Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • THE FIRST PROPERTY OF PRODUCTION IS TIME. AND MONEY IS ITS COMMENSURABLE STORE I

    THE FIRST PROPERTY OF PRODUCTION IS TIME. AND MONEY IS ITS COMMENSURABLE STORE

    In the past ten years I have not been able to defeat the theory that money literally stores time ( saved by or spent in production ) and and that our claim that it is a store of value is a mistaken subjective perception given the utility in accounting rather than an objective description of its causality.

    When we cooperate we save time. When we divide labor we save more.

    When we exchange productively we save more.

    We are not wealthier in time than our distant ancestors, we have – depending upon how we wish to describe the phenomenon – made everything cheaper in cost of time while at the same time holding caloric expenditure relatively constant. And thanks to the nineteenth And twentieth centuries, dramatically reduced the cost in cellular damage per moment. Even if we have offset it a bit with chemical preservatives, carbohydrates and sugars.

    So all increases in productivity ( not aggregate productivity, but case specific productivity) reflect time savings. Just as all thefts and frauds its loss.

    Now we could also restate time saved as time created, or time made available rather than time saved.

    But I think doing so enters the domain of mathematical Platonism. No matter what we do, money is only able to influence others by paying them in saved time to prefer spending their time on what we desire of them versus the alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-10 10:18:00 UTC

  • NEWBIES: AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/FOR NEWBIES: AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 02:17:00 UTC

  • Private:yours, Shareholder:agreement-members(contract), commons:citizens(constit

    Private:yours, Shareholder:agreement-members(contract), commons:citizens(constitution). Physical, Normative, Institutional.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-04 17:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750017919631917056

    Reply addressees: @cryptoanarchy11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749996619668619264

    IN REPLY TO:

    @cryptoanarchy11

    @curtdoolittle Thank you. I love your work. Still struggling with it a bit tho. Can you give me a working definition of ‘commons’?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749996619668619264

  • TEN THOUGHTS ON MONEY Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”– I’ve writ

    TEN THOUGHTS ON MONEY

    Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”–

    I’ve written a bit , here and there, mostly on:

    1) the fact that fiat money is equal to shares in the state/economy, not notes or money. Moreover, I’ve tried to impress upon people that colloquial money (various mediums of exchange in sufficient volume to produce market price signals) and all its forms, differ substantially from money proper. And I’ve tried to correct mises and the bitcoin community on their uses of these terms – because it’s fraudulent to compare these media as having the same properties. They don’t’.

    2) it’s not clear that people have any right to the appreciation of fiat money, nor whether they have a right to its store of value for any extended period of time (longer than a business cycle).

    3) We should use multiple currencies for multiple purposes so that rates of inflationary dilution are purpose-specific.

    4) There is no need to continue distribution of liquidity through the banking system as we did when there was hard currency. We can directly issue liquidity to consumers and cause spending without giving profits or power to the banking and finance system. This forces business and industry to fight for consumers, rather than fight for access to credit.

    5) Money is information and the more kinds of money the more kinds of information we have that is less subject to distortion. I could write a book on this subject alone.

    6) In theory money is neutral, in practice it is not. Not because prices are not eventually equilibrated, but because this process of equilibration works through the economy disruptively and without uniformity.

    7) Lending should be regulated to the same degree as law, and debt should not be resellable because a price (value) is subjectively constructed and non-transferrable, and non-insurable.

    8 ) Law has been abused to work in the favor of hazard-creation by lenders, and this should be inverted, and bankruptcy protection increased so that lenders have an extremely difficult time collecting and instead take fewer risks and take less responsibility for distributing liquidity.

    9) intergenerational redistribution must be stopped, and the singaporean model adopted so that the future is calculable. Furthermore, this money cannot be touched by creditors or the state, or anyone else for that matter.

    10 ) I would prefer that the government collected fees on all financial transactions rather than income taxes. I believe fees are necessary for the production of insurance of last resort, and those discretionary commons that make us competitive.

    Those are the major topics.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-02 03:28:00 UTC

  • We might argue propertarian contractualism is a pre-christian A-S tradition, but

    We might argue propertarian contractualism is a pre-christian A-S tradition, but that’s hard to argue under universalism

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-01 07:08:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748775283122065408

    Reply addressees: @LibertarianMike

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748754129485377536

    IN REPLY TO:

    @LibertarianMike

    The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion — George Washington & John Adams, in a diplomatic message to Malta.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748754129485377536

  • Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The differen

    Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives. Why? Because of loss aversion. GIven that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them. The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.

