Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • LIBRARY AS THE REMAINING UNIVERSAL SACRED COMMONS? I understand now. A library i

    LIBRARY AS THE REMAINING UNIVERSAL SACRED COMMONS?

    I understand now. A library is the last sacred place in the commons. That is why we fund them so generously. Because, when judged by their content, they are nothing more than expensive book clubs for the underemployed.

    This isn’t so much a criticism of the over-investment in libraries nationwide. But that man demonstrates a consistent willingness over millennia to invest in sacred commons: a place where we may not speak, may not advocate, may not engage in commerce, may not compete. but merely rest in peace.

    Why is it then that we cannot simply return to the era when parks were sacred places? Surely we can have some parks sacred and some parks for play?

    I used to go to the (rather luxurious 19th century) graveyard. Graveyards still are a bit sacred. So how many sacred places do we have? is that why we hide in our homes? No sacred places in the commons? They have all been commercialized?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 15:48:00 UTC

  • FOR SCALE TO FUNCTION as an advantage: 1) Imperial governments MUST provide mili

    FOR SCALE TO FUNCTION as an advantage:

    1) Imperial governments MUST provide military only.

    2) Regional governments, consistency only

    3) Local governments social, only.

    3) There is no value in uniform social norms, no value in their centralization, no reason for conflict or conflict resolution, and great value in normative specialization.

    2) There is no value in polylogism, no value in centralization of law, and high value in juridical competition. (epistemic competition on decisions)

    1) There is no value in polymilitarism, and great value in centralization of the military (economies of scale)

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Natural Law of Sovereigns

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 19:26:00 UTC

  • Josh: I think maybe this is the difference between our perceptions: I favor the

    Josh: I think maybe this is the difference between our perceptions: I favor the cost of institutional solutions that produce incentives by self interest that make the cost of providing the high cost of violence unnecessary. Because while violence alters immediacy, the cost of diligence and the distraction of shocks means the incentive to retaliate against you remains. Yet if institutions exist at all times and cause people to monitor each other, vastly more dramatic shocks are necessary to cause a change in state, and when you are otherwise occupied you do not leave an opening for retaliation and change in state.

    I express this sometimes as the difference between strategy and tactics. But perhaps I needed to say this in terms of costs and opportunities.

    If men(or women) are incapable of sovereignty, then maturing them into freemen by the use of institutions is merely cheaper, more competitive, more rewarding, and safer than the alternatives.

    This is nothing except a statement of the cost of domesticating animals.

    The Spartans were never as safe as the Romans. The Romans over extended. But the Spartans couldn’t even extend.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 13:46:00 UTC

  • PLEASE THANK Ramsey Mekdaschi FOR OUR LIBRARY Seriously. I haven’t visited it la

    PLEASE THANK Ramsey Mekdaschi FOR OUR LIBRARY

    Seriously. I haven’t visited it lately, and I just did, and it’s phenomenal.

    It’s a significant contribution to our movement. (And it saves you a great deal of effort … especially library trips).)

    We are very selective in our process of inclusion. That said, it’s pretty complete. There are some sections I might add to (education, religion, a few biographies, and debate/argument). But otherwise it’s THE RESOURCE for an Aristocratic Education.

    Please request a link from Ramsey if you want access.

    INCLUDES THE REACTIONARY LIBRARY

    Ramsey has also included the Reactionary Library (novels) under “Narrative Arts”.

    Missing Categories

    – Occultists (please suggest if you have any)

    – Some of the essayists (please suggest )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 11:33:00 UTC

  • RELIGION AND REVOLUTION (very important post) Religion functions as a regulatory

    RELIGION AND REVOLUTION

    (very important post)

    Religion functions as a regulatory institution limiting culture. It is one thing to allow religious ‘ghettos’ for political utility, another to tolerate those ghettos for commercial utility, and it’s quite another to create a poly-logical cultural (normative) equivalent to the mono-logical legal system. In other words, it is no more logical(honest) to produce a poly logical legal order, than it is a poly logical ethical order, than it is to produce a poly logical aesthetic order. These are not matters of preference but of truth. And matters of truth are not positive assertions but negative prohibitions. By the possibility of prohibiting that which violates physical, natural, and informational laws, we create a market for goods, but we prohibit a market for bads.

    So the separation of church and state is incorrect. That separation is necessary not so that we may permit competing religions – not so whatsoever – but (a) to prevent the conflation of religion with law, and (b) to allow the evolution of religions increasingly compatible with informational, natural, and physical laws.

    The military, organized crimes(federal police), local crimes (local police), and sheriffs (community police) must be independent because they do not choose, they only ACT. The judiciary must be independent to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption as an organization that decides (chooses) not acts. The church (and I use that term very loosely to describe all forms of aesthetics) must be independent for the same reasons as the judiciary and the military – to prevent its conflation, misuse or corruption. These are regulatory bodies for (1) military:force, (2) judiciary:exchange, and (3) aesthetics:good commons.

