Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • I just realized how pervasive dependency upon the commons is in our speech.– si

    –I just realized how pervasive dependency upon the commons is in our speech.–

    sigh

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-01 10:14:00 UTC

  • WITH PROPERTARIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS…. …universal standing, the common (polycen

    WITH PROPERTARIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS….

    …universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule?

    Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 02:20:00 UTC

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If The Normative Commons Is Common (Shareholder) Property

    [S]o, under freedom of speech, libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you? So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art? All of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in free speech. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If The Normative Commons Is Common (Shareholder) Property

    [S]o, under freedom of speech, libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you? So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art? All of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in free speech. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY. S

    WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY.

    So libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce.

    It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons?

    Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position).

    Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull.

    Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences?

    THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 10:32:00 UTC

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If the Normative Commons is Common Property

    [S]o libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If the Normative Commons is Common Property

    [S]o libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • “The percentage of time devoted in contribution to the production of the commons

    —“The percentage of time devoted in contribution to the production of the commons shall be equal to the percentage of income provided to the commons by results of trade. This places reciprocal limits on the producers of goods within the voluntary organization of production, and the producers of the commons that enable the voluntary organization of production.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 04:50:00 UTC

  • Free Riding Isn't An Exception, It's the Rule.

    FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. IT IS NATURAL TO MAN. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. ITS UNNATURAL. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT. [Y]a’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense. We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE. Sorry. Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.

  • WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SOCIAL ORDER: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING VS THE PROMOT

    WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SOCIAL ORDER: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING VS THE PROMOTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    (worth repeating)

    If I am right, and I think I am, then we just look at private property incorrectly because it’s a positive assertion. But the negative assertion is more informative: free riding. Because it is free riding that mirrors the human moral instincts that evolved with us because they were necessary for cooperation. And while we can suppress free riding (and parasitism) and obtain private property as a defense against the state, in order to form a polity we must also suppress unethical and immoral conduct so that we do not have demand for the state. And to form an anarchic polity free of the state, we must further suppress conspiracy and statism so that those who desire to free ride cannot band together to do so. As such, ‘private property’ is not the basis for society, but the basis for the voluntary organization of, and execution of, production. The suppression of free riding then, is the basis for society, and private property is one of its byproducts. Instead of only codifying private property in law, if we restate all moral instincts as property rights, then we can construct a legal code that mirrors completely the human moral code, and one which, allows both the resolution of differences over property, but also eliminates demand for the state, as well as forbids the formation of a state (monopoly). In this sense, morality, stated as a prohibition on free riding, is the basis for the velocity of cooperation, private property is the basis of the voluntary structure of production, prohibition on unethical and immoral conduct is the basis for a polity, and prohibition on conspiracy to construct a monopoly is the basis for anarchy. And altogether this full spectrum of prohibitions on free riding, delivers us to liberty and the maximum opportunity for prosperity.

    I think this is the correct analysis.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 02:40:00 UTC