    The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outast’s one’s lifetime ,and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 08:02:00 UTC

  • Institutional Commons List

    As far as I know we classify institutions in this spectrum: Commons (organize to preserve) … Monuments (parks, monuments, spaces) … Roads, airways and waters ….Territory and boundaries … Territorial assets and resources

    Informal Institutions: ) … Metaphysical value judgements (unconscious) … Norms and habits … Normative Property rights allocations ….Traditions (marriage etc) ….Crafts and Professions … Civic Societies ….Education, sciences, arts and Letters Formal Institutions … Economic(banking and money) … Religous (myth, festival, and ritual), ….Forceful(Military, legal, Political) Institutions that require human organization to persist them across generations. Ask historians about what men have done. Ask economists about why men do it. Ask philosophers whether what men say may be true. We usually are pretty terrible at crossing boundaries. WHY? Reason: (understandable) We can subjectively test and empathize with (follow) the sequence of decisions given the limits of the speaker. Not internally consistent, nor externally correspondent, nor fully accounted, nor morally constrained. Rationalism (philosophy): internally consistent but not externally correspondent, fully accounted or morally constrained. Empiricism: Science: internally consistent and externally correspondent, but not morally constrained, fully accounted. Testimony: internally consistent, externally correspondent fully accounted and morally constrained.

  • Institutional Commons List

    As far as I know we classify institutions in this spectrum: Commons (organize to preserve) … Monuments (parks, monuments, spaces) … Roads, airways and waters ….Territory and boundaries … Territorial assets and resources

    Informal Institutions: ) … Metaphysical value judgements (unconscious) … Norms and habits … Normative Property rights allocations ….Traditions (marriage etc) ….Crafts and Professions … Civic Societies ….Education, sciences, arts and Letters Formal Institutions … Economic(banking and money) … Religous (myth, festival, and ritual), ….Forceful(Military, legal, Political) Institutions that require human organization to persist them across generations. Ask historians about what men have done. Ask economists about why men do it. Ask philosophers whether what men say may be true. We usually are pretty terrible at crossing boundaries. WHY? Reason: (understandable) We can subjectively test and empathize with (follow) the sequence of decisions given the limits of the speaker. Not internally consistent, nor externally correspondent, nor fully accounted, nor morally constrained. Rationalism (philosophy): internally consistent but not externally correspondent, fully accounted or morally constrained. Empiricism: Science: internally consistent and externally correspondent, but not morally constrained, fully accounted. Testimony: internally consistent, externally correspondent fully accounted and morally constrained.

  • As far as I know we classify institutions in this spectrum: Commons (organize to

    As far as I know we classify institutions in this spectrum:

    Commons (organize to preserve)

    … Monuments (parks, monuments, spaces)

    … Roads, airways and waters

    ….Territory and boundaries

    … Territorial assets and resources

    Informal Institutions: )

    … Metaphysical value judgements (unconscious)

    … Norms and habits

    … Normative Property rights allocations

    ….Traditions (marriage etc)

    ….Crafts and Professions

    … Civic Societies

    ….Education, sciences, arts and Letters

    Formal Institutions

    … Economic(banking and money)

    … Religous (myth, festival, and ritual),

    ….Forceful(Military, legal, Political)

    Institutions that require human organization to persist them across generations.

    Ask historians about what men have done.

    Ask economists about why men do it.

    Ask philosophers whether what men say may be true.

    We usually are pretty terrible at crossing boundaries.

    WHY?

    Reason: (understandable) We can subjectively test and empathize with (follow) the sequence of decisions given the limits of the speaker. Not internally consistent, nor externally correspondent, nor fully accounted, nor morally constrained.

    Rationalism (philosophy): internally consistent but not externally correspondent, fully accounted or morally constrained.

    Empiricism: Science: internally consistent and externally correspondent, but not morally constrained, fully accounted.

    Testimony: internally consistent, externally correspondent fully accounted and morally constrained.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-17 11:30:00 UTC

  • The purpose of war is to determine the distribution of property, and the means o

    The purpose of war is to determine the distribution of property, and the means of its use and transfer.’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-16 05:29:00 UTC