Curt Doolittle

Theme: Externalities

  • Property Is Not An Absolute. But The Imposition Of Costs Is.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm) [T]he informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs. One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration. So: – property exists prior to cooperation, – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice) – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment). Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others. The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you). It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect. Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation. This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances. It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative. This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Property Is Not An Absolute. But The Imposition Of Costs Is.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm) [T]he informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs. One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration. So: – property exists prior to cooperation, – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice) – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment). Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others. The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you). It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect. Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation. This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances. It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative. This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • PROPERTY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE – THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS IS. (important concept) (l

    PROPERTY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE – THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS IS.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm)

    The informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs.

    One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration.

    So:

    – property exists prior to cooperation,

    – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice)

    – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality

    – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment).

    Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others.

    The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you).

    It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect.

    Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation.

    This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances.

    It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative.

    This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 23:53:00 UTC

  • YES THE USA EXPORTS COSTS (TAXES) TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. BUT ARE YOU REALLY S

    YES THE USA EXPORTS COSTS (TAXES) TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. BUT ARE YOU REALLY SURE YOU DON”T WANT TO PAY THEM?

    QUESTION:

    —“How much of a connection, ultimately, is there between American military might and the global reserve status of the US Dollar? With global reserve status, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has license to print currency almost indiscriminately, because that liquidity injection can be off-shored (often into sovereign wealth funds, that are used in oil trade). “—Davin.

    ANSWER:

    Yes, this is how America taxes the world for policing of the air, sea, land, trade and financing system.

    (The use of the euro for oil purchases is another means of tax evasion so that europeans do not have to pay for nato defense. A fact that is not lost on Americans.)

    But without this method of taxing the rest of the world, we would have to export the cost of military defense to the rest of the world, which is terribly expensive, inefficient and provides opportunity and stimulus for warfare.

    Military overhead is high. Military duplication is terribly expensive. Individual states paying for their own militaries is actually comparatively impossible.

    I have been advocating the export of military and military costs to the rest of the world, **OR** the transfer of the US government to NATO, and the fragmentation of the USA into separate nations for the better part of two decades for this reason.

    So while I agree with your description of the seemingly unjust mechanics of exporting inflation I disagree with the presumption that the USA is imposing costs. It is instead, providing the most expensive service a nation can undertake at a fraction of the necessary equivalent. A tremendous discount, without which the liberal order of the west is not possible.

    So I am perfectly happy to unwind the Nixon-era world-defense-tax, but the anglo-germanic-catholic western world should be very well aware that by doing so, they will sacrifice the vast discount and be forced for some period, to spend upwards of 10% of gdp to construct a military equivalent of the American forces.

    For all intents and purposes nato is a lie. America pays for the defense of the western world after the fall of the British empire that did the same.

    We paid for it by means of asymmetric production ability through about 1970. After 1970 we paid for it by indirect taxes on oil. Going forward, we will not be able to pay for it.

    This is why the next world war will occur, as the western world attempts to preserve unearned privileges of redistribution and social programs, while US power diminishes, and competitors with less liberal (less libertarian, less meritocratic, less individualist and less global) incentives (competitive needs) seek to capture control of trade, finance, political, and rent opportunities.

    And once that set of events becomes visible (which it will with the ascent of iran and russia if not china) then the arms race will accelerate as smaller weaker governments seek to preserve sovereignty in the face of expansionary state capitalism, and expansionary islam.

    So my advice is just the opposite. Make sure either the USA gets its taxes, or make sure that each western country goes through a radical reallocation of resources to economic, territorial and political defense.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-05 08:32:00 UTC

  • The Art of Predation: Murder, Violence, Theft, Fraud, Extortion, Externalization

    The Art of Predation: Murder, Violence, Theft, Fraud, Extortion, Externalization, Free-Riding, Conspiracy, Displacement, and Conquest. #tlot

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-02 10:31:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/627788886601801728

  • NO MARKET FAILURES? Market Failure is a Propertarian Trigger Word I am working o

    NO MARKET FAILURES?

    Market Failure is a Propertarian Trigger Word

    I am working on the Market Failure topic today. And I honestly can’t think of any that are not caused by positive actions of government.

    Or the failure of the common law, because of it’s lack of independence from government.

    Or a failure to prohibit free riding on commons, by requiring some form of contribution to the commons in order to benefit from it.

    Or the interference of government in the suppression of dysgenic reproduction.

    Or a failure to accept/acknowledge that dysgenia is the WORST POSSIBLE form of externality production.

    I don’t make the argument government is unnecessary or undesirable. I make the argument that the law is the law and independent, and the production of commons is a competitive advantage, as long as it produces no dysgenic externalities.

    —

    Types of market failure:

    1) Positive externalities – Goods / services which give benefit to a third party, e.g. less congestion from cycling

    2) Negative externalities – Goods / services which impose cost on a third party, e.g. cancer from passive smoking

    3) Merit goods – People underestimate the benefit of good, e.g. education

    4) Demerit goods – People underestimate the costs of good, e.g. smoking

    5) Public Goods – Goods which are non-rival and non-excludable – e.g. police, national defence.

    6) Monopoly Power – when a firm controls the market and can set higher prices.

    Inequality – unfair distribution of resources in free market

    7) Factor Immobility – E.g. geographical / occupational immobility

    Agriculture – Agriculture is often subject to market failure – due to volatile prices and externalities.

    #propertarianism

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-17 04:53:00 UTC

  • If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.***

    ie: parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:28:00 UTC

  • “Yatsenyuk boasted that Ukraine has decreased its dependence from Russian gas an

    “Yatsenyuk boasted that Ukraine has decreased its dependence from Russian gas and increased gas imports from the European Union – from five percent in 2013 to 67 percent or more than five billion of cubic meters, according to estimates in 2014.

    The state aparatus was cut by 25,000 workers in 2014 and will be cut by 50,000 in 2015, Yatsenyuk said. Some 26 regulatory bodies were liquidated out of 52 that existed before, he said and the number of taxes cut from 22 to 11.

    “These reforms are not effective for the government I lead for one reason – the (results) require time. Next government and next prime minister will win from these reforms,” he said. “After my tenure the chances to keep my political ranking (high) are very, very low. But this is my choice and I realize the consequences.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-01 15:09:00 UTC

  • How Does A Country Get A Good Balance Between Socialism And Capitalism?

    I’ll back up TJ Claridge’s post and say that you’re misusing the terms.

    I think you mean to say, how much interference in the economy by the government produces a Pareto Optimum? 

    We call this a mixed economy.  That is, a capitalist economy (which is the only economy possible long term), with social democratic redistribution via taxation.   Under social democracy, property is owned by individuals, but proceeds are forcibly taken from those people for redistributive purposes. Social democracy is not socialism, since property is not owned by the state, and production is not organized by the state. (It cannot be, that’s why it isn’t). 

    In practice nearly all governments today practice social democracy.  The difference is only in the level of corruption involved. Even very good people in the world (Hindus) have a tragically corrupt country.

    Greece for example has both high corruption (bureaucratic) and high avoidance (personal).  America has very sophisticated corruption (systemic), very little interpersonal bureaucratic corruption other than systemic corruption, and very little personal avoidance.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-country-get-a-good-balance-between-socialism-and-capitalism

  • 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