(FB 1541782596 Timestamp) —“Social norms, group identity, customs, are ghosts – not quite real until codified in law and law doesn’t exist until there is force to make it real (consequential)…”– Bill Joslin (via Alain Dwight)
Theme: Institution
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1541902975 Timestamp) BUILDING LEADERSHIP You cannot know in advance what human capital investments will hatch leaders. The method I use to build organizations is the same: make a lot of bets, and make few judgments, other than to support evidence successes no matter how small and abandon failures that cannot be saved.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1541902975 Timestamp) BUILDING LEADERSHIP You cannot know in advance what human capital investments will hatch leaders. The method I use to build organizations is the same: make a lot of bets, and make few judgments, other than to support evidence successes no matter how small and abandon failures that cannot be saved.
-
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS RE
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS REACH â @hbdchick the main feature of bipartite manorialism in medieval europe was the dual, conjoined arrangement of the central manor farm (the demesne) along with the attached individual farms of the tenants, with the tenants owing labor on the demesne (later rent)… …tenants were independently responsible for the success of their own farms, i.e. w/the production of foodstuffs for themselves (to be self-sufficient iow) as well as for producing a certain amount of foods and products for the manor (agricultural, but also things like cloth)… …another extremely important aspect of bipartite manorialism, tho, was the curious feature of common arable fields in which tenants were allotted certain furrows to farm alongside and inbetween the furrows of the demesne… …these furrows were the tenants’ farms (alongside whatever garden they might have). in the early days of manorialism, the furrows/farms were not passed down within families, but “reassigned” each generation. over time tenancies became inheritable and eventually… …the common field system disappeared and farms were restructured to be more like free-standing units (although still within the manor system), but for a good 500-1000 years, depending on the region, the common field system was in place… …however, in order to avoid any tragedies of commons, tenants came together on village councils to agree upon plans for planting and the grazing of animals in fallow fields, etc. here from Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-Saxon England (https://books.google.com/books?id=_SlMAQAAQBAJ â¦): …the same practices were found in other regions of nw europe which saw bipartite manorialism + open field systems. here on vaine pâture in nw france:hbd chick added, (oh, sorry. forgot. “CPrRs” are “common property regimes.” these collective village institutions that governed open fields and common pastures.) …and, again, here are the regions in nw “core” europe where bipartite manorialism/open field systems were found:hbd chick added, here you go. core europe. the dark regions of communal open fields (i.e. regions that had bipartite manorialism during the middle ages). from Regions, Institutions, and Agrarian Change in European History⦠by the time manorialism got to east germany (east of the elbe) it was a purely rent-based system. individual tenant farmers working their own farms and paying cash rents. (further east in russia it was often extended families.) …and the outcome of all this, i think (theorize)? and selecting for behavioral traits related to reciprocal altruism while selecting out traits related to parochial altruism, since these folks were neither living/working in extended family groups or marrying close family members, but, instead, cooperating w/unrelated fellows. btw, some medieval ridge and furrow field systems are still visible in england. here are three from: gloucestershire (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medieval_Ridge_and_Furrow_above_Wood_Stanway_-geograph.org.uk-_640050.jpg â¦); buckinghamshire (http://www.heritage-explorer.co.uk/web/he/searchdetail.aspx?id=1488&large=1 â¦); and worcestershire (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=654&ei=lNfoW4ynE6LlkgWSqoCIBA&q=common+fields+furrows&oq=common+fields+furrows&gs_l=img.3…1482.5260.0.5427.21.13.0.8.2.0.156.1397.3j9.12.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..1.13.1330…0j0i8i30k1j0i24k1j0i10i24k1.0.8oaGF6jdXv0#imgdii=KJ7ZkoGp3VKs9M:&imgrc=B81gElEVEKUnbM â¦): and there are even a handful of open field systems still in operation in england today. there’s one in laxton, nottinghamshire. you can read about how the farmers all work together on their manor here!: http://www.laxtonnotts.org.uk/Laxton%20manorial_system.htm ⦠oh, yes. forgot to mention: given that WHEAT was pretty much the main crop of medieval manors w/their common property regimes (i.e. collective village institutions), i can’t see how @ThomasTalhelm et al. argue that rice farming leads to holistic thinking patterns because… …of its collective nature wheat plus oats and rye. (^_^) SEE: (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603 â¦. nw “core” european wheat farming WAS collective for something like 500-1000 years (depending on region). afaics, the diff ofc is who one is collective with: family? or unrelated individuals? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542051210 Timestamp) The state is either a corporation at the expense of the kin group, or a family that has no other concern but the kin group. The state is not the problem – the corporation is. Restore the perfect government: rule of law, judiciary, monarchy, houses for the classes, and a church that educates people in the mindfulness of the parenting of generations, the stoic virtues, martial fitness, the natural law, the means of calculation, and the skills of transformation we call ‘the trades’.
