Love is part of our movement.
We must teach men to love one another again.
Because with love we speak the truth, build trust, build commons.
“I love you man” is the best signal I know how to send.
The best bond I know how to build.
The best promise I know how to make.
The best loyalty I know how to maintain.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 17:22:00 UTC
[I]’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.*** A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer. And much more. Rothbardianism is just parasitism. If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.
[I]’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.*** A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer. And much more. Rothbardianism is just parasitism. If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.
ROTHBARDIANS ARE TO THE COMMONS AS SOCIALISTS ARE TO PRODUCTION
***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.***
A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action.
Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language.
Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government.
Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer.
And much more.
Rothbardianism is just parasitism.
If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:39:00 UTC
A POLITY CANNOT SURVIVE COMPETITION WITHOUT COMMONS
Anarchic polities don’t exist for two reasons: (a) they cannot obtain or defend territory, and (b) they cannot create sufficient commons to attract investment (people).
How would an anarchic polity come to evolve and persist in competition with social democracy, state capitalist, or classical liberal governments?
Anarcho-capitalism was a productive research program, but a condition of anarchy is uncompetitive and cannot survive competition from either Nomocratic (classical liberal middle class), social democratic(representative and working class), or state capitalist(command and peasant class) methods of government.
I only work with what I can find a method to construct. Meaning, that an idea is meaningless unless I see an institutional means of constructing it. ergo: you can have rule of law, but not anarchism, because no polity without the ability to construct commons can survive competition.
So I don’t really deal with ‘anarchism’ so much as that I rely upon nomocracy as the institutional system with which to prevent parasitism in the construction of commons.
We can solve the problem of commons but we cannot create a polity without commons. In fact, that’s probably a logical contradiction, since a polity that can prevent occupation and conquest by any organized group must construct a commons to prevent it.
So in that sense, an anarchic polity incapable of constructing commons is a logical as well as existential impossibility.
So please give up on your fallacies. Either fight for liberty or acknowledge your servitude, but wishful thinking about anarchic polities is a modern variant on waiting for the resurrection and second coming.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 07:25:00 UTC
QUESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-07 03:13:00 UTC
With the word “commons” in it , you might be interested.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 07:28:00 UTC
Q&A: —“Curt, what are commons in the framework of propertarianism? How are they constructed, and what advantages do they confer?”—
Property: that which I bear costs to obtain without imposing cost upon that which others have born costs to obtain.
Shareholder Property: That which I have born cost to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest, but which I may not privatize, wherein the property ownership is articulated, and non-transferrable without group permission.
Common property: That which I have born cost to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest, but which I may not privatize, wherein the property ownership is weakly articulated and is transferrable through reproduction to one’s offspring and mates.
Property en toto: referring to that which people demonstrate acting to obtain without imposing costs upon that which others have acted to obtain, and for which they demonstrate retaliation for imposition of costs upon. This includes but is not limited to: life, kin, mates, physical, normative, traditional, and institutional assets.
Positive/Negative Costs: While some physical assets are purchased through direct payment (positive costs), some assets are purchased through indirect payment that we call ‘restraint’ or ‘deprivation’ or ‘forgone opportunity for consumption’ (negative costs).
Homesteading of Opportunities produced by the commons is permissible (competition), but transfer of assets already homesteaded requires productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the property en toto of others by externality.
THE LOGICAL INVERSION
As people congregate and develop normative institutions they are able to develop increasingly dense common property which in turn produces lower cost opportunities.
“we are not wealthier than cave men, we have made all goods and services infinitely cheaper through cooperation in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy.”
Hence collections of people create discounts on opportunities (time) which are then open to identification (experimentation) and homesteading (transformation), into private property, which may then be consumed, inventoried, or invested in the commons.
Getting one’s head around the fact that we improve rates of everything in time, and that we cannot know truth only falsehoods, and that we pay for commons both directly via payment or indirectly by forgone opportunities is a sort of inversion of the way we look at history. So it may seem counter intuitive at first until we grasp that time is our only existential asset and that the division of labor eliminates switching costs in exchange for increased productivity. And that the principle value of population density is the cheapness with which opportunities are constructed. And that the principle value of property rights is to reduce transaction costs in the process of production that we call cooperation in a division of labor.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 12:54:00 UTC
Heroism requires contribution to the commons.
But selfishness evident in Hollywood scripts from the matrix to the remake of war if the worlds seeks to replace contribution to the commons (heroism) with cowardice, running away, hiding, evading, letting others die for you, and somehow attempting to cast this selfishness as heroic.
It is why their movies don’t sell without spectacle.
Because that are immoral.
The people who lie.
Expertise in lying is a genetic advantage v
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-29 17:59:00 UTC
[A] market for consumer goods and a market for commons both benefit from producers and consumers. But I am an Aspie. I hate conflict. I don’t shun from it. That would be immoral. But I hate it none the less. I grew up in an environment so horrible that no one would envy it. And my dream world consists of one in which we compete but there is no conflict. And our current governmental structure, which evolved to suit middle class merchants and agrarians who needed to find a way to allocate scarce resources in order to create necessary commons, is completely inadequate for an era in which the American empire consists of various regions and subcultures put into conflict by constant social engineering – the only purpose of which appears to maintain the bureaucracy and american international military power. We can make a better world. Truth, Contract, Market Government, Regionalism.