Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • Dear libertarians. My emphasis on violence has nothing to do with you. You are a

    Dear libertarians.

    My emphasis on violence has nothing to do with you. You are almost universally: territorial cowards, free riders on the commons, politically harmless and irrelevant, betas.

    But because you desire liberty you are at least not an impediment – even if you are not helpful or valuable in the construction of a condition of liberty.

    My concern is instead, for political competitors, rent seekers, parasites, alpha predators who free ride not just on the commons but on our productivity; all the while increasing our risk.

    They don’t care about you either, by the way. You’re merely useful idiots.

    But it’s them I want to aggress against, oppress, and conquer if at all possible – so that property rights can be constructed. Without you help.

    All property is constructed by the organized application of violence. Violence employed for the construction of liberty is the greatest contribution one can make to the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-05 10:14:00 UTC

  • Religions and Demand for the State

    Think of it this way: without morality, one cannot construct commons.

    Graph

  • Religions and Demand for the State

    Think of it this way: without morality, one cannot construct commons.

    Graph

  • RIFFING ON MICHAEL PHILIP – ON THE PRICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMONS –“In the

    RIFFING ON MICHAEL PHILIP – ON THE PRICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMONS

    –“In the socialist calculation debate, Mises says socialism fails because we can’t impute prices to capital goods without prices for consumer goods and consequently we can’t rationally allocate capital across sectors. In the environmentalist calculation debate, we can’t rationally allocate an environmental price to a consumer good without having environmental prices on capital goods. In the fully Pigovean world, prices fully convey information about costs including environmental costs. Outside of that world, we probably still do best by looking only to prices as the best potential aggregation of knowable cost”– Michael Phillip

    To create a market price you have to privatize a good.

    To partly privatize a good one can limit Usus, Fructus, Mancipio and Abusus. Meaning that we can privatize the Use, Fruition and in some cases transfer (sale) of a good, without the right of Abusus (destruction or harm).

    It is not necessary to grant Abusus, or even Mancipio to create a tradable good (we don’t grant Mancipio and Abusus to ourselves when selling our labor). Privatization requires only the rights of Usus and Fructus in order for us to create prices from those trades.

    So it is a fallacy that we cannot have the best of both worlds: commons. Commons in which we privatize Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio, while retaining Abusus.

    We do not grant Mancipio and Abusus to Man, nor do we grant it to our commons. Most of our commons we grant Usus (parks). Occasionally we grant fructus (grazing on park land). But the only way to know the price of a commons is to at least grant Usus and Mancipio. And we probably, in all circumstances, should prevent Abusus.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    `

    TERMS:

    Rights of use:Usus, the fruits of:Fructus, to transfer: Mancipio, to abuse:Abusus.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/11/02/usufructs-under-propertarianism/

    H/T Ayelam Valentine Agaliba for getting me to use the right terminology.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-15 02:55:00 UTC

  • GOING OUR OWN WAY: THE WAY OF WESTERN MAN: TRUTH AND COMMONS. NATIONALISM, TRADI

    GOING OUR OWN WAY: THE WAY OF WESTERN MAN: TRUTH AND COMMONS.

    NATIONALISM, TRADITIONALISM are one thing. RULE OF LAW is another, and TRUTH TELLING is yet another. Putin wants to expand Nationalism and Traditionalism using propaganda because they produce power, but he does not want Rule of law, or Truth Telling, because they constraint, limit, and in most cases, eliminate power.

    Power is necessary in Russia, because like China – who must keep oppressing it’s conquered territories – Russia is a military empire. That’s because Russians have no ‘Cutlure’. There is nothing at all ethnically or culturally “Rus” in Russia. Russia is not of the clan Rus (Scandinavian) but of Muscovites, who spend long periods under despotic Mongolian rule, looked to the south to the byzantines and arabs for inspiration, and whose invading peoples brought with them Asiatic concepts of the evil in man – not greek concepts of man’s perfection and potential to sit among the gods. Russia (Muscovia) is a Mongolian and Tatar State steeped in Steppe culture that blends orthodox christianity and islamic Familialism, with Chinese deception.

    With some work Peter the Great tried to move the Russian empire into Europa, and without Germany’s aggression at England’s seduction, might have completed the transition. But the largely Jewish postwar uprising that we call the Russian revolution, returned Russia to despotism, with Asiatic Lenin and Stalin joining Asian Mao as the greatest murderers in human history.

