Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • Cooperation is only Valuable until Non cooperation is preferable. Non-cooperatio

    Cooperation is only Valuable until Non cooperation is preferable. Non-cooperation is only preferable until Predation is Preferable. (revolution comes.)

  • How Do Libertarians Address The Tragedy Of The Commons?

    OSTROM’S ARGUMENT IS ‘MISREPRESENTED’ (LIKE EVERYTHING ON THE LEFT.)

    (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.)

    —-”How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—

    Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR.

    Ostrom’s argument, is that:

    1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘private corporations’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title.

    2 – States create the tragedy of the commons when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset.

    3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely INSURE all forms of property (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind.

    In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability,

    OSTROM’S RULES
    (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS

    2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules.

    [ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].

    1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined.

    [‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]

    1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment.

    [‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]

    2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions.

    [‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]

    3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

    [‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]

    4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users.

    4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource.

    [‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]

    5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.

    [‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]

    6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.

    7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

    [‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]

    8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

    [Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-libertarians-address-the-tragedy-of-the-commons

  • How Do Libertarians Address The Tragedy Of The Commons?

    OSTROM’S ARGUMENT IS ‘MISREPRESENTED’ (LIKE EVERYTHING ON THE LEFT.)

    (Thank you for asking me to answer this rather … challenging question.)

    —-”How do libertarians address the tragedy of the commons?”—

    Ostrom’s argument is identical to the libertarian argument, although far more articulate, supported by exhausted research, and articulated in a FORMAL LOGICAL GRAMMAR.

    Ostrom’s argument, is that:

    1 – Common property organizations, meaning ‘private corporations’ will form as a means of managing scarce assets, with or without state interference, and with or without issuance of shares of title.

    2 – States create the tragedy of the commons when the INTERFERE with the development of those private corporations, by violating the property rights of the participants in the ‘natural corporation’ that manages the asset.

    3 – If states (groups, polities, governments, judiciaries) merely INSURE all forms of property (exclusivity of benefit, and exclusivity of management), people will, out of natural self interest, maintain any asset of any kind.

    In other words, Ostrom explained the evolution of the corporation – before we created the corporation in order to obtain outside investment, and therefore limited liability,

    OSTROM’S RULES
    (REORDERED FOR CLARITY) FOLLOWED BY RESTATEMENT OF EACH, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS

    2B – Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource (CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules.

    [ ‘People only get out of the corporation what they put in to the corporation, in the form of labor and assets.’].

    1A – User boundaries: Boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly defined.

    [‘Those who have contributed labor and assets into the corporation in exchange for returns on those labor and assets, shall exclusively benefit from the common pool resource.’]

    1B – Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and separate it from the larger biophysical environment.

    [‘The assets of the corporation shall not impose costs by externality.’]

    2A – Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with local social and environmental conditions.

    [‘Broader communities insure (defend) Personal, familial, Private Corporate, Public Corporate, and Public Assets, from violation, and the corporation must be insured by those same institutions.’]

    3 – Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

    [‘Only shareholders who have contributed labor and assets shall participate in the management of the assets of the corporation.’]

    4A – Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and provision levels of the users.

    4B – Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of the resource.

    [‘Contributors to the corporation monitor one another just like we monitor one another in all aspects of personal, familial, private corporate, public corporate, and public life’]

    5 – Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.

    [‘Corporations produce their own internal laws for violations of corporate assets’]

    6 – Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.

    7 – Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.

    [‘Natural private corporations must exist, and will exist, but like all forms of property require defense, even if that defense includes defense from the interfering state.’]

    8 – Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

    [Humans must organize defense of the various forms of property in order to gain the benefits, of decreased opportunity cost, from increased numbers and increased density, and the benefits of numbers, and density, and velocity (everything becomes cheaper) are directly proportional to the degree of suppression of parasitism upon property, where property consists of material physical and asset investment in the production of multipliers, and therefore returns.]

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-libertarians-address-the-tragedy-of-the-commons

  • Is Religion Necessary For The Individual?

