Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Q&A: –“Curt: What Are Your Thoughts on Taxation?”–

    Author’s note. I like this post because it shows how we can educate people on controversial issues. [G]reat question. I’m going to answer this set of questions in a different order from the one they were asked:

    –“Have you spent much time on taxation and it’s various forms? Perhaps you could do a post on your thoughts about how such a treasury would function and it’s relations to taxation. “–

    Of course. I think it’s a national preoccupation. I’m not alone.

    –“What is your position on taxation?”—

    Well, my position is that under rule of law there exists no discretion in the use funds. That’s the purpose of rule of law: the elimination of discretion. If there is no discretion involved we are not in fact ruled by men, but by law: we govern ourselves by contract. Once we eliminate discretion we eliminate what we call corruption and, assuming we require truthful speech in the commons – not only in advertising and marketing, and warranty, but in ethical, moral, and political speech – we eliminate almost all of what we consider politics. Now another property of rule of law, if we are to prevent discretion, is ‘calculability’ or what we tend to call ‘operationalism’ in science and ‘specific use, or use of funds’ in contract law. Meaning that any fund collected must go to the purpose it was intended, or be refunded. Rule Of Law = Contractualism. Period. Discretion != Rule of Law. However, we must understand, that Rule of Law = Meritocracy, and many people living cannot prosper, compete, or survive on their merits. There are a limited number of strategies for preserving liberty, rule of law, and meritocracy: (i)limit the size of the bottom classes through control of reproduction and culling; (ii) limit their damage by paying them not to reproduce, and (iii) make use of them through involuntary organization of production (maintenance of the commons). This is one of the reasons for taxation: paying for the cost of suppression of reproduction of those who cannot prosper, compete, or survive in meritocracy. Just as the problem external orders (military defense and constructive offense), and internal orders (the judiciary and police). If we negotiate such contracts between groups and classes, and there is no means under natural common judge-discovered law, by which we can object to those contracts, then we have created a market for the construction of commons, in addition to the market for the construction of goods and services. Those are not taxes but installment payments, and enforceable like any other contract. If those taxes are used to make the evolutionarily competitive results of liberty possible, and if it’s not possible otherwise, then taxes for this purpose are simply the market price for the production of a condition of liberty under which we can produce the results of liberty: necessary commons, competitive commons, and desirable private goods and services . The problem then is not taxation per se, but the use of taxes. If we are paying contractually agreed to prices for goods and services obtained through under rule of law, and free of discretion, refunded if paid for, then that is merely contractual payment. Now, there is no reason to argue against either for income or consumption ‘commissions’ (taxes), on the production of goods and services in the voluntary construction of production distribution and trade we call capitalism, since that order is itself a good that is bought and paid for by shareholders, with both personal, normative, and material costs. And furthermore, there is no reason to argue against progressive taxation (commissions) on income or price, either. The question is ownership: In ancient societies order was created by force at substantial risk and expense. And it is probably the most important service we create. In modern societies, almost everyone is enfranchised (a shareholder). And if the shareholders can determine the use of funds by economic voting (proportional voting by contribution), or if they can determine the use of funds by share voting (voting their share of the tax pool), then we preserve operational rule of law and eliminate discretion. The inverse question is whether it is possible to produce a condition of liberty, meritocracy, and prosperity, that has been so rewarding in the ancient and modern worlds. And the answer is that familial, local, social, economic, political, and military orders exist in competition for people(consumers), human capital(skills and knowledge), business and industry, wealth, and leadership (the advocacy for the organization of normative, economic, political, and military capital). So people flee to regions that produce wealth and flee from regions that don’t. Which is a significant problem if they’re imposing a long-term genetic cost on the absorbing market. And this is the problem we face with immigration of underclasses and the rate of underclass reproduction vs middle and upper-class reproduction. The answer to the problem of creating an order in people of diverse abilities is not to choose either a monopoly capitalist market(voluntary organization of labor) or a monopoly socialist market (involuntary organization of labor), but to make use of both markets: one for the production of innovative consumer goods, and one for the production of ‘simple’ common goods: cleanliness, order, construction of bulidings, parks, and monuments, roads, sidewalks, and in general, beauty.

