Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • “Persistent Hollywood Propaganda is the result of who owns Hollywood, and the vo

    —“Persistent Hollywood Propaganda is the result of who owns Hollywood, and the voices and bodies that are given power within it. It’s been a clear revelation this last year that they are not given power without requirements. But we continue to pretend this is not so.”— A Friend.

    ie: End copyright and replace it with creative commons and hollywood dies an economic death, along with the mainstream media. Why do we grant exceptional protection and therefore subsidy to the very people who work against our civilization?

    If we end copyright subsidies and make propaganda (falsehood and immorality) involuntarily warrantied and therefore liable in the commons, then Hollywood and major media will die.

    If we eliminate consumer interest and borrow direct from the treasury, insured by anyone with a license, then new york will die, and LA cannot be funded.

    (I do these things for reasons)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 11:01:00 UTC

  • YES. AN INQUISITION Yeah. To some degree I want to make Truth and Natural Law a

    YES. AN INQUISITION

    Yeah. To some degree I want to make Truth and Natural Law a Cult – an extremely intolerant cult. A judicial priesthood. An Inquisition of Truth. Because that is the origin of western civilization: truth regardless of consequences.

    A militant, intolerante, prosecutorial, expansionist, inquisition.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 10:11:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE WEST
    (just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale)

    Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains.

    We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority.

    What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes.

    This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean.

    Capitalism.
    —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”—

    All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working.

    Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law.

    The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest.

    The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities.

    In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons.

    This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets.

    Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact.

    The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism).

    We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence.

    We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons.

    Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique.

    (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-15 13:52:01 UTC

  • UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE WEST (just takes a great deal of r

    UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE WEST

    (just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale)

    Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains.

    We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority.

    What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes.

    This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean.

    Capitalism.

    —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”—

    All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working.

    Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law.

    The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest.

    The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities.

    In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons.

    This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets.

    Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact.

    The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism).

    We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence.

    We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons.

    Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique.

    (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-15 09:52:00 UTC

  • Um. No. Capitalism Has Existed Forever in The West

    (just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale) Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains. We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority. What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes. This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean. Capitalism. —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”— All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working. Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law. The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest. The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities. In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons. This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets. Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact. The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism). We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence. We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons. Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique. (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)

  • Um. No. Capitalism Has Existed Forever in The West

    (just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale) Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains. We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority. What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes. This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean. Capitalism. —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”— All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working. Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law. The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest. The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities. In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons. This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets. Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact. The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism). We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence. We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons. Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique. (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. 1 -Courts 2-Military 3-Banks 4-State One down

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    1 -Courts 2-Military 3-Banks 4-State

    One down.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 16:54:17 UTC

  • 1 -Courts 2-Military 3-Banks 4-State One down

    1 -Courts 2-Military 3-Banks 4-State

    One down.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 12:54:00 UTC

  • I have a few questions if you don’t mind. 1) –“Besides Ostrom, what can I read

    I have a few questions if you don’t mind.

    1) –“Besides Ostrom, what can I read if I want to understand more of the commons?”–

    Honestly, I don’t think there is else much worth reading. I would read the history of the common law which is in my book list. And I would read my definition of property in toto.

    2) –“Who would you consider influential in the Chicago school for the insurer of last resort argument for the state?”–

    Becker and Friedman. Becker for method, and Friedman for Solutions, Hayek for integration with law, Coase for institutions. Just go thru the list of famous people from Chicago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics

    3) —“And lastly, where can I read more on the proposed propertarian financial/monetary/banking system?”—

    I haven’t categorized (tagged) that group of ideas on the site, so it’s spread all over the place. I can’t spend 30 minutes doing a bunch of searches right now but I can think of a few that might be helpful. But understand, this is a very small part of the program:

    1) https://propertarianism.com/2016/12/10/whats-your-position-on-ubi-welfare-2-0/

    2) ***DE-FINANCIALIZATION:

    Definancialization of the Financial System. There is no reason we pay interest on consumer loans (and every reason we pay it on business and industrial loans).

    By nationalizing Mastercard, and issuing one every LEGAL AND FULLY INTEGRATED citizen, we can distribute liquidity (increase the money supply) by direct redistribution to the citizenry (in which case our homes would all be paid for because of the last recession), and consumer loans can be provided directly from the treasury.

    Furthermore, by professionalizing ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPA’s), we can eliminate consumer interest, and cut payment periods in half or to one third. Additionally we make universities carry the zero interest loans on behalf of any student, and to obtain payment as a payroll deduction over a period of no more than ten years.

    This combination will mean that after about 15 years, the first time home owner will own his home free and clear, and the universities will no longer be able to offer junk degrees. I won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s way of life and destroy the predatory financial, academic, and government sectors. There will be no other way to profit than the Silicon Valley (monarchy) model of investment in research, development, and industry.

    Financialism will be destroyed forever.***

    4) —“If I understand correctly, you’re proposing 100% reserves under fiat,”—

    No, you must publish your ratios at all times, and hold to any ratio whenever a debt was initiated.

    You many not transfer originated debt. You can sell interest in that debt but must carry it.

    And lastly, given that most consumer lending would be from the treasury and without interest, this would apply largely to commercial relations.

    5) —“while having at least two if not more parallel monies, one for savings (probably a gold standard) and one as a means of exchange (fiat e-cash),”—

    Multiple monies in general. I think my view is of far more than two.

    6) —-With savings and investments happening under private banks while current accounts controlled by central bank). Is that correct?”—-

    I see individual agents having relationships with the central bank for consumer credit, and very little need for them, without a bank as an intermediary.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 11:49:00 UTC

  • –“Do Free Market Policies Help Poor Countries?”–

    DO FREE MARKET POLICIES HELP POOR COUNTRIES
    https://www.quora.com/Do-free-market-policies-help-poor-countries/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=046bc1f0&srid=u4Qv
    Free Markets are advocated under the presumption that in a world without government interference **comparative advantage** will provide the optimum market for goods, services, and information to everyone. However, this doesn’t turn out to be true. Free-Market is a code word for: 1 – all government non-interference trade by taxation. 2 – all governmental non-interference in trade by policy 3 – socialist government interference in the organization of production, distribution, and trade. In the **developing world**, this translates to: 1 – on one hand, ‘the reduction and elimination of corruption’ and 2 – on the other hand ‘the privatization of common resources’ by internal members, and ‘the exploitation of common resources’ by outside members. In the **Developed World** translates to: 1- Forcing all post-war nations to grant human (natural) rights (property rights), rather than territorial expansion (growth by warfare). 2 – Forcing all post-war nations to compete entirely by meritocratic production distribution and trade, so that survival is dependent upon being a good market citizen of the world, thus reducing the chances of another world war. 3 – (Failed Hypothesis) By encouraging democracy (which appears to have been a universal disaster) citizens both 1 and 2 will be brought to bear out of citizen’s self interest. (Despite the fact that communism and islamism are hostile to meritocracy.) **This is America’s postwar policy in a nutshell.** Add to this policy the unstated threat that ‘*You can Choose your own government under democracy but if you choose poorly we will punish you so severely that you’ll be back in the stone age.*” The problem is that America promotes the CARROT but doesn’t mention the STICK. And it turns out that Authoritarian State Capitalism, which is just monarchy at greater scale, is superior to democracy in every case OTHER than small homogenous protestant nation states where everyone is a sixth cousin at the outside.