Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • HUMAN NEEDS AREN’T HUMAN RIGHTS —“I can’t have a right to food, but I can have

    HUMAN NEEDS AREN’T HUMAN RIGHTS

    —“I can’t have a right to food, but I can have a right to eat.”– JWP

    There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial. But one cannot POSSIBLY exercise a right that was not created by others, and one cannot possibly exercise a positive right that places demands upon others. As such all existentially possible rights are only via negativa: freedom from harm by others. There are many desirable GOODS that we might work together to obtain. There are however no existential rights no matter how much we pay wish there work (or lie that there are).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 18:30:00 UTC

  • CHILDREN ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY: PARENTS HAVE A DEMONSTRATED INTEREST, AND ARE

    CHILDREN ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY: PARENTS HAVE A DEMONSTRATED INTEREST, AND ARE AGENTS INSURING BOTH CHILD AND THE POLITY

    —“[“The children are not property but the insurer of the children, and the polity from the children like any other domesticated animal”] What did you mean by this?

    That the parent insures the children from others (and nature) and insures the people from the children. The same is true for any domesticated animal. This is a ‘formal’ description of parental responsibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 14:44:00 UTC

  • 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportuni

    4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 21:00:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186386897507180544

    Reply addressees: @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186385863586078721

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command.
    3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1186385863586078721

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @directdemocrac7 @JohnMarkSays 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command.
    3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1186385863586078721

  • I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH —

    https://grist.org/…/how-food-forests-and-people-are…/UM. I THINK YOU’RE CONFUSED ABOUT PROPERTY AND COMMONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EACH

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers.

    Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons.

    The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ).

    The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry.

    Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade.

    Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period.

    The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries.

    The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century.

    The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property.

    As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism.

    The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in

    The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism.

    The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges.

    The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons.

    This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth.

    CheersUpdated Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 20:54:00 UTC

  • “Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF

    “Q: HOW IS YOUR CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF CONTRACT?”

    —“…

    … One Law to Rule Them All

    … One Law to Find Them

    … One Law to Bring Them All

    … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.

    … The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence,

    … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets

    … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into

    … the Gods we Imagined….

    … —“

    —Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7

    Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version:

    1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only.

    2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command.

    3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action).

    4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons.

    5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public.

    6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech…

    7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable.

    8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common.

    9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury.

    10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here.

    Notes:

    Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt.

    Notes continued:

    But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal.

    Notes continued:

    Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 17:21:00 UTC

  • DISAMBIGUATING “PROPERTARIANISM” INTO ITS CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS

    DISAMBIGUATING “PROPERTARIANISM” INTO ITS CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 15:38:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186305874152869889

  • DISAMBIGUATING P FOR MASS CONSUMPTION? How do we disambiguate P-Method, P-Law, a

    DISAMBIGUATING P FOR MASS CONSUMPTION?

    How do we disambiguate P-Method, P-Law, and a P-Constitution Template, and P-Constitutions for Each Polity?

    0. The system of thought we call… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=489584488305113&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 15:37:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186305508707319809

  • “I’m in the Marines, I’m a ri–t winger. If we were to boogaloo will there be et

    —“I’m in the Marines, I’m a ri–t winger. If we were to boogaloo will there be ethnic separation in propertarianism? Please answer honestly.”— Tyler Granberry

    No. Period. Honestly,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=489052618358300&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 22:42:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186050157512724486

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: I don’t make offense, you take it; the irreciprocal exchange s

    RT @ThruTheHayes: I don’t make offense, you take it; the irreciprocal exchange starts with your thievery.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 20:04:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186010355375509504

  • “I’m in the Marines, I’m a ri–t winger. If we were to boogaloo will there be et

    —“I’m in the Marines, I’m a ri–t winger. If we were to boogaloo will there be ethnic separation in propertarianism? Please answer honestly.”— Tyler Granberry

    No. Period. Honestly, Truthfully. (I will get a ton of sh-t for saying that from the WN crowd.)

    There is a right of voluntary DISASSOCIATION as well as ASSOCIATION meaning everyone can create new identitarian neighborhoods, villages, cities, counties, sure, because under P we can’t prohibit that VOLUNTARY association and Disassociation. Just as we can’t make bakers bake cakes they don’t agree with. Just like we can’t prohibit men from forming men’s clubs again. Just like we can’t prohibit people from forming their own group banks, own group biases. In other words we end INVOLUNTARY integration at the local level. (If you know your history, and if know the failure of force integration pretty much everywhere except the military, the 60’s destroyed the formation of the african american middle class and elites.

    That said, P constitution proposes a (libertarian) COMPROMISE that if unmet, escalates to POLITICIDE against the left and the use of undermining by competing ideologies, philosophies, religions and interest groups. It converts the left wing immigrant cities into city states, and removes the government from social policy, and restores it to an insurer of last resort. I suspect that we will see the formation of a small number of local polities that like the amish, the evangelicals, or the white nationalists, want to maintain cultural isolationism by a majority middle class. But the state cannot interfere eithe way. I expect that we will have major cities maintain the high and low versus the middle. I tend to look at black-white relations in the south, vs the north and the differences are rather obvious. Family is family in the south. Politics and political parties and ideology in the northeast. And hostility in southern california and new york.

    What we *DO* threaten is an escalation IF left and right cannot pursue their separate political interests in their local polities. In other words, if the left resists we promise to escalate. I think I’ve said it as political separation is a good thing, politicide is a good thing at the federal level, ethnocide if it escalates, and genocide if it escalates, so let’s do the ‘everybody wins’ scenario and devlove the ‘imperial’ federal government’s rule over other than conflict in property between the states to state, city – state, county, local level. And get out of the business of coercing each other.

    But you can search my ten years of posts on P and the site and all you’ll see is libertarian solutions and “I don’t do racism, I do classism, and it’s class sizes that cause the problem not race, and if we can produce commons and rules and norms suitable to our populations we will all stop having conflict over them.” Ie: it worked in the past just fine. It will work now just fine. people are the same the world over in this regard.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 18:42:00 UTC