Theme: Institution

  • FROM TWITTER. KYLE HENRY SEES A PATTERN IN HISTORY —“A little abstract,but whe

    FROM TWITTER. KYLE HENRY SEES A PATTERN IN HISTORY

    —“A little abstract,but when I think of Propertarianism in terms of development. I keep thinking of England in the year 1066. The chaos following the battles of Stamford Bridge & Hastings. Three ideologies-Pagan mysticism Harald. Roman mysticism- Harold.”—@KyleHen44723716

    1) Smart observation. Yes. Only today it’s Pseudoscience(Jewish) vs Pseudo- Rationalism (French-German), vs Rule of Law-Tradition and History-Tradition (Empiricism), Just as it has been since the industrial revolution. Anglo >French >German>Jewish. Each was +100yrs. Ending now.

    2) So I view my work as completing the enlightenment, and trying to provide the next empirical revolution – in psychology, social science, law, economics, and science – to compensate for the errors-wishful-thinking-deceit of the French, German, and Jewish counter-enlightenments.

    3) The problem, and the one that creates the permanent vulnerability to any system of calculation, truth, sovereignty, and reciprocity, is that people all desire false histories. My only correct critics so far are those that say ‘truth is enough to rule, but not enough for man’.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-04 13:21:00 UTC

  • “I don’t see” is the problem. How many revolutions have you studied, the numbers

    “I don’t see” is the problem. How many revolutions have you studied, the numbers involved, the time it took, the circumstances that gave them favor, the political, economic, institutional, infrastructure, distribution, and financial systems that gave them opportunity? INCENTIVES


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-03 22:15:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948679254098808832

    Reply addressees: @zwyrw @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948594178845478913


    IN REPLY TO:

    @zwyrw

    @curtdoolittle @TOOEdit I don’t see how organisation “for revolution” is possible in our world. It does not attract our people, it repels them. So I propose organisation under incentives by simultaneously preparing the body for “crisis/sudden change” (which other names for your term).

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/948594178845478913

  • Parsimonious Kinship Government

    Rule of Natural Law, Mandatory Kinship Accountability and Insurance, Hereditary Monarchy, Regional And Local Nobility. Market Fascism (meritocracy), flat taxation on commerce. The production of commons either private or monarchic, Absent any ‘government’ (Politics). Eric Danelaw once you make people accountable for their kin again, the result will be ethno nationalism Always use the law to manage incentives, and the desired result will emerge from market forces.
  • Parsimonious Kinship Government

    Rule of Natural Law, Mandatory Kinship Accountability and Insurance, Hereditary Monarchy, Regional And Local Nobility. Market Fascism (meritocracy), flat taxation on commerce. The production of commons either private or monarchic, Absent any ‘government’ (Politics). Eric Danelaw once you make people accountable for their kin again, the result will be ethno nationalism Always use the law to manage incentives, and the desired result will emerge from market forces.
  • PARSIMONIOUS KINSHIP GOVERNMENT Rule of Natural Law, Mandatory Kinship Accountab

    PARSIMONIOUS KINSHIP GOVERNMENT

    Rule of Natural Law,

    Mandatory Kinship Accountability and Insurance,

    Hereditary Monarchy, Regional And Local Nobility.

    Market Fascism (meritocracy), flat taxation on commerce.

    The production of commons either private or monarchic,

    Absent any ‘government’ (Politics).

    Eric Danelaw once you make people accountable for their kin again, the result will be ethno nationalism

    Always use the law to manage incentives, and the desired result will emerge from market forces.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-03 09:14:00 UTC

  • Ostrom’s Argument Is ‘Misrepresented’ Like Everything On The Left.

    (important)(common property)(property rights) (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
  • Ostrom’s Argument Is ‘Misrepresented’ Like Everything On The Left.

    (important)(common property)(property rights) (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
  • OSTROM’S ARGUMENT IS ‘MISREPRESENTED’ LIKE EVERYTHING ON THE LEFT. (important)(c

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

    (important)(common property)(property rights)

    (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


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-01 21:49:00 UTC

  • 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

  • Will The Economy Bubble Burst Again In 2018 (like The One That Happened In 2008)?

    It is a virtual certainty that we will see some sort of massive correction even greater than the 2008 crisis, sometime between now and 2025. And at that time the states will need to bypass the financial system in order to put liquidity into consumer (citizen’s) hands, so that the economy can adapt to the shock. And governments are not yet ready to do this, although Americans can do it fastest. (And some of us are trying to make sure it happens this time around.)

    Now, the reason this will be difficult, is that we have spent the entire postwar era financializing the economy, and done more so since the advent of petro-dollars, and more so to defeat world communism, and more so since the 2001 crash, and more so since the 2008 crash. (We could have paid off the vast majority of home mortgages in 2008 with the money we have spent SINCE 2008 trying to correct the economy. (Only Galbraith, me, and one other made this argument. Unfortunately, he was the only person of influence, and he died.) Imagine what that would have done to the economy.

    Unfortunately, that ‘shock’ of de-financialization (ending rent seeking on consumer), will vastly diminish (a) the size of the financial sector (b) the rents that ‘institutional investors and pension funds’ can extract from consumers. So it will be a vast correction we have not seen in the world before.

    Just WHY this is so is … well, non trivial. But it’s largely a factor of demographics, abilities of those demographics, and AVAILABLE consumption.

    And, yes I can explain it in scary detail, but at present, it’s bedtime…..

    https://www.quora.com/Will-the-economy-bubble-burst-again-in-2018-like-the-one-that-happened-in-2008