Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY What if neither stat

    THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY

    What if neither state, academy, religion or media could speak falsehoods into the commons (audience) without fear of legal retaliation and necessity of restitution? What if state, academy, religion and media had to warrant their product as all other products are warranted?

    What if religious could state what prophets believed, but could not claim it was true, only myth, parable, and metaphor? What if professors could not teach falsehoods and had to warrant as such? What if philosophers could not rely upon conflation, loading, framing and overloading?

    What if we taught truth-telling, history, and literature again as well as science and mathematics? Meaning grammar, rhetoric, observation, and testimony?

    Given that the Flynn effect appears to be caused by the spread of scientific methods of thought – general rules rather than individual uses – why wouldn’t we experience the same expansion of human capability by the institution of truth telling that we have experienced with literacy, general education, and science?

    Wouldn’t truth telling be the next obvious stage in pacification, continuing humanity’s long history of incrementally suppressing parasitism and forcing people into productive rather than parasitic behaviors in order to survive?

    What is the price you would be willing to pay to remove lies from public discourse as we have largely eliminated deception from contract, and fraud from products and services? Why should we not cleanse the commons the same as we have cleansed the private sector.

    Why not end the marxist, socialist, and postmodern era’s profligate deception as a means of uniting academy and state at the expense of civic society and church? Is telling the truth so high a cost that you would preserve the various means of deception that seek to restore the authoritarianism of the church?

    Truth is enough. But liars love their lies, and the utility of their lying. They argue that a beneficial lie is better than a difficult truth. But when in history has an increased tax – a cost we must pay to produce a commons – not a burden for us?

    Truth is a high tax to pay.

    But with that tax we create liberty, prosperity, and a better mankind.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 05:26:00 UTC

  • “Not all property is physical and not all property is private – truth is intelle

    —“Not all property is physical and not all property is private – truth is intellectual property held in commons, and dishonesty causes damage to this shared property.”—Arkan Nathanael

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 03:58:00 UTC

  • TRUTH Americans have too long tolerated lying in commerce and in public discours

    TRUTH

    Americans have too long tolerated lying in commerce and in public discourse, and instead of evicerating libel, slander, and fraud, we can dramatically improve our lives by requiring truthfulness. Amazon takes a great step forward in creating an example of the use of marketing to commit fraud.

    —“AMAZON, the world’s largest online marketplace, is suing more than 1,000 people suspected of selling fake reviews in one of the biggest legal actions to uncover hidden identities on the internet.

    The web giant is mounting the unprecedented court action to strip 1,114 alleged fake reviewers of their anonymity and force them to pay damages for the “manipulation and deception” of Amazon customers, according to court documents filed in America on Friday.

    It is the first time any company has taken action against its own reviewers on this scale, according to legal experts, and could have far-reaching implications for privacy and the way consumer websites are policed.”—–

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 03:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS? —“Curt… Can you help

    Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS?

    —“Curt… Can you help me find the correct term which describes a nationalist state that allows freedom as long as you don’t “go against the nation (the foundation of the nation and the heritage)”.—

    Well, you do it with a set of rules (limits) and you give that a name. In the main, you’re describing a nationalist state which exercises the right of exclusion (which is required by natural law) to prohibit non-kin (non nationals) and the contractual (constitutional) provision that one may not export costs of association and trade onto other citizens’s common property:culture.

    We have no name that I know of for such a thing other than Nationalism, and nationalism fits. But it is not constrained enough. So we must add the limitation of protectionism. But we must clarify protectionism not of trade but of culture. So I would say Culturally Protectionist Nationalism.

    This conveys free trade allowing competition for goods and services, but not competition for culture, just as we do not allow competition for property rights, law, and government.

    The Chinese do this aggressively. So do the Muslims. And presently the Russians have started.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 03:34:00 UTC

  • A Monopoly of Law, A Monopoly of Commons, A Market of Everything Else

    [T]he single necessity of monopoly organization is the holding of territory. The single necessity of objectively moral law is universal: prohibition on parasitism. The single necessity of objectively moral commons is universal: prohibition on privatization – also parasitism. The objective necessity of group survival is cooperation in the means of production. The objective necessity of group persistence is cooperation in the means of reproduction. To evolve these necessities we need a territory secured by men willing to fight for it; we need an independent judiciary that discovers objectively moral law during the resolution of conflicts; and we need an independent market in which the classes can conduct exchanges in order to construct their desired commons, and to prohibit the privatization of those commons; and we need a market for the division of knowledge and labor; and we need a market for reproduction that produces families families that bear and rear offspring for subsequent generations.

