Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Rights of Limited Market Monopoly (Intellectual Property)

    [E]xcuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

    We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

    In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Produco(requrement for production.) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

    1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.
    – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

    2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.
    – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

    3) ‘PRODUCO’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).
    – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

    *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

    REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES
    Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

    But some externalities are less obvious:

      Curt Doolittle
      The Propertarian Institute
      Kiev, Ukraine.

    • Rights of Limited Market Monopoly (Intellectual Property)

      [E]xcuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

      We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

      In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Produco(requrement for production.) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

      1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.
      – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

      2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.
      – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

      3) ‘PRODUCO’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).
      – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

      *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

      REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES
      Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

      But some externalities are less obvious:

        Curt Doolittle
        The Propertarian Institute
        Kiev, Ukraine.

      • Strict Construction Under Propertarianism

        (important) (law) (strict construction) [W]ith Propertarianism, strict construction of Law is possible. And not particularly difficult. The Structure of a Propertarian Law:

        • (whereas) Given some such means of involuntary transfer/free riding; (prohibition) We prohibit all such involuntary transfers; (assertion) And define these rights; (proof) By this reasoning; (falsification criteria) Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.
        Rule of Law We require only rule of law under the one law of cooperation – a prohibition on parasitism – administered by an independent judiciary, decided by jury, and enforced by sheriff’s with by same criteria. Assuming the Rights of Exit Rights of positive and negative association (organization) Right of nullification (by Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Right of Secession (by  individual, family, and Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Contractual Commons We require no legislature. We require only a formal market for the construction of commons by contract.

      • Strict Construction Under Propertarianism

        (important) (law) (strict construction) [W]ith Propertarianism, strict construction of Law is possible. And not particularly difficult. The Structure of a Propertarian Law:

        • (whereas) Given some such means of involuntary transfer/free riding; (prohibition) We prohibit all such involuntary transfers; (assertion) And define these rights; (proof) By this reasoning; (falsification criteria) Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.
        Rule of Law We require only rule of law under the one law of cooperation – a prohibition on parasitism – administered by an independent judiciary, decided by jury, and enforced by sheriff’s with by same criteria. Assuming the Rights of Exit Rights of positive and negative association (organization) Right of nullification (by Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Right of Secession (by  individual, family, and Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Contractual Commons We require no legislature. We require only a formal market for the construction of commons by contract.

      • Propertarianism for New Friends: One Bite at a Time.

        [L]ibertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.

        The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.

        Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)

        Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).

        There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.

        So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.

        And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.

        This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.

        Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..

        WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

        Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.

        It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.

        It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.

        So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to swallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.

        Curt Doolittle
        The Propertarian Institute
        Kiev, Ukraine.

        SUGGESTED TO FOLLOW OR FRIEND:
        Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.
        Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)
        Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)
        Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.
        My site: www.propertarianism.com – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.
        The Propertarian Forum propertarianforum.wordpress.com
        HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.
        Any Alt-Right
        Any Neo-Reaction.
        Any Red Pill.
        Any of the top 100 econ blogs.

        EDITORS/CRITICS
        Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)
        Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)
        Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)
        Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)
        Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)
        And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. smile emoticon )

        READING LIST
        I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:
        http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/

        BLOGS ETC
        I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.

        Source: Curt Doolittle – FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A…

      • Block starts with the rhetorical position that property is a natural right rathe

        http://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-asks-why-should-blackmail-be-a-crime-walter-block-makes-the-case-for-legalizing-blackmail/Walter Block starts with the rhetorical position that property is a natural right rather than the result of a necessary contractual exchange of rights, agreed to in order to construct property rights that are adjudicable, in order to prevent retaliation for impositions of costs upon one another, by providing a means of restitution and punishment by the community rather than retaliation by the individual.

        His position is illogical.

        The first question of ethics is not one in which we assume the value of cooperation, but one in which we assume the value of predation. So cooperation must be preferable to predation. And it is only preferable if it is productive.

        Cooperation must be rational or it is irrational (obviously). For cooperation to be rational, it must be:

        – Mutually Productive,

        – Fully informed,

        – Warrantied to be fully informed,

        – Consisting of Voluntary Exchange or Transfer,

        – Free of negative externality (of the same criteria).

        If these are all true then there is no need for retaliation.

        Walter Block, like his mentor Rothbard, is attempting to restate Maimonides’ dualist ethics as if they are a universal good. Instead of a utilitarian tactic for a minority living at the behest of a tyrant attempting to minimize his costs of policing.

        But, the first logically necessary question of ethics is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’

        Block’s position on blackmail is one in which it is preferable to kill the blackmailer and take his stuff rather than to cooperate with him.

        So, it’s not complicated. Dualist (and poly-logical) ethics cannot by logical necessity be advocated as a universal ethic. Natural rights are a nonsensical justification for various spurious ends. We do not presume rights, nor are they ‘existent’ prior to contract. They are merely the necessary terms for rational political contract.

        Cosmopolitan ethics attempt to preserve ingroup parasitism on outgroup members, while at the same time prohibiting the formation of family organizations that suppress parasitism.

        Rothbardian anarchism (libertinism), is an expression of group evolutionary strategy that ‘games’ (circumvents) the defenses of western aristocratic, truth telling civilization.

        So, instead, the first rule of ethics is that one should not engage in parasitism.

        Blackmail is unproductive and parasitic, and therefore a violation of the agreement for non-imposition of costs that serves as the only rational incentive to cooperate.

        (Although this level of argument is probably a bit deep for even the interested and informed.)