-
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS RE
(FB 1542062393 Timestamp) HBDCHICK’S SUMMARY OF BIPARTITE MANORIALISM AND ITS REACH â @hbdchick the main feature of bipartite manorialism in medieval europe was the dual, conjoined arrangement of the central manor farm (the demesne) along with the attached individual farms of the tenants, with the tenants owing labor on the demesne (later rent)… …tenants were independently responsible for the success of their own farms, i.e. w/the production of foodstuffs for themselves (to be self-sufficient iow) as well as for producing a certain amount of foods and products for the manor (agricultural, but also things like cloth)… …another extremely important aspect of bipartite manorialism, tho, was the curious feature of common arable fields in which tenants were allotted certain furrows to farm alongside and inbetween the furrows of the demesne… …these furrows were the tenants’ farms (alongside whatever garden they might have). in the early days of manorialism, the furrows/farms were not passed down within families, but “reassigned” each generation. over time tenancies became inheritable and eventually… …the common field system disappeared and farms were restructured to be more like free-standing units (although still within the manor system), but for a good 500-1000 years, depending on the region, the common field system was in place… …however, in order to avoid any tragedies of commons, tenants came together on village councils to agree upon plans for planting and the grazing of animals in fallow fields, etc. here from Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-Saxon England (https://books.google.com/books?id=_SlMAQAAQBAJ â¦): …the same practices were found in other regions of nw europe which saw bipartite manorialism + open field systems. here on vaine pâture in nw france:hbd chick added, (oh, sorry. forgot. “CPrRs” are “common property regimes.” these collective village institutions that governed open fields and common pastures.) …and, again, here are the regions in nw “core” europe where bipartite manorialism/open field systems were found:hbd chick added, here you go. core europe. the dark regions of communal open fields (i.e. regions that had bipartite manorialism during the middle ages). from Regions, Institutions, and Agrarian Change in European History⦠by the time manorialism got to east germany (east of the elbe) it was a purely rent-based system. individual tenant farmers working their own farms and paying cash rents. (further east in russia it was often extended families.) …and the outcome of all this, i think (theorize)? and selecting for behavioral traits related to reciprocal altruism while selecting out traits related to parochial altruism, since these folks were neither living/working in extended family groups or marrying close family members, but, instead, cooperating w/unrelated fellows. btw, some medieval ridge and furrow field systems are still visible in england. here are three from: gloucestershire (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medieval_Ridge_and_Furrow_above_Wood_Stanway_-geograph.org.uk-_640050.jpg â¦); buckinghamshire (http://www.heritage-explorer.co.uk/web/he/searchdetail.aspx?id=1488&large=1 â¦); and worcestershire (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=654&ei=lNfoW4ynE6LlkgWSqoCIBA&q=common+fields+furrows&oq=common+fields+furrows&gs_l=img.3…1482.5260.0.5427.21.13.0.8.2.0.156.1397.3j9.12.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..1.13.1330…0j0i8i30k1j0i24k1j0i10i24k1.0.8oaGF6jdXv0#imgdii=KJ7ZkoGp3VKs9M:&imgrc=B81gElEVEKUnbM â¦): and there are even a handful of open field systems still in operation in england today. there’s one in laxton, nottinghamshire. you can read about how the farmers all work together on their manor here!: http://www.laxtonnotts.org.uk/Laxton%20manorial_system.htm ⦠oh, yes. forgot to mention: given that WHEAT was pretty much the main crop of medieval manors w/their common property regimes (i.e. collective village institutions), i can’t see how @ThomasTalhelm et al. argue that rice farming leads to holistic thinking patterns because… …of its collective nature wheat plus oats and rye. (^_^) SEE: (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603 â¦. nw “core” european wheat farming WAS collective for something like 500-1000 years (depending on region). afaics, the diff ofc is who one is collective with: family? or unrelated individuals? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/603
