Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • “No man has (or ever had) any inherent right to the use of the earth; nor to per

    —“No man has (or ever had) any inherent right to the use of the earth; nor to personal independence; nor to property, nor to wives, nor to liberty of speech; nor to freedom of thought; nor to anything except he can (by himself or in conjunction with his allies) assert his ‘rights’ by Power.

    What are (in popular parlance) called ‘rights,’ are really ‘spoil’ — the prerogatives of formerly exerted Might; but a ‘right’ lapses immediately, when those who are enjoying it, become incapable of further maintaining it.

    Consequently all ‘rights’ are as transient as morning rainbows, international treaties, or clauses in a temporary armistice. They may be abrogated at any moment, by any one of the contracting parties, holding the necessary Power.

    Broadly speaking therefore, Might is incarnated Right, and rights are metamorphosed mights. Power and Justice are synonyms; for Might is mighty and does prevail. They who possess the undisputable Might (be they one, ten, or ten million) may and do proclaim the Right.

    Government is founded on property, property is founded on conquest, and conquest is founded on Power— and Power is founded on brain and brawn — on Organic Animality.

    Just as parents dictate right to their children, so masterful animals dictate right to millions and millions of sodden-livered, baby-minded men.

    Monarchic rulers are the gaudy jumping-jacks, and representative institutions the tax gathering mechanism of the Mighty-Ones. Banks and safe-deposits are their treasure-stores, and armies and navies their sentinels, executioners, watchmen.” – Sam Hyde

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 13:17:00 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

  • NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation:

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN

    I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation: non imposition of costs against property in toto: that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in. POSITIVA: reward: the requirement that we limit our actions that affect the property-in-toto of others to those that cause productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:39:00 UTC

  • NOVEL CONCEPTS IN PROPERTARIANISM (BY SINGULAR DISCOURSE)

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/12/07/novel-concepts-in-propertarianism-by-singluardiscourse/THE NOVEL CONCEPTS IN PROPERTARIANISM

    (BY SINGULAR DISCOURSE)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:17:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM VIA THE COMMON LAW

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-evolution-of-suppression/THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM VIA THE COMMON LAW

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:13:00 UTC

  • THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (thinking) One of the issues I wrestle with is the poi

    THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (thinking)

    One of the issues I wrestle with is the point of demarcation. It’s clear that:

    (a) political speech (in any forum), is different from

    (b) commercial public speech (via media), from

    (c) public speech (via media), from

    (d) interpersonal speech (people you don’t know), from

    (e) private speech (people you know), from

    (f) home speech (family members), from

    (g) mental ‘speech’ (the self).

    And it’s clear that human beings need:

    (a) to vent frustrations

    (b) to test ideas

    (c) to seek allies in cooperation.

    And it’s clear that there is a difference between the form of communication:

    (a) A question: ‘What’s wrong with (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (b) A criticism: ‘I wish we could (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (c) An assertion: ‘it’s moral/right/good if we (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (d) An act of conspiracy: “Who will, or will you (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (e) An act of treason: “I propose(submit) that we legislate (insert immoral concept here)!” (or confirming it)

    But what is the point of demarcation in the audience?

    (a) It’s reasonably clear that home and mental speech are not in a commons.

    (b) It’s arguable that private speech is not in a commons.

    (c) It’s arguable that interpersonal speech is not in a commons.

    (d) it’s inarguable that public speech is not in a commons.

    And what is the point of demarcation in the form of communication?

    (a) It’s reasonably clear that a question and a criticism are not in advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons).

    (b) it’s reasonably clear that assertions, conspiracy and treason are in fact advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons)

    And it’s also pretty clear when someone is trying to circumvent those two tests of demarcation by “art and artifice”.

    It would seem PRUDENT to consider:

    (a) use of the government (any use of institutions)

    as treason.

    (b) use of the media (any form of publication)

    (c) commercial use (any form of for profit activity)

    as felonies, and

    (d) interpersonal human error, passions, etc

    as misdemeanors.

    We can easily test for due diligence (although this would take me a while)

    (a) definitions

    (b) whereas (initial state)

    (c) positiva (assertion, claim, desire)

    (d) negativa (survival from testimonial criticism)

    …..categorical

    …..logical

    …..empirical

    …..operational (existential)

    …..moral (reciprocal)

    …..scope (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

    (e) therefore (remedy)

    (f) yields (subsequent state) morally.

    The practice of law does this already but lacks the One Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) that preserves Sovereignty, that we call Natural Law. And current law fails to require positiva (complete arguments rather than simple prohibitions).

