Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Can I tell you how much I hate library pricing? Great idea: since libraries are

    Can I tell you how much I hate library pricing? Great idea: since libraries are a public good produced either through taxation or student loans, we outlaw punitive pricing for libraries as a form of rent seeking. 🙂

    And we do the same for all publications that make use of public funds either directly or through the institutional process. 🙂

    Parasitism is everywhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 04:33:00 UTC

  • LIBERTINES. YOU’RE INFECTED. BUT WE HAVE A CURE: PROPERTARIANISM Dear Cosmopolit

    LIBERTINES. YOU’RE INFECTED. BUT WE HAVE A CURE: PROPERTARIANISM

    Dear Cosmopolitan Libertines:

    You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders.

    So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.)

    And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park).

    And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law).

    And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade.

    Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert.

    You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason.

    And you’ve been infected.

    It’s OK. We have a cure.

    Propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-09 09:02:00 UTC

  • Definition: Capitalism Refers to a Bias within Government, Not a System of Government.

    [A] couple of thoughts for you:
    GOVERNMENT Is an organization for the purpose of producing commons. In practice that may mean Commons for a few. In practice that may mean Commons for some. In practice that may mean Commons for all. 
    PRODUCTION
    Capitalism isn’t a form of government.
    It’s often inarticulately referred to as an economic system (god knows what that means).
    But operationally, it’s a means of voluntarily organizing production using private property, contract, money, prices, and interest.  
    ORGANIZATION
    We can organize production voluntarily(market capitalism),
    We can organize production semi-voluntarily(mixed economy),
    or We can organize production involuntarily(socialism/slavery).
    DIVIDENDS
    We can leave individuals with all of the proceeds (no commons).
    We can leave the individuals with most of the proceeds (some provision for commons).
    We can leave individuals the minimum proceeds necessary to preserve the incentives required to voluntarily organize production. We can never let the individuals see the proceeds of their production (socialism, slavery).
    In practice all economies are mixed. Out of necessity.  The current attempt at ‘maximizing taxation’ is an attempt to determine the maximum takings that can be appropriated by the government before the incentive to cooperate fails to allow for the rational formation of the voluntary organization of production.  (In other words, they are looking to reproduce slavery.)
    A BIAS
    When we say ‘capitalism’ we are referring to a bias in favor of either the voluntary means of organization, the voluntary means of distributing dividends, or both.AXIS (A Better Nolan Chart):   Organization: capitalism<—->mixed<—->slavery
    vs Distribution: meritocratic (liberty)<—->utilitarian<—>equalitarian(communism) vs Decision: authoritarian<——->republican<——->democratic

    Source: Frequently Asked Questions |

  • Definition: Capitalism Refers to a Bias within Government, Not a System of Government.

    [A] couple of thoughts for you:
    GOVERNMENT Is an organization for the purpose of producing commons. In practice that may mean Commons for a few. In practice that may mean Commons for some. In practice that may mean Commons for all. 
    PRODUCTION
    Capitalism isn’t a form of government.
    It’s often inarticulately referred to as an economic system (god knows what that means).
    But operationally, it’s a means of voluntarily organizing production using private property, contract, money, prices, and interest.  
    ORGANIZATION
    We can organize production voluntarily(market capitalism),
    We can organize production semi-voluntarily(mixed economy),
    or We can organize production involuntarily(socialism/slavery).
    DIVIDENDS
    We can leave individuals with all of the proceeds (no commons).
    We can leave the individuals with most of the proceeds (some provision for commons).
    We can leave individuals the minimum proceeds necessary to preserve the incentives required to voluntarily organize production. We can never let the individuals see the proceeds of their production (socialism, slavery).
    In practice all economies are mixed. Out of necessity.  The current attempt at ‘maximizing taxation’ is an attempt to determine the maximum takings that can be appropriated by the government before the incentive to cooperate fails to allow for the rational formation of the voluntary organization of production.  (In other words, they are looking to reproduce slavery.)
    A BIAS
    When we say ‘capitalism’ we are referring to a bias in favor of either the voluntary means of organization, the voluntary means of distributing dividends, or both.AXIS (A Better Nolan Chart):   Organization: capitalism<—->mixed<—->slavery
    vs Distribution: meritocratic (liberty)<—->utilitarian<—>equalitarian(communism) vs Decision: authoritarian<——->republican<——->democratic

    Source: Frequently Asked Questions |

  • Can The Truth Be A Commons?

    (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    [L]et me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Can The Truth Be A Commons?

    (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    [L]et me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting) —“Truth telling is commons, but trut

    CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting)

    —“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

    Let me state this clearly:

    “The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.”

    How does truth telling exist?

    The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law.

    How does truth exist?

    I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative.

    So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons.

    That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed.

    So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall.

    There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 14:58:00 UTC

  • CRITICISM IS GOOD (Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t l

    CRITICISM IS GOOD

    (Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t like ad hominems and ridicule and I see it as my moral duty to maintain the informational commons by defeating ridicule – it’s gossip after all. It’s feminine deceit. It’s ‘Critique’ (CoC). It’s the favorite tool of the Marxist after obscurantism and justificationism. It’s cosmopolitan Libertarian. It’s not aristocratic. So when you criticize me I owe you a favor for your care, and I must protect your contribution to the commons. But when you attack me or engage in ridicule you have broken the agreement of parley in which I agree to abandon violence and deceit in order to construct a mutually beneficial statement of truth. And I am therefore no longer engaging in cooperation with you. In fact, I have the moral obligation to defeat and punish you for your immorality. )

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 05:36:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE FAILED TO CREATE A MARKET FOR COMMONS (from elsewhere) (division of perc

    WE HAVE FAILED TO CREATE A MARKET FOR COMMONS

    (from elsewhere) (division of perception)

    I usually argue that our moral biases reflect our reproductive strategies. And that together, we form an intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition, knowledge, negotiation, and labor. And by exchanges of cooperation we exchange information, just as by exchanging goods and services we exchange information, just as by the result of our exchanges for goods and services we create prices which inform us to one another’s demands.

    While we have succeeded in creating a market for goods and services, we have failed to create a market for commons. As such we have constructed no equivalent of the pricing system to tell us what is in fact in demand.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 05:51:00 UTC