    Thanks to the church, the Russian concept of interpersonal ethical action, is identical to the western. But the Russian concept of moral, cannot even IMAGINE the western man’s moral intuitions, nor his faith in one’s fellow man. It is unimaginable to a Russian that Western man acts primarily out of moral habit – moral tradition, and altruistic punishment[1] of those who do not observe it. Primarily because we have been both wealthy enough to afford to act morally, and because we were successfully able to use law and the church to enforce morality by punishment by law, by ostracization by the church, and by starvation by deprivation of access to land necessary for sustenance and survival.

    The Russian does not pay for commons. He does not pay to punish. He does not pay to reward. He does nothing that is not in his direct interest. And he expects all others to do the same. He cannot imagine a world where we take as little as possible to one another and contribute as much to the commons as we can – unknowingly.

    This is why authoritarian governments are necessary: commons are not voluntarily constructed, because all fear that any such contributions will be privatized by individuals, or corruption by the state. It is challenging enough to create a civic order such that we produce ethical man. But it is extremely expensive to create moral man – the man who neither externalizes costs into the commons, nor avoids paying for the commons, and instead, constantly contributes to the commons.

    Western man is moral man taken to the logical extreme. This is why motivating the western man to neoconservative war is easy – by invoking and appealing to our instinct of altruistic punishment . Motivating the Russian to war, requires creating the feeling that he is under threat. He does not fight for moral reasons. he fights to steal, or to prevent stealing, but he does not fight for the common good.

    This is the opposite of western man. Western man produces commons. It is our competitive advantage: truth telling, monuments, parks, civic architecture, civic organizations, arts, chivalry, the jury, and consensual government are commons unique to western man.

    Yes, we are full of own folly – we still feel, as true Burkeian evangelism, that we must save the world from ignorance, mysticism, poverty, familialism, hierarchy and tyranny. And we cannot grasp, that like our light skin, hair, and eyes, our moral intuitions are recessive, and preserved only through biological and cultural selection and inbreeding.

    Current emerging evidence suggests it is in no small part genetic. And that it emerged somewhere in the north of the North Sea – Baltic Region. That it emerged less than 20k years ago. And that it is a recessive trait, like intelligence, only sustained, and protected from regression against them mean by inbreeding.

    Russians cannot imagine that western man operates by altruistic punishment – of paying high personal cost to build what he sees as the voluntary civic order. Even if we are unaware that our genetics and culture are a unique, fragile and vulnerable outlier possible only in and around the north sea, and that not only can the reset of the world NOT make use of our model, but that it is antithetical to them to conceive of a world in which we all contribute to the commons, rather than seek to contribute as little as possible and take as much as we can.

    Russia(Muscovia)[2] and the West can both have Nationalism (advancing the interests of the extended family and tribe), and we can both have Traditionalism (the family as the central unit of society), but unless we wish to descend into Russo-Jewish brutality and Asiatic deception, we in the west must retain what separates us from the rest: truth telling, rule of law, the jury, and the civic society.

    We already have had enough of Russo-jewish influence for one century in this world, and the Russian-sponsored Frankfurt school’s damage to our society through pseudoscientific propaganda remains with us like an intellectual cancer, destroying our people and our culture.

    Love your people first. Defend the west from what the Russo-Jewish empire have done to us already with Marxism, Communism, socialist, postmodernism, progressivism. Russia is not a model.

    Instead, raise arms, steel yourself for heady violence, and get into the streets, and start a revolution – for you and yours. Defend the west from the tyranny of the east. WE have done it for almost 5000 years, and now is not the time to surrender.

    The best revolution is the one with the greatest volume of heady murder. A lot of killing is needed. A lot of killing must be done. And if we kill enough of them, then we will restore the west.

    Deeds not words.

    Cry havoc.