    And just as in law and every other discipline, conventions readily develop that we use as shorthand for the longer form.

    Very few of us know the law. We know only that we must not impose costs upon others without government (legislative) license to do so. And we have no current means of appeal against legilsative license – although the great lie that the ballot box can alter these conditions persists it’s empirically nonsensical. We vote by sentiment. Representation forces us to.

    Natural Law is Simple Law.

    So, the more difficult challenge is restructuring government into an insurer of last resort ONLY, eliminating all legislation, and allowing only contracts to be constructed either by direct action or representative assemblies.

    So as far as I know this is a sufficient test of the circumstantial limitations on damaging the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 10:21:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin) In

    NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin)

    In the end, any moral commons is possible, while no immoral commons is possible. This allows for competing moral commons but denies competition from immoral commons.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution except where there is evidence of conspiracy to prevent prosecution.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution of crimes against the informational commons when all citizens are interested parties and can prosecute violations of the informational commons – or prosecute attempts to prevent truth from entering the informational commons.

    Islam would not survive, some of the ‘pseudo-arts’ would not survive, just as pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-science would not survive.

    Conversely can you imagine the INDIRECT education this would provide to people in the same way that scientific reasoning has indirectly produced the Flynn effect (along with reducing the number of the low end outliers)?

    Imagine a world where disinformation and deception are readily eliminated from the public discourse. How would that effect private discourse?

    one does not need a positiva program. we need only a negativa program. every person on earth will then work to produce a host of positiva programs.

    Most of philosophical history, as most of religious history, has been attempting to develop positivia programs. And they all result in stagnation.

    Meanwhile the west incrementally evolves the common law and we invent philosophies and ideologies and narratives in each generation.

    By a monopoly negativa of the Natural, empirical, judge discovered, common law, we create the possibility of a market in everything – including information.

    But just as we have deprived people of murder, then harm, then theft, then fraud, then conspiracy, we can deprive people of disinformation and suggestion – an extension of interpersonal fraud by the use of media.

    —“^^ okay. So now… if the rights and privileges afford police (to arrest and detain) and judges (to decide resolution) is extended to the whole populace (and incomplete terms but will leave for the moment) then anyone can enforce the law – the larger the market the less likely the market can be used for abuse. Every man and judge, every man an enforcer, every man a gaurd. One natural law makes this possible as the burden to fully understand it does not have tlnearly the same costs as a law degree today”—Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:03:00 UTC

  • can I learn propertarianism? (ie:without reading 3000 posts on propertarianism.c

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/How can I learn propertarianism?

    (ie:without reading 3000 posts on propertarianism.com)

    SHORT VERSION: GO TO THIS PAGE

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    Scroll down to “How Can I Learn Propertarianism (Natural Law)?”

    You’ll see a bulleted list of the basic things to do.

    LONG VERSION

    It depends on what background you’re coming from.

    I’d suggest talking with one of these guys;

    Bill Joslin, Moritz Bierling, William Butchman, Josh Jeppson

    They seem to give me quite a bit of feedback on it. And they each look at it differently.

    But if you can’t get what you want from one of them, there are about 20 other guys I can easily roll of the top of my head who can maybe help you bridge the gap.

    It’s not terribly easy. Gotta be honest.

    We’re going to try to make it easier.

    But for ‘early adopters’ we don’t have the documentation complete so to speak. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 22:18:00 UTC

  • “The concept of individual property rights was constructed by the bourgeoisie/or

    —“The concept of individual property rights was constructed by the bourgeoisie/organizing-class as justification for permission from monarchs to seek opportunities (initially at the great expense of the aristocracy, and later at the expense of the commons).

    The concept of human rights was constructed (post-war) as marketing to the decolonized ‘developing world,’ as a means of seeking allies against the threat of communism.

    The problem, in both cases, is that we believe our own propaganda.”—James Augustus Berens

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 19:05:00 UTC

  • Interesting take: —“Property rights are for farmers and human rights are for m

    Interesting take:

    —“Property rights are for farmers and human rights are for migrants (hunters). But when it comes to advanced economies these are both reflex propositions in response to possibilities of defection and the tragedy of the commons.

    The problem we have today is past even managing the despoiling of commons. The ecosystem has become a people-system. And the main problem with this system is that people can occupy every niche but they don’t eat each other.

    This state of affairs is unnatural/unsustainable. Because more and more effort is called for from everyone in a kind of hysteria. And there is no proper instinctual response in place.”— Brian Barr

    (CD: edited as best I could. I can’t quite decompose it. But there is something interesting implied by the failure of the information system he’s referring to.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 17:23:00 UTC