        Cheers

        Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 10:16:00 UTC

      • QUESTION CONCERNING ABUSES BY REPRESENTATIVES —Question for Curt, would be phi

        http://romaninukraine.com/curt-understanding-russia/A QUESTION CONCERNING ABUSES BY REPRESENTATIVES

        —Question for Curt, would be philosopher:

        How does property rights fit into mixed economies, corporatism and cronyism?

        If a corporation has property rights is that for eternity?

        Who decides?— Beauregard.

        Beauregard,

        I’m going to try to guess at what “fit in” means. I think you mean, “How do we reconcile the apparent conflicts between the logical ideal of property rights theory, and the existential reality of mixed economies, pervasive corporatism, and cronyism?”

        The problem I’m having is that I”m not really sure what you’re asking. So I’ll stab in the dark trying to reconcile as best I can.

        Mixed economies are as simple as corporations with shareholders who receive dividends on their investments – whether those investments are in sweat equity (observing norms), acting in an employee capacity(participating in the market of production distribution and trade), or whether one is an investor (taxpayer). There is no difference between a mixed economy and a corporation. It’s an organization where different interests combine different resources, to produce, distribute, and trade.

        Corporatism exists because the state wanted to give capital a free ride, and took upon policing corporations in the legislature by removing universal standing under the common law. This is a problem of representative democracy. The answer is to revoke the corporate privilege, restore universal standing, and eliminate shareholder voting which is meaningless. (This takes a lot of explanation but I know how to address it.)

        Cronyism exists because of the combination of representative government policing corporations by rather than citizen policing under universal standing. And because funding choices (monetary, fiscal trade, and industrial policy) are made by representatives rather than held at auction, using modern technology.

        As for corporate rights, I don’t know what you’re referring to. But if the current shareholders of a corporation purchased rights to their shares, and therefore to a share of some property or other, or that organization persists as a functional organizational entity then it is hard to see how those rights should terminate. But you could be referring to some strange exception like intellectual property rights or something, and I might not really be able to guess your question.

        All of these problems arise because of three simple problems.

        First, a technological problem of the pre-industrial era where time and the speed of communications were problematic. We are not challenged by these problems any longer.

        Second, by the conflation of law-making (the judiciary) with commons-creation (the government), into a law-making-body called the legislature. Instead, if the government could not make law, only contract enforcible under law, and so the legislature can only produce contracts and not laws, and contracts all expire with the people who wrote them, then there is a time limit on all relations between the public (commons) and the private sector, and laws cannot be constructed to favor corporations for the benefit of politicians.

        Third, there is no reason whatsoever for majority rule. Monopoly government is pointless. Law must be decidable, so the law must exist as a monopoly definition of property and rights. However, the construction of contracts under that law, for the production of commons, do not need universal approval. They need only prevent imposition of costs on non-participants under the rule of law which protects non-participants property rights from exactly those kinds of attacks.

        So as far as I know, all of the questions you’re asking are entirely compatible with property rights theory (or at least by Propertarianism), and in fact, they are only confusing in the absence of property rights theory.

        There are some interesting human cognitive biases in play in the populace but that’s another story for another time..

        Curt Doolittle

        The Propertarian Institute

        Kiev, Ukraine

        Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 09:05:00 UTC

      • PROPERTY PROVISIONS Bruce, Another great piece for nomocracyinpolitics. Excuse m

        http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2015/06/10/when-does-copyright-become-wrong-by-bruce-frohnen/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS

        Bruce,

        Another great piece for nomocracyinpolitics.

        Excuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

        We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

        In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Moralis(morality- necessary for preservation of cooperation and prevention of retaliation for free riding) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

        1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.

        – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

        2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.

        – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

        3) ‘MORALIS’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).

        – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

        *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

        REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES

        Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

        (a) patent trolls (our friends in Seattle for example)

        (b) patents as total market prohibitions. (the rubber tires example)

        (c) lawsuits the content of which we cannot construct juries capable of adjudicating. (Samsung and Apple for example).

        (d) the need to defend patents even if you don’t want to in order to prevent reverse-prohibitions.

        (e) The absurd costs of researching and filing and defending them.

        (f) The result that it’s not the patent that secures your invention, but the financial ability to wage a lawsuit at high risk.

        But some externalities are less obvious:

        (a) How would plot lines, and movie portfolios, and bookstore catalogs differ, without copyrights? How would the high arts be affected? At present, we produce almost none, and we produce almost entirely what can be considered folk arts and vaudeville at best. Wouldn’t the elimination of copyrights change arts back to a form of conspicuous elite consumption, and the product of the aristocracy rather than the proletariat? (I am more concerned about this then the other factors combined.)

        Hope that gave you a few ideas.

        Curt Doolittle

        The Propertarian Institute

        Kiev, Ukraine.

        Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 06:45:00 UTC

      • Without Propertarianism strict construction of law ( operational ism in law) is

        Without Propertarianism strict construction of law ( operational ism in law) is not possible.

        With Propertarianism strict construction is possible.

        And not particularly difficult.

        “Given this means of involuntary transfer/free riding,

        We prohibit such transfers,

        And define these rights,

        By this reasoning,

        Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.”

        We require no legislature. We require only a formal market for the construction of commons by contract.

        Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 03:41:00 UTC

      • CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM) Free Northerner; If

        CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)

        Free Northerner;

        If you will forgive me a second comment on the same post; regarding:

        —“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—

        I thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science.

        (a) Reaction a criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously.

        (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful.

        (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements.

        (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary),

        (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades.

        But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks.

        (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms.

        These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind.

        Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science.

        Liberty in our lifetimes.

        Curt Doolittle,

        The Philosophy of Aristocracy

        The Propertarian Institute

        Kiev, Ukraine.

        Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 02:34:00 UTC