02 02:12:00 UTC

  • The moral high ground: If you cannot accept voluntary exchange with us in the pr

    The moral high ground: If you cannot accept voluntary exchange with us in the production of commons we cannot tolerate your existence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-01 09:37:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/715835396362539008

  • It’s predecessor: Houses for the classes constituting a market for the construct

    It’s predecessor: Houses for the classes constituting a market for the construction of commons despite differences.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-01 08:13:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/715814423244513283

    Reply addressees: @Bly_Kalm @ronellepretor

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/715809285712781312

    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/715809285712781312

  • The moral high ground: If you cannot accept voluntary exchange with us in the pr

    The moral high ground: If you cannot accept voluntary exchange with us in the production of commons we cannot tolerate your existence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-01 05:37:00 UTC