    —“Let’s assume a treasury issues currency and that through the treasury citizens can borrow money interest-free for consumption. Now the treasury needs to be funded through taxation, whether voluntary or otherwise is superfluous for arguments sake.”—

    Well, first, let’s clarify: the treasury can be funded through the sale of assets (minerals, territory, etc), inflation, taxation, fees, profits(returns on investments not possible otherwise – the Panama and Suez canals for example. Some of the great dams. Many projects cannot be ‘insured’ by an insurer of last resort other than the shareholders themselves). And hopefully we would fund the treasury in the opposite order: 1) profit, 2) fees, 3) taxation, 4) inflation, 5) sale of assets. In practice, if it cannot be achieved through profit or fees, it would suggest a political failure. Taxation and inflation are debt instruments. And sale of assets is a form of liquidation. Members of Nations(extended relations) do not squabble about taxes the way oligarchies and empires do.

    —“through the treasury citizens can borrow money interest-free for consumption”—

    I think that this is the great economic question of our time: why should distributors (banks) earn interest on money borrowed from ourselves for the purchase of consumption, when the data says that they perform no function not equally provisible by purely statistical analysis of data produced in extraordinary quality by actuaries. There isn’t any reason. None. There is no reason that we do not borrow to some percentage of the maximum of our statistical repayment ability from the treasury, and then when the economy slows, that money is equally distributed to those same accounts facilitating further consumption. Other than under democracy people would vote to increase such distributions by various schemes untili we were again bankrupt. But the financial sector is disproportionately rewarding given that it’s basically trivial clerical work that privatizes wins and socializes losses. There is no reason we don’t treat lending the public monies just as we do licenses of Lawyer’s, CPA’s and Series 7 holders. These individuals could have public records, and must retain certain scores in order to maintain their licenses. In exchange they can obtain a small percentage of each customer’s accounts that they manage from the treasury. And they would have no protection against suits that is afforded to our bureaucrats. Now aside form the misappropriation of profits by the financial sector, why is it that we charge interest on consumption? That makes no sense at all really. Why do we charge interest on production? Because that’s the only way we can judge whether intertemporal lending as increased productivity by compression of time. So my recommendation is to professionalize lending from the treasury (regional offices of central banks), and interest on consumption entirely (imagine the effect it would have on housing if the maximum period of a home loan using any treasury funds was 15 years, and at zero interest?) And to issue liquidity directly to consumers, on regular (yearly) basis. And to constitutionally eliminate the state manipulation of these funds for any purpose (preserving rule of law by preserving the prohibition on discretion.) From what I can see ih the behavior of most countries, if yo have a small homogenous people they will be highly redistributive voluntarily, and heterogeneity radically decreases willingness to both redistribute or to contribute in any way to the commons. Just to stay on message, and continue to falsify libertinism: What separates libertarianism from libertinism is that libertarians want to do no harm to the commons, and libertines want to do no good to it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute (I have no idea where I am right now) 🙂

  • Q&A: —“Curt: Whats Your Position on Intellectual Property”—

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Forms of Intellectual Property:

      [T]rademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry. Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others. Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others. Worse, the reason we have so much (undesirable) that’s published in every medium, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral to issue copyrights. But this is a decision for groups through their political processes. They must just be aware of the consequences that will occur as monumental works decline and experiential works increase. I suggest that we retain a registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism). Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use. There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research. Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license. In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others. Further Thoughts I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others. This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

    • Q&A: —“Curt: Whats Your Position on Intellectual Property”—

      INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Forms of Intellectual Property:

        [T]rademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry. Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others. Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others. Worse, the reason we have so much (undesirable) that’s published in every medium, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral to issue copyrights. But this is a decision for groups through their political processes. They must just be aware of the consequences that will occur as monumental works decline and experiential works increase. I suggest that we retain a registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism). Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use. There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research. Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license. In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others. Further Thoughts I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others. This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

      • If I Wanted To Would It Be Legal To Build A Multi Thousand Acre Lake On All Private Property?