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542051210 Timestamp) The state is either a corporation at the expense of the kin group, or a family that has no other concern but the kin group. The state is not the problem – the corporation is. Restore the perfect government: rule of law, judiciary, monarchy, houses for the classes, and a church that educates people in the mindfulness of the parenting of generations, the stoic virtues, martial fitness, the natural law, the means of calculation, and the skills of transformation we call ‘the trades’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542230800 Timestamp) THE INSTITUTE AS A DEGREE ISSUING “INSTITUTION” Regulations in the United States require only a business license and the payment of taxes, and do not require a business issuing degrees to possess accreditation prior to the conduct of operations. The reason being that the accreditation process takes a long time – usually years – and accrediting an operating organization is less failure prone. That does not mean the criteria for accredited organizations can be ignored, just that the startup costs and time of issuing degrees in the Philosophy of Natural Law (whether in the context of ‘theology’, philosophy, or law. The value of accreditation is that it gives access to student loans, and therefore a broader range of students, a broader range of classes, and a larger pool of professors. There are a great number of advantages to conducting business as a THEOLOGICAL rather than purely academic institution and we are still exploring that choice. This allows us to explicitly require physical, emotional and intellectual training for satisfaction of degree requirements. Furthermore, the positioning of Natural Law as a Religion has additional benefits. So again, we are working through it. Because it is not so much that you would use such a degree for career purposes (any more than any philosophy degree). As such we WILL BE ISSUING DEGREES. Anyway. More as thoughts evolve on this matter.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542230800 Timestamp) THE INSTITUTE AS A DEGREE ISSUING “INSTITUTION” Regulations in the United States require only a business license and the payment of taxes, and do not require a business issuing degrees to possess accreditation prior to the conduct of operations. The reason being that the accreditation process takes a long time – usually years – and accrediting an operating organization is less failure prone. That does not mean the criteria for accredited organizations can be ignored, just that the startup costs and time of issuing degrees in the Philosophy of Natural Law (whether in the context of ‘theology’, philosophy, or law. The value of accreditation is that it gives access to student loans, and therefore a broader range of students, a broader range of classes, and a larger pool of professors. There are a great number of advantages to conducting business as a THEOLOGICAL rather than purely academic institution and we are still exploring that choice. This allows us to explicitly require physical, emotional and intellectual training for satisfaction of degree requirements. Furthermore, the positioning of Natural Law as a Religion has additional benefits. So again, we are working through it. Because it is not so much that you would use such a degree for career purposes (any more than any philosophy degree). As such we WILL BE ISSUING DEGREES. Anyway. More as thoughts evolve on this matter.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542289896 Timestamp) MOVING PROPERTARIAN INSTITUTE TO THE STATES The international organization is quite difficult so yesterday we began the process of moving the institute to the USA as a 5013c Non Profit Educational Institution. There are a host of reasons for doing this. They include making ourselves intentionally vulnerable in order to encourage attempts and gain the consequential publicity.