    Curt Doolittle

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    [1] “Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. “

    [2] The only “Rus” are in Ukraine. Kiev was the founding city of the Rus (Scandinavian) peoples who created it as a trading post – largely for slave trading – with byzantium. The Mongols destroyed it and teh Muscovites tried to gain their narrative history by adopting the Rus history of Kiev as their own. This is Russia’s problem. They have no history to be proud of. No culture to be proud of. No civic mythos, and no common people to rally. They are a set of conquered peoples, despotic peoples ruled by despots in Moscow. The head of the Muscovite empire, won by brutality, held by brutality, and now expanding through postmodern lies and brutality.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-04 07:05:00 UTC

  • FINALLY DEVELOP ARISTOCRACY – AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMONS? ( I am a

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/europes-leading-rabbi-jews-must-begin-carrying-guns/JEWS FINALLY DEVELOP ARISTOCRACY – AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMONS?

    ( I am a very big fan of the armed society )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-15 08:26:00 UTC

  • “CURT CAN YOU COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE, AND TIE IT TO THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS?” (

    http://mic.com/articles/107926/one-tweet-perfectly-sums-up-the-big-problem-with-how-we-talk-about-terrorismQ: “CURT CAN YOU COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE, AND TIE IT TO THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS?”

    (long)(important)

    The questioner also asked me to be brief. (I am not good at brevity, I am good at precision, lol) So I will try to make a list of bullet points in an effort to be brief..

    PART I – CONFLATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEPTION

    1) Terrorism is truthfully (honestly) defined as an act of out-group members against in-group members). Rebellion is truthfully (honestly) an act of in-group members against in-group members. Conflating them is dishonest. Conflation is a postmodern rhetorical deception learned from Marxist critique.

    2) The reason that the Cathedral: Academy, media and state have adopted the deceptive strategy of conflating terrorism and rebellion is to attempt to legitimize through postmodern repetition the Cathedral Complex: legitimize the Academy, media and state. And to delegitimize rebellion by labeling it terrorism and thereby conflating it with out-group activity.

    3) Bombing the ATF, Crashing a plane into the IRS building, bombing the NAACP, are all acts of rebellion by internal members. The purpose of rebellion is to change policies by state members when institutional means fail. Rebellion is internal politics by other means.

    4) The various islamist bombings are not acts of rebellion, but they are acts of warfare, by the only military means possible. Terrorism is extremely inexpensive warfare by out-group members against in-group members. That is why small group and poor groups rely upon terrorism: it is inexpensive. States sponsor rebellion(internal violence) and terrorism(out group violence) as discounted means of warfare. States also you proxy wars (financing conflicts with third parties.) These are all forms of warfare: the use of violence to conduct politics by other means.

    5) The purpose of warfare, terrorism and rebellion is to change policy. All forms of political violence harms citizens, infrastructure and politicians. It is dishonest to state that terrorism is for the purpose of changing policy, when changing policy is the purpose of all warfare, whether it is inexpensive warfare (terrorism) or expensive (state sponsored, organized, mechanized warfare). The purpose of war, terrorism, and rebellion is to change policy.

    As Klausewitz said, “War is just politics by other means”.

    PART II – MEDIA

    6) Media is a product that evolved as a means to sell advertising. The purpose of news is to sell product. That product need only be as ‘true’ as it does not harm their ability to sell advertising by associating advertisers with news stories. To sell that news, so that they can sell advertising, they must get your attention. The psychology of attention is a well understood phenomenon. I will not cover it here except to say that the reader must feel righteous – confirmed in his beliefs. During monopoly period, television access was centralized, but during the current period we get our information from television channels that tailor to our moral biases, and we select internet news sources, and information from friends and associates

    7) The media is not warrantied product – we do not warranty it for truth the way that CPA’s must warrant their work for due diligence. Lawyers must warrant their work for due diligence. Witnesses in court must warrant their testimony for diligence. Companies must warrant their products and services for due diligence. Even scientists must warrant their publications for due diligence. But journalism, political speech of public intellectuals, and propaganda are in the category of the few products that is not warranted to be the subject of due diligence, nor are media required to pay restitution for the damages that they cause when they fail due diligence. In our past, we held people accountable for libel, slander and defamation, but allowed dissent as a means of limiting the bad behavior of the government.

    It is quite possible that ‘free speech’ rather than ‘truthful speech’ was a catastrophic mistake in legal history. Truthful speech that causes good, truthful speech that causes harm, and untruthful speech that deceives or causes harm are very different things. There is no reason why we cannot demand that public speech, particularly public speech that is sold as a product in the market, is not warrantied like all other products and services in the market are warrantied by due diligence, and that the manufacturers and distributors of that product are not liable for damages and restitution in the case that they sell defective product.