    Mindfulness is necessary. Religion provides us with mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, social, and political realms by the use of ritual, feast, festival, and myth. There are biological and circumstantial reasons why we need mindfulness in a world no longer consisting of hunter gatherer bands.

    The problem, religion is the ABSOLUTE WORST POSSIBLE way of achieving mindfulness. And of the worst possible kinds, Abrahamic Monotheism is the ABSOLUTE WORST POSSIBLE religion.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-religion-necessary-for-the-individual

  • What Are The Different Branches Of Economics?

    I’m going to give you a different answer from the rest. Which is the group evolutionary strategy advanced by the different schools.

    Ostensibly, all schools study every scale of human interaction from behavior through micro, thru macro, through the world economic system. We teach the fundamentals with micro and macro. But these are just entry level disciplines.

    But just as people have intellectual, moral, and political biases in every field, so do they in economics.

    “SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS”
    The schools of economics reflect the culture and class of their origins. These groups do not acknowledge that their strategies and biases are as I”ve stated them here but their research evidence states the contrary. So I have tried to provide a general Spectrum of the institutions by what I understand is their culture/class bias.

    a) “Austrian / Rothbardian” (“Jewish”, Separatist) : Rule of Credit, Parasitic Optimum, Separatist / Anarchism.
    +Financial Class Bias. Anti-Commons Bias.
    (As far as I know, no university teaches the Jewish Austrian method.)

    b) “Mason-ism” (“Anglo Libertarian”, Right ) : Optimum Rule of Law, Nash Optimum, Minimal State / Christian Monarchy
    +Entrepreneurial Class Bias.
    (the only University I know of using this program is George Mason.)
    The “Mason-Libertarian” school places greater emphasis on maximizing the voluntary cooperation of individuals and organizations through reduction of impediments to ethical and moral cooperation.

    c) “Classical” (“Chicago”, Anglo, Center Right), Rule of Law, Insured Nash Optimum, Parliamentary State / Classical Liberalism.
    +Middle classes bias. (I would argue ‘not biased’)
    All other things being equal, the Chicago school places greater emphasis on policy that insures against error and failure by seeking formulas and rules that investors, businesses, and consumers can predict, thereby preserving rule of law, and maintaining the prohibition on discretionary rule.

    d) “Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, Center Left) : Mixed Discretionary Rule, Pareto Optimum, Social Democracy
    +Working Class Bias, Consumer Bias, Female bias(anti-male bias). Minority(anti-white) bias. Underclass Bias (anti-entreprenurial bias).
    All other things being equal the mainstream seeks to optimize consumption at all times, using every lever available, and favors abandoning rule of law, and adopting rule that is increasingly empirical, reactive, and discretionary.

    e) “Left Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, “Jewish left”) : Authoritarian Rule, Anti-Aristocracy(War), Extractive Maximum (Predatory), Socialism/Communism
    +Underclass (outsider) Bias. This is the Krugman/Stiglitz/Delong club of leftist economists maximizing both consumption and financial extraction as a means of undermining western aristocratic civilization and western norms and traditions and rule of law.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-different-branches-of-economics

  • What Will Finally Bring About The Abolition Of Today’s Racial Classifications In The United States?

    Never happen. We will end up like Brazil or India. People don’t talk about it, but they demonstrate low trust. Americans talk about and demonstrate high trust.

    https://www.quora.com/What-will-finally-bring-about-the-abolition-of-todays-racial-classifications-in-the-United-States

  • What Are The Different Branches Of Economics?

    I’m going to give you a different answer from the rest. Which is the group evolutionary strategy advanced by the different schools.

    Ostensibly, all schools study every scale of human interaction from behavior through micro, thru macro, through the world economic system. We teach the fundamentals with micro and macro. But these are just entry level disciplines.

    But just as people have intellectual, moral, and political biases in every field, so do they in economics.