    The academy must be independent for the same reasons as the military, judiciary, and church: to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption. However this limits the academy to the sciences (the true) and preserves ‘the good’ as work for the church. Ergo, the aesthetic (allegorical) disciplines then are the providence of the regulation of the church, not the research and training of the academy. The Academy may produce good as a byproduct of truth, but the church must limit the good.

    Our Laws of Nature: Physical Laws, Cooperative Laws(Natural Law), and Informational Laws (Testimonial Law) must then limit all of these disciplines.

    Our germanic ancestors unfortunately did not grasp the genius of the ethics of the germanic oath (responsibility for truth, life, property, and commons), and the utility of common over continental law which enforced this oath not only upon the citizens but on the very institutions of government and religion themselves. The germans feared anglo truth. The anglos were seduced by the commercial gains of cosmopolitan empire – as are all empires that fail.

    The national socialists did not understand what they had discovered: a post-mystical religion – one that we all desire, and (unfortunately) one that we need. They too practiced conflation. They had one piece of the institutional puzzle but not enough of it to prevent ‘bads’.

    We can create a new ‘church’ and make use of our established monuments. That church must fulfill its duty as a limiter of aesthetics, just as the military(force), and judiciary(cooperation), create limits.

    But we must not make the mistake that other civilizations have made when their primary institutions fail: conflation. The answer we seek to restore western civilization is found in the choice of: Sovereignty, and the consequential choice of Transcendence and the consequential necessity of Markets in Everything. And in the means of decidability under them: The Laws: Physical, Cooperative(Natural), and informational (testimonial). And in the specialized institutions that limit the three means of coercion: Military, Judiciary, Church. And the one institution that provides innovation: Science, Academy, School, and Gymnasium.

    The human mind seeks simple models. We call them under various terms: stereotypes, ideal types, and ideals. It’s the most simple form of comparison. We want one rule,and one institution. But this ‘want’ leads us into conflation, and conflation leads us into misuse, corruption, stagnation, and failure.

    In retrospect our ancestors practiced soveregnty and tripartism (estates of the realm), intuitively and habitually, rather than scientifically (operationally and analytically). When the economic shift provided by the end of the plagues, the evolution of the hanseatic civilization as a competitor to the mediterranean, and the scientific enlightenment, unfortunately the middle class seized power by overestimating the potential of the commercial order and the power of markets.

    The accumulated cultural capital did take a long time to spend down. But spend it down we have. And by spending it down we can claim one benefit: by analyzing our loss, we can understand our error. And having understood our error, we can repair it.

    Deconflate the conflations of the enlightenment. End the attempt to construct an institutional monopoly – the antithesis of our historical reasons for success. Restore markets in everything. Restore markets in everything by restoring a judiciary under natural law, and adding informational law to the responsibility of that judiciary. Restore the church by restoring its responsibilities, and chartering it with a new natural rather than supernatural mission. Restore the military to its pervasive position in society as the central method of emergency services of all kinds.

    How can this be done?

    – Moral Permission (we have it)

    – A set of demands (a more precise version of that which is stated above)

    – A plan of transition (a demand for a new constitution, the reformation of our institutions, and the purge of certain institutions).

    – A plan of ‘persuasion’ ( Promise violence against the status quo, then incrementally increase it, until those demands are either met- or we descend into civil war, and we impose them ourselves.)

    Why is it possible?

    – because no civilization in history other than perhaps the Late Roman or Late Ottoman has been as fragile as ours is today.

    Opportunity knocks.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:42:00 UTC

  • CHINESE CONFLATIONISM Not only were there no terms for politics vs society, but

    CHINESE CONFLATIONISM

    Not only were there no terms for politics vs society, but there was no distinction. It’s one vast hierarchy. An enormous family. Which many of us agree with, and which produces exceptional ends. However, there also exists nothing but conflation and the total absence of competition. And without competition one relies on outsiders to force one to evolve. And without others to force one to evolve, one adopts the decision of ‘stability’ rather than ‘innovation’. which is desirable in many cases. But in the end, it means you will stagnate and eventually be conquered.

    Man must transcend the animal, the domesticated animal, the fully human.

    The universe’s clock ticks.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:17:00 UTC

  • “Lead them with government and regulate them by punishments, and the people will

    –“Lead them with government and regulate them by punishments, and the people will evade them with no sense of shame. Lead them with virtue and regulate them by ritual, and they will acquire a sense of shame—and moreover, they will be orderly.”–

    the laws of nature, myth(history), rituals, celebrations.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 03:43:00 UTC

  • THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY. (important concept) (minor discussi

    http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmonsITS THE TRAGEDY OF THE “UNMANAGED COMMONS” ONLY.

    (important concept) (minor discussion of big box retailer phenom.)

