Oct 14, 2019, 3:08 PM
—“If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible to maintain the commons.”—Christopher Kilgore
Oct 14, 2019, 3:08 PM
—“If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible to maintain the commons.”—Christopher Kilgore
Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/um-i-think-youre-confused-about-property-and-commons-and-the-evolution-of-each/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:43:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265684958917668869
Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org
—“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler
Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers
Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org
—“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler
Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers
Corporations Should Not Be Allowed to Exist without Benefiting the Commons Directly. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/corporations-should-not-be-allowed-to-exist-without-benefiting-the-commons-directly/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:20:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265498025465647106
Dec 25, 2019, 2:41 PM Millennials quoting Millennials studying Curt Doolittle. All will be well. Heimdallr Aldafaðir I believe one of the ways America and the West have lost their way. We started to prioritize “profits” over Commons. Jobs over communities. Nomadic capitalism over ” generational roots”. The Socialists aren’t wrong about the dangers of Capitalism. Their solution is mostly moronic. But the danger exists. From what I gather of History and Economics. The only or best way to safeguard the Commons (society, families, countries, people, etc.) is to temper the profit motive with a strong incentive to invest in the Commons. Which is one of the things America (especially) has lost over the centuries. Corporate Charters should return to mortality. They should also require investment in the Commons directly or face termination entirely. Only by showing a direct causal link to the betterment of the Commons should they be allowed to maintain legality and operation. Prove to US how you benefit US. Endless (or functionally endless) Charters are parasitic and enable almost exclusively free riders. No. More. Free. Rides.
Dec 25, 2019, 2:41 PM Millennials quoting Millennials studying Curt Doolittle. All will be well. Heimdallr Aldafaðir I believe one of the ways America and the West have lost their way. We started to prioritize “profits” over Commons. Jobs over communities. Nomadic capitalism over ” generational roots”. The Socialists aren’t wrong about the dangers of Capitalism. Their solution is mostly moronic. But the danger exists. From what I gather of History and Economics. The only or best way to safeguard the Commons (society, families, countries, people, etc.) is to temper the profit motive with a strong incentive to invest in the Commons. Which is one of the things America (especially) has lost over the centuries. Corporate Charters should return to mortality. They should also require investment in the Commons directly or face termination entirely. Only by showing a direct causal link to the betterment of the Commons should they be allowed to maintain legality and operation. Prove to US how you benefit US. Endless (or functionally endless) Charters are parasitic and enable almost exclusively free riders. No. More. Free. Rides.
Why You Shouldn’t Be Imprisoned, Enslaved, Enserfed, Ostracized or Hung https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/why-you-shouldnt-be-imprisoned-enslaved-enserfed-ostracized-or-hung/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:06:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264981085773017089
Jan 27, 2020, 9:58 AM Me and mine who pay for the commons because commons produce extraordinary returns, want to know why you shouldn’t be imprisoned, enslaved, enserfed, ostracized or hung for obtaining the benefits of our commons without paying for them. Why should we permit you any freedom or liberty at all? Why is it that we don’t hang you? What’s your reason? (The difference between capitalizing commons, common infrastructure that improves trade, and redistributive consumption that is not a commons – I assume is rather obvious.)
Jan 27, 2020, 9:58 AM Me and mine who pay for the commons because commons produce extraordinary returns, want to know why you shouldn’t be imprisoned, enslaved, enserfed, ostracized or hung for obtaining the benefits of our commons without paying for them. Why should we permit you any freedom or liberty at all? Why is it that we don’t hang you? What’s your reason? (The difference between capitalizing commons, common infrastructure that improves trade, and redistributive consumption that is not a commons – I assume is rather obvious.)