    “SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS”
    The schools of economics reflect the culture and class of their origins. These groups do not acknowledge that their strategies and biases are as I”ve stated them here but their research evidence states the contrary. So I have tried to provide a general Spectrum of the institutions by what I understand is their culture/class bias.

    a) “Austrian / Rothbardian” (“Jewish”, Separatist) : Rule of Credit, Parasitic Optimum, Separatist / Anarchism.
    +Financial Class Bias. Anti-Commons Bias.
    (As far as I know, no university teaches the Jewish Austrian method.)

    b) “Mason-ism” (“Anglo Libertarian”, Right ) : Optimum Rule of Law, Nash Optimum, Minimal State / Christian Monarchy
    +Entrepreneurial Class Bias.
    (the only University I know of using this program is George Mason.)
    The “Mason-Libertarian” school places greater emphasis on maximizing the voluntary cooperation of individuals and organizations through reduction of impediments to ethical and moral cooperation.

    c) “Classical” (“Chicago”, Anglo, Center Right), Rule of Law, Insured Nash Optimum, Parliamentary State / Classical Liberalism.
    +Middle classes bias. (I would argue ‘not biased’)
    All other things being equal, the Chicago school places greater emphasis on policy that insures against error and failure by seeking formulas and rules that investors, businesses, and consumers can predict, thereby preserving rule of law, and maintaining the prohibition on discretionary rule.

    d) “Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, Center Left) : Mixed Discretionary Rule, Pareto Optimum, Social Democracy
    +Working Class Bias, Consumer Bias, Female bias(anti-male bias). Minority(anti-white) bias. Underclass Bias (anti-entreprenurial bias).
    All other things being equal the mainstream seeks to optimize consumption at all times, using every lever available, and favors abandoning rule of law, and adopting rule that is increasingly empirical, reactive, and discretionary.

    e) “Left Mainstream” (“Saltwater”, “Jewish left”) : Authoritarian Rule, Anti-Aristocracy(War), Extractive Maximum (Predatory), Socialism/Communism
    +Underclass (outsider) Bias. This is the Krugman/Stiglitz/Delong club of leftist economists maximizing both consumption and financial extraction as a means of undermining western aristocratic civilization and western norms and traditions and rule of law.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-different-branches-of-economics

  • What Will Finally Bring About The Abolition Of Today’s Racial Classifications In The United States?

    Never happen. We will end up like Brazil or India. People don’t talk about it, but they demonstrate low trust. Americans talk about and demonstrate high trust.

    https://www.quora.com/What-will-finally-bring-about-the-abolition-of-todays-racial-classifications-in-the-United-States

  • How Can We Resolve The Conflict Of Western Ideology (the Compulsion To Success) And Eastern Ideology (playing It Safe)?

    There is no conflict. They are two different strategies. The eastern model finds ‘honor’ in hierarchy and ‘not making waves’ with the hierarchy, while the western strategy finds ‘heroism’ in risk and achievement in disrupting the hierarchy.

    The world needs room for safe people and adventureous people.

    The problem is aventure is more prosperous than safety and so safe people want the advantages of living under the rewards of adventure, AND the safety of hierarchy.

    SO it’s the attempt to reconcile these that’s the problem.

    We dont want to reconcile them. MOVE TO WHERE YOU ARE SATISFIED BY THE ORDER.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-resolve-the-conflict-of-Western-ideology-the-compulsion-to-success-and-Eastern-ideology-playing-it-safe

  • How Can We Resolve The Conflict Of Western Ideology (the Compulsion To Success) And Eastern Ideology (playing It Safe)?

    There is no conflict. They are two different strategies. The eastern model finds ‘honor’ in hierarchy and ‘not making waves’ with the hierarchy, while the western strategy finds ‘heroism’ in risk and achievement in disrupting the hierarchy.

    The world needs room for safe people and adventureous people.

    The problem is aventure is more prosperous than safety and so safe people want the advantages of living under the rewards of adventure, AND the safety of hierarchy.

    SO it’s the attempt to reconcile these that’s the problem.

    We dont want to reconcile them. MOVE TO WHERE YOU ARE SATISFIED BY THE ORDER.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-resolve-the-conflict-of-Western-ideology-the-compulsion-to-success-and-Eastern-ideology-playing-it-safe