    Philip Saunders : —“Read “Governing the Commons” by Elinor Ostrom. Very good explanation of the logical/game theoretic issues around managing common pool resources. Also refutes Garett Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” argument.”—

    8 Principles for Managing a Commons

    1. Define clear group boundaries.

    2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

    3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

    4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

    5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

    6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

    7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

    8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

    In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR), also called a common property resource, is a type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system (e.g. an irrigation system or fishing grounds), whose size or characteristics makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.

    Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource (e.g. water or fish), which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.

    The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a scenario in which commonly held land is inevitably degraded because everyone in a community is allowed to graze livestock there.

    This parable was popularized by wildlife biologist Garrett Hardin in the late 1960s, and was embraced as a principle by the emerging environmental movement.

    But Ostrom’s research refutes this abstract concept once-and-for-all with the real life experience from places like Nepal, Kenya and Guatemala.

    “When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other’s use of the land, developing rules for behavior,” she cites as an example. “It is an area that standard market theory does not touch.”

    (Garrett Hardin himself later revised his own view, noting that what he described was actually the Tragedy of the

    Unmanaged Commons.)

    Hardin explicitly stated that we should exorcise the “dominant tendency of thought that has… interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society” (Hardin, 1968). The Tragedy of the Commons argument

    was a reaction against – not for – the contemporary laissez-faire interpretation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the marketplace”!

    —-

    CURT’S EXPANSION ON THE MATTER:

    ie: proposing the choice of anarchic commons vs private property is just another a deception by framing: a false dichotomy.

    The problem is created when the shareholder agreement is unenforcible, or because no shareholder agreement is in place, or (which Ostrom Does Not Address) when credit (or fiat money) can be used to sufficiently compensate the existing users (shareholders) so that they will permit exhaustion of the resource under their management.

    This last example is what the ‘big box retailer’ phenomenon does that local communities object to. By destroying the local micro-economy, then growing until they bust the big box retailer created fragility to which the local economy could not recover.

    This scenario violates the natural law requirement that one cannot take any action that in the event of one’s failure, one cannot perform restitution for. If that were the case, all ‘ugly commercial architecture’ would have to be insured such that in the event of a collapse it was returned to natural state (clean land).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:55:00 UTC

  • ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS) PATENTS It must be product

    ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS)

    PATENTS

    It must be productive (fully informed, warrantied, voluntary).

    Therefore:

    a) IP must protect an investment (born cost), not squat an option: piss-on-a-fire-hydrant.

    b) IP cannot be used to deny a product to market, only to recoup an investment at some non-arbitrary multiple from a market.

    c) As a consequence it is hard to understand the grant of a monopoly rather than a commission. And it is hard to understand unquantified and long term IP.

    d) It is almost impossible to argue in favor of aesthetic ‘design patterns'(interpretive). It is quite easy to argue in favor of scientific, engineering, and software patterns(operational).

    e) it is human nature to retaliate against profiting from non-contribution (copying). This violates the test of productivity.

    In addition to productivity, grasping this subject requires an understanding full accounting (in this case opportunity costs),

    a) Polities form to decrease opportunity and transaction costs.

    b) Competition is the battle to seize opportunities created by density and property, and competition cannot form if one can squat opportunities (seize unhomesteaded property). Squatting opportunities is just a form of theft. Ergo IP that squats opportunities rather than recoups a risky investment is just theft by rent seeking.

    TRADEMARK

    A trademark is just another form of weight and measure that prevents misrepresentation. it is easy to argue for ‘design patterns’ (interpretive) limits on the use of them in a market – although it appears that enforcement is ridiculously overzealous because the law has no empirical means of measurement. This means of measurement is now available by the 2-3 second discretion test. Meaning that If a random group of people can glance at a pair of trademarks and not be be confused between or inferred by one another then empirically there is no confusion. Trademarks are very difficult to argue with.

    COPYRIGHTS

    Copyrights are the most questionable, although the market has solved this with the various Creative Commons and MIT etc licenses, which require consent for commercial use, but not for personal use. This preserves the demand for productivity for market participation.

    The central problem with copyrights is that they create opportunities for profitability in the ‘lower’ arts, producing low quality arts in volume and saturating the environment, the marketplace and the informational commons with low quality arts. The great works would not cease being produced by great artists if no money was available except by sponsorship. Conversely, the low arts would be impossible to fund. Revoking the total copyright on literary and artistic works, and defaulting to the creative commons instead, would collapse the hollywood market. Prohibiting dramatization of the lives of individuals would complete the suppression of their propagandism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:31:00 UTC

  • WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM? Rights CAN only exist as contract rights. Rights are

    WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM?

    Rights CAN only exist as contract rights.

    Rights are brought into existence when a third party insures the terms of a normative, commercial, or political contract (usually brothers, extended family, a chieftain, set of elders, king, or government).

    We can NEED those rights.

    We can WANT those rights.

    We can DEMAND those rights.

    But those rights can only be brought into existence by a group of insurers. And those insurers insure them by force.

    Anyone who says otherwise is lying, engaging in wishful thinking, fantasizing, stupid, or ignorant.

    PERIOD.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 11:28:00 UTC