    8) Propaganda is intentionally defective product, delivered with intent to persuade by deception using rhetorical deceptions including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, and outright lying, for the purpose of obtaining power. The general argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, but history says that this isn’t true. The various pseudoscientific movements, from marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to Freudian Psychology, to Keynesian economics, the Anthropology of Franz Boas, to the outright fabrications of the Frankfurt School, to the postmodern philosophers, to today’s political correctness, all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various forms of fallacious argument: conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and marxist ‘Critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means. In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception by suggestion, rather than persuasion by reason.

    Propaganda is not warrantied either. If it was, there wouldn’t be any of it. And there is a difference between placebo products,( light therapy,most vitamins) that make you feel better purely psychologically, and products that cause you harm, or justify theft. Most political propaganda seeks to encourage of justifies theft – why not? If you cannot compete in the market, then competing using deception in order to collect rents is often easier. In fact, if we study the evolution of businesses, the most effective strategy is to become large enough that you can seek various rents through limited monopolies. (I can’t link to research on this from my location but it’s available.)

    PART III – THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    10) The Informational Commons”. We treat parks as a commons, we treat the earth, land, and air as a commons, we treat roads, sidewalks, public buildings, and radio spectrum as commons – and most of us treat our traditions myths and rituals as commons, as well as our manners, ethics and morals. We now treat healthcare as a commons. We treat many things as commons. Meaning that we consider ourselves shareholders in some asset that none of us permit one another to consume or destroy but many of us can use as long as we do it no harm, and therefore harm other shareholders.

    The common asset that we regulate most is the market for goods and services. Because we are more dependent upon the market for our health, wealth, and well being than we are upon any other infrastructure. And because it is very easy to lie cheat and steal in that market. We created standard weights and measures, law, contract, guarantee, interest, banking, money, finance, interest. We created minimum warranties. We require truth in labeling. (Although we lose that one all the time and many labels are still deceptive: MSG and various forms of sugar are in everything and both of them are probably equal to Orwell’s ‘Soma’.)

    Aren’t we as dependent upon the informational commons as we are upon the market, norms, roads, air, land and sea?

    So if we can require warranty of all other products in our commons, why can we not require warranty of information distributed in our commons? Why do we need regulators instead of the common law? If we are all shareholders in the commons, why can we not individually or in groups, take individuals, organizations, politicians, and the government bureaucracy to court for damage to that commons.

    The reason is that if truth was required, and if insurance was required, of all products services, and information distributed via the commons for the purpose of profiting my trade, or by political rents and privileges, then it would be very hard for the Cathedral Complex: Academy, Media, and State to sell falsehoods and propaganda.

    Why for example does the Academy not get paid as a percentage of your earnings, rather than selling you education that does not pay off? What would happen if that were the case? That the academy was paid 10% of your 30 year earnings? How would what they teach you change? What if you could sue a university for giving you a bad service?

    Why for example, aren’t public intellectuals required to warranty that their speech is truthful: internally consistent, externally correspondent, existentially possible, free from encouraging theft and fraud, and at least responsibly falsified?

    Why for example, aren’t politicians required to demonstrate strict construction in law, from the initial requirement for property rights and voluntary exchange? Why aren’t laws written as contracts, with expiration dates? Why can we make one law (contract) but the consequent government can break it, and use the money for whatever arbitrary purposes that they wish? Why is it that all money from all taxes is not raised to meet a fixed sum, for a fixed purposes, and finished at the completion of that time?

    Why is it legal for academy, media and state to lie, and pollute our informational commons?

    Isn’t it just legalized fraud?

    PART IV – SCIENCE IS THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH, NOT A METHOD

    We can never know we speak the truth, we can only know that we speak truthfully. And we can only do that if we ourselves apply due diligence to our own thoughts and utterances.

    Scientists do this by what we call the scientific method. But that method is not a method at all. It is a warranty that they have been diligent in their testimony about their observations and theories.

    1) Internally consistent (that it is logical). This warranty requires tests of reason, logic and mathematics.

    2) Externally correspondent (that it corresponds to reality) This warranty requires that we demonstrate that the actions we take, or the measurements we make, or both, correspond to what we say they do.

