Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • So localities can choose means of decision within their locality (locality, coun

    So localities can choose means of decision within their locality (locality, county, city-state, province, state) but that decision making is limited to the production of commons, and the prohibition on irreciprocal display, word, and deed. In other words – no lies: transparency.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-26 16:52:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188136364405153792

    Reply addressees: @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188135860816039937

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays This will de-politicize the polity, and convert the entirety of government to citizen jury approving or vetoing, instead of politicians. We are no longer geographically constrained. The means of assent or veto varies from equi-representation, to class, to proportional$ to direct$

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188135860816039937

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays This will de-politicize the polity, and convert the entirety of government to citizen jury approving or vetoing, instead of politicians. We are no longer geographically constrained. The means of assent or veto varies from equi-representation, to class, to proportional$ to direct$

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188135860816039937

  • Using text instead of voice, teaches others as well. 😉 Rule of law is more impo

    Using text instead of voice, teaches others as well. 😉
    Rule of law is more important than govt. So Rule of Law first. Next govt (production of commons) scales up down between war, going concern, windfalls of wealth. We include options on how to make decisions within the law.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-26 16:45:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188134554705580032

    Reply addressees: @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187996037635608576

    IN REPLY TO:

    @directdemocrac7

    @curtdoolittle @JohnMarkSays Curt, I have many questions…
    What is the structure of Govt?
    Is there voting?
    Is there a need for lawyers?
    Who leads the jury? What’s a “judge”?
    How is a crime reported & processed?
    …
    Can voice chat, if you have the patience 🙂

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187996037635608576

  • THE REASON FOR LAWS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE —“Raising a family is an act of patrio

    THE REASON FOR LAWS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE

    —“Raising a family is an act of patriotism and sacrifice. After all… Children are commons. They affect the entire polity. And they are the most… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=490588904871338&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 22:23:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186770023492272134

  • THE REASON FOR LAWS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE —“Raising a family is an act of patrio

    THE REASON FOR LAWS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE

    —“Raising a family is an act of patriotism and sacrifice. After all… Children are commons. They affect the entire polity. And they are the most feasible, concrete way for we mortals to transcend. So let’s give them a reason to be proud of us once we get to infinity.”—José Francisco Mayora

    —“Which is the reason why we we have any laws against child abuse. It’s not just family insuring the children and the polity from the children, but polity also insures children, even from their own families.”—Martin Štěpán

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 18:23:00 UTC

  • I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH —

    https://grist.org/…/how-food-forests-and-people-are…/UM. I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH

    —“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.

    CheersUpdated Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 20:54:00 UTC

  • “If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible

    —“If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible to maintain the commons.”—Christopher Kilgore

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 15:08:00 UTC

  • NO MORE ANCAP LIES —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not d

    NO MORE ANCAP LIES

    —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow

    ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS.

    Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why).

    a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible.

    b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible.

    c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible.

    d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons.

    You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot.

    LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION

    —“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—

    I’ll debate anyone who:

    – has the knowledge to.

    – has the ability to.

    – is intellectually honest

    – and is willing to.

    This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics).

    If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions.

    The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons, a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand,

    b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse;

    c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to.

    d) they are afraid I would win.

    This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people.

    LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS

    You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to.

    LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL.

    Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud).

    LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS

    You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ).

    CLOSING

    So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air.

    This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 11:31:00 UTC

  • Rothbardians turned ‘libertarianism’ from Classical Liberalism under Rule of Law

    Rothbardians turned ‘libertarianism’ from Classical Liberalism under Rule of Law to Ghetto Ethics of diasporic peoples having no, and taking no, responsibility for commons. It’s just common property parasitism rather than private property parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 11:57:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180814232344055808

    Reply addressees: @psionin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180813951891918849

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @psionin Libertarianism is just common property marxism. So “For me” means you don’t understand that the only source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity is rule of law, producing markets for everything, including *commons*, or what we call ‘government’.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180813951891918849

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @psionin Libertarianism is just common property marxism. So “For me” means you don’t understand that the only source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity is rule of law, producing markets for everything, including *commons*, or what we call ‘government’.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180813951891918849

  • As such only westerners have succeeded in such suppression of falsehood, that we

    As such only westerners have succeeded in such suppression of falsehood, that we are able to produce high trust commons, and the means by which we evolved that tradition is almost impossible to replicate without intentionally designing a legal system for it (which I did.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 17:12:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180531299766931460

    Reply addressees: @Gyeff @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180531091465220096

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Gyeff @MartianHoplite …because we continually shift techniques such that we need only raise the cost of truth discovery by creating ambiguity such that lie is indistinguishable from ignorance, error, or natural limitations in judgement and prediction.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180531091465220096

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Gyeff @MartianHoplite …because we continually shift techniques such that we need only raise the cost of truth discovery by creating ambiguity such that lie is indistinguishable from ignorance, error, or natural limitations in judgement and prediction.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180531091465220096

  • The Industrialization of Agency.

    THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF AGENCY. Agency. Truth and Oath Duty and Commons Excellence and Heroism Sovereignty and Reciprocity The Natural Law, Judge and Jury Markets in – association – cooperation – production – reproduction – commons – polities – war. The Eugenic Civilization.