  • A Monopoly of Law, A Monopoly of Commons, A Market of Everything Else

    [T]he single necessity of monopoly organization is the holding of territory. The single necessity of objectively moral law is universal: prohibition on parasitism. The single necessity of objectively moral commons is universal: prohibition on privatization – also parasitism. The objective necessity of group survival is cooperation in the means of production. The objective necessity of group persistence is cooperation in the means of reproduction. To evolve these necessities we need a territory secured by men willing to fight for it; we need an independent judiciary that discovers objectively moral law during the resolution of conflicts; and we need an independent market in which the classes can conduct exchanges in order to construct their desired commons, and to prohibit the privatization of those commons; and we need a market for the division of knowledge and labor; and we need a market for reproduction that produces families families that bear and rear offspring for subsequent generations.

  • Do we build commons because of aesthetic bias? Because of status? As civic spiri

    Do we build commons because of aesthetic bias? Because of status? As civic spirituality? It is a tremendous advantage.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-08 02:27:00 UTC

  • A MONOPOLY OF LAW, A MONOPOLY OF COMMONS, A MARKET OF EVERYTHING ELSE. The singl

    A MONOPOLY OF LAW, A MONOPOLY OF COMMONS, A MARKET OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

    The single necessity of monopoly organization is the holding of territory. The single necessity of objectively moral law is universal: prohibition on parasitism. The single necessity of objectively moral commons is universal: prohibition on privatization – also parasitism. The objective necessity of group survival is cooperation in the means of production. The objective necessity of group persistence is cooperation in the means of reproduction.

    To evolve these necessities we need a territory secured by men willing to fight for it; we need an independent judiciary that discovers objectively moral law during the resolution of conflicts; and we need an independent market in which the classes can conduct exchanges in order to construct their desired commons, and to prohibit the privatization of those commons; and we need a market for the division of knowledge and labor; and we need a market for reproduction that produces families families that bear and rear offspring for subsequent generations.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 03:01:00 UTC

  • Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM (I am tur

    Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM

    (I am turning out to be an enemy of the twentieth century’s advocacy of highly loaded easily understood, short sentences.)

    —“The mainstream econ definition of a common good is one which is rivalrous but non-excludable. So in this sense, I understand why one might consider law itself a common good, but court systems? Is demonstration sufficient to consider something a common good? I mean, wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    –“rivalrous but non-excludable”—

    But is that demonstrably true? Is any good non-excludable?

    Instead, humans demonstrably reciprocally insure all property against some subset of:

    1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.

    2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.

    3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.

    4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)

    5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)

    6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.

    A park is an interesting example: we grant people Transitus, but deny all other rights.

    A common grazing ground is another interesting example: we grant transitus, fructus, but that is all.

    A monument (or a church, which is our most common monument), we grant only transitus.

    We prohibit people from denying Transitus where it imposes unnecessary burdens: property lines.

    Water is another interesting example, we deny pollution that externalizes costs. We have done the same recently with air. We probably need to do the same with the seas.

    But does any people tolerate abusus? (making land uninhabitable or unusable?) Only where land is not valuable.

    A commons is that which some group has expended effort (born costs) to inventory, and to prohibit one or more rights, the most common of which is Abusus, Mancipio and Constituo. (See Nobel Prize Winner Elanor Ostrom’s work)

    —“wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    It is better to see marxists as preserving discretion and accrual of debt to produce a dysgenic order, and property rights advocates as eliminating discretion and replacing it with accrual of debt, to produce a eugenic order. In other words, marxists are promoting the parasitic female strategy to reverse civilization, and propertarians are promoting the productive male strategy to continue civilization.

    (This is a profound restatement of these issues)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 07:46:00 UTC

  • Public transportation is a public health problem. 🙁

    Public transportation is a public health problem. 🙁

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-19 04:02:00 UTC