    3) Operationally Defined (that what we say exists does, and is possible). In science this means that every step in a process is listed, and its measurements captured, so that we know whether real changes in reality are recorded or our imagination of reality is recorded. In economics, politics , accounting, and law, operational definitions require that each transaction (movement) is transparent, audit-able, and open to human perception).

    4) Objectively Moral (that each transfer is rational and voluntary). Under This is particular to law and to economics, where in law, something cannot be legal if it cannot be agreed to, and it cannot be ‘true’ economics if deception is required. This is the complaint about Keyensian ‘dishonest’ economics, both in Monetary/Credit policy, and in Fiscal (Spending) policy: that manipulation of prices of money and credit, constitute ‘lies’ used to motivate business, industry and consumer to spend, and that instead the purpose of economic policy should be to assist us in cooperating truthfully, and voluntarily. The ‘dishonest’ economists are unfortunately, the current mainstream economists, and the ‘honest’ economists are marginalized.

    5) Falsified (even if the above are all true, that we have tried to disprove our theory, our action, by testing if it is possibly erroneous by either of the previous four methods. This gets away from the problem of confirmation bias.

    Truthful speech requires that we testify to having performed due diligence by giving all five warranties on our speech. This is why science has been so productive. This is also why reason, rationalism, and philosophy have been so successfully employed in lying, deception, power accumulation, and theft: philosophers, academics public intellectuals, politicians, propagandists, and media personnel have learned not as the greeks asked us – to tell the truth. But how to lie. And they have become masters of it.

    CLOSING

    It is a very simple problem to fix really: information as a commons, universal standing, warranty of truthful speech, and restitution for damages.

    There is no reason we cannot cooperate truthfully in speech, just as we do in the market.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-10 12:37:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) —“There is no reason we cannot create a market for (a) the c

    (worth repeating)

    —“There is no reason we cannot create a market for (a) the construction of commons, just as we have created a market for (b) the provision of goods and services, and a ‘market’ for (c)the provision of mates: marriage. But to create a market for the construction of the commons, we must give up on the monopoly of decision making that we gave up under alpha monopoly of reproduction, that we gave up under totalitarian monopoly of organizing agricultural production in the fertile crescent – and now give up on monopoly of production of commons in government.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-09 02:11:00 UTC

  • THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMEVOLUTION: THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES, AND FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THE COMMONS.

    (profound idea)

    The only moral criteria I can identify is one of voluntary cooperation, and the only political criteria I can find across heterogeneous moral codes is voluntary cooperation , reflecting heterogeneous reproductive strategies. The more incompetent require mutual insurance, and the more competent require liberty. The more incompetent require socialism, the more competent require private property. The more incompetent require organization, the more competent construct the voluntary organization of production. Both the more competent and less incompetent require organized violence in both defense, and construction of the voluntary organization of production.

    There is no reason we cannot create a market for (a) the construction of commons, just as we have created a market for (b) the provision of goods and services, and a ‘market’ for (c)the provision of mates: marriage. But to create a market for the construction of the commons, we must give up on the monopoly of decision making that we gave up under alpha monopoly of reproduction, totalitarian monopoly of organizing agricultural production in the fertile crescent – and give up on monopoly of production of commons.

    I am quite certain that alphas could not imagine marriage and monogamy, equally certain that tyrants could not imagine the voluntary organization of production, and it is obvious that we now face the problem of the voluntary organization of commons. But whether a dramatic change in affairs is hard to imagine places little bearing upon its possibility. All that was required for marriage was the use of violence to produce reproductive choice. All that was required to create the market was the use of violence to produce productive choice. All that is required to create a market for commons is the application of violence to government, to prevent all involuntary transfers, free riding, rent seeking, privatization of gains, and socialization of losses from the organized production of commons: to transform the monopoly production of commons that we call government, to a market for the production of commons.

    Monopoly serves no purpose except involuntary transfer.

    See:

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 14:35:00 UTC

  • Talking to Johannes. And am reminded that the Muslims have successfully weaponiz

    Talking to Johannes. And am reminded that the Muslims have successfully weaponized the family, just as much as the west has weaponized truth and commons, just as much as germans have weaponized duty, just as much as jews have weaponized language.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 06:41:00 UTC