        There is a long tradition of slough, stream, pond and lake building, and it’s very hard to find criticisms of it unless you violate one of the three four principles:

        1. It’s close to an existing stream, pond, lake, that could be in any way impacted by the presence of a competing ecosystem.
        2. It requires diverting water flow from another source over which water rights are already tightly regulated (everything is). This is usually a big no-no. So how would you get that much water to this location?
        3. It requires human maintenance to survive and would scar the landscape if you failed to complete or maintain it. (a possibility in Texas).
        4. You plan to use it for raising some kind of fish or animal that could generate competition, change, or pollution in the local ecosystem.

        However, (and simple research will help you) almost all principalities will benefit from the creation of a recreational or wild lake.

        Where I lived in Western Washington the idea is to maintain ecosystems for animals but rearranging land use is just fine. (In some progressive states these departments attract … nutcases, not people seeking to preserve balance. )

        https://www.quora.com/If-I-wanted-to-would-it-be-legal-to-build-a-multi-thousand-acre-lake-on-all-private-property

      • If I Wanted To Would It Be Legal To Build A Multi Thousand Acre Lake On All Private Property?

        There is a long tradition of slough, stream, pond and lake building, and it’s very hard to find criticisms of it unless you violate one of the three four principles:

        1. It’s close to an existing stream, pond, lake, that could be in any way impacted by the presence of a competing ecosystem.
        2. It requires diverting water flow from another source over which water rights are already tightly regulated (everything is). This is usually a big no-no. So how would you get that much water to this location?
        3. It requires human maintenance to survive and would scar the landscape if you failed to complete or maintain it. (a possibility in Texas).
        4. You plan to use it for raising some kind of fish or animal that could generate competition, change, or pollution in the local ecosystem.

        However, (and simple research will help you) almost all principalities will benefit from the creation of a recreational or wild lake.

        Where I lived in Western Washington the idea is to maintain ecosystems for animals but rearranging land use is just fine. (In some progressive states these departments attract … nutcases, not people seeking to preserve balance. )

        https://www.quora.com/If-I-wanted-to-would-it-be-legal-to-build-a-multi-thousand-acre-lake-on-all-private-property

      • How Would An Anarcho Capitalist Society Look Like, In The Long Run?

        (a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

        (b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

        (c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

        (d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

        (e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

        The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

        There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

        Curt

        https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-Anarcho-Capitalist-society-look-like-in-the-long-run

      • You keep what you kill

        You keep what you kill.

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 16:22:49 UTC

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765222221929406465

        Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics

        Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765222124294254592

        IN REPLY TO:

        @JaimelHemphill

        @curtdoolittle @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics You could just go back to Europe. 🙂

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765222124294254592

      • If the french can seize the Rothchild assets, and Putin the oligarch assets, we

        If the french can seize the Rothchild assets, and Putin the oligarch assets, we surely can’t take his.

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 12:52:19 UTC

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765169245890179072

        Reply addressees: @ThaRightStuff

        Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765168708943810561

        IN REPLY TO:

        Original post on X

        Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765168708943810561

      • Q: —Why is redistribution necessary?– Because we don’t get people to respect

        Q: —Why is redistribution necessary?–

        Because we don’t get people to respect property rights for free if they have no incentive to. Just like they doing get us to bear the burden of supporting them if we have no incentive to. So trading behavior for money is just an exchagne.

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:31:00 UTC

      • Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”— INTELLECTUAL PRO

        Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”—

        INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

        Forms of Intellectual Property:

        * Trademarks and Branding (Weight and Measure) (may not misrepresent as identical)

        * Creative Commons and Open Source ( free use for non-commercial use)

        * Copyright (License fees to inventors of creative products)

        * Patents (license fees to inventors of material products )

        * Legal Privileges (license fees on partial or total monopolies)

        Trademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry.

        Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others.

        Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others.

        Worse, the reason we have so much (crap) published in every medium, and the reason we have an immoral media, and an immoral Hollywood, and an immoral publishing system, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral – even heinous – to issue copyrights.

        I suggest that we retain the registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism).

        Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use.

        There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research.

        Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents.

        It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license.

        In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others.

        I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others.

        This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat.

        Curt Doolittle

        The Philosophy or Aristocracy

        The Propertarian Institute

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 05:30:00 UTC