Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Intellectual Property (IP) In Propertarianism

    [H]ere is where I end up. And it hasn’t changed much in two years.

    1) Trademarking.
    Yes. It’s a weight and measure. And it’s testable. Violating trademarks is fraudulent.

    2) Copyrighting.
    Possibly – but only if under the model of the creative commons. Meaning free for non commercial use. I don’t care about patents anywhere near as much as I care about ending copyrights on user copyable media. It is very, very, hard to argue that pop music, film and literature are a public good – and I think the evidence is the opposite.  Artists and writers will do their work regardless of compensation, and without compensation those who lack are will be dis-incentivized from producing it.

    The difference between my position on copyrighting and the rothbardian, is that since high trust is necessary for the rational voluntary formation of even a moderately anarchic polity, then the criteria for moral action necessary for a high trust society will be: “Truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality” – and those criteria are violated by commercially profiting from the creative works of another.

    While it is hard to say that one should be cast as a criminal for duplicating a non-scarce good, it is another to say that one has the right to profit from it instead of its creator. It would violate the requirement that we all contribute to production rather than act parasitically in order for cooperation to be inter-temporally rational. (ie: Non-retaliatory.)

    I can’t agree that a publisher can make money selling a book without a commission to the author. But I can agree that an author cannot prevent the copying of a book. Same for film, music, and art. And I take this position not because I like it but because I cannot logically find an alternative to it. Humans will retaliate against parasitism, and that is what defines property-en-toto.

    3) Patents.
    Possibly in rare circumstances, but only for very, very, specific public (Citizen-Shareholder) investments that would not be served by the market otherwise. It is arguable that such criteria is not in fact meaningfully similar enough to a patent to call it patenting. But the idea of funding off-book research and development at private expense in hope of public reward is difficult to morally argue against – particularly in medicine and physical science. If we wanted to put a ten billion dollar bounty on the invention of a fusion reactor that met X criteria it is hard to say that wouldn’t be a good investment.

    Again, I am not sure that this qualifies as a ‘patent’, but to prohibit a voluntarily organized polity from offering a market bounty for the off book production of a high risk good is hard to find argument against.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Intellectual Property (IP) In Propertarianism

    [H]ere is where I end up. And it hasn’t changed much in two years.

    1) Trademarking.
    Yes. It’s a weight and measure. And it’s testable. Violating trademarks is fraudulent.

    2) Copyrighting.
    Possibly – but only if under the model of the creative commons. Meaning free for non commercial use. I don’t care about patents anywhere near as much as I care about ending copyrights on user copyable media. It is very, very, hard to argue that pop music, film and literature are a public good – and I think the evidence is the opposite.  Artists and writers will do their work regardless of compensation, and without compensation those who lack are will be dis-incentivized from producing it.

    The difference between my position on copyrighting and the rothbardian, is that since high trust is necessary for the rational voluntary formation of even a moderately anarchic polity, then the criteria for moral action necessary for a high trust society will be: “Truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality” – and those criteria are violated by commercially profiting from the creative works of another.

    While it is hard to say that one should be cast as a criminal for duplicating a non-scarce good, it is another to say that one has the right to profit from it instead of its creator. It would violate the requirement that we all contribute to production rather than act parasitically in order for cooperation to be inter-temporally rational. (ie: Non-retaliatory.)

    I can’t agree that a publisher can make money selling a book without a commission to the author. But I can agree that an author cannot prevent the copying of a book. Same for film, music, and art. And I take this position not because I like it but because I cannot logically find an alternative to it. Humans will retaliate against parasitism, and that is what defines property-en-toto.

    3) Patents.
    Possibly in rare circumstances, but only for very, very, specific public (Citizen-Shareholder) investments that would not be served by the market otherwise. It is arguable that such criteria is not in fact meaningfully similar enough to a patent to call it patenting. But the idea of funding off-book research and development at private expense in hope of public reward is difficult to morally argue against – particularly in medicine and physical science. If we wanted to put a ten billion dollar bounty on the invention of a fusion reactor that met X criteria it is hard to say that wouldn’t be a good investment.

    Again, I am not sure that this qualifies as a ‘patent’, but to prohibit a voluntarily organized polity from offering a market bounty for the off book production of a high risk good is hard to find argument against.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • HERE IS WHERE I END UP ON IP in PROPERTARIANISM. And it hasn’t changed much in t

    HERE IS WHERE I END UP ON IP in PROPERTARIANISM.

    And it hasn’t changed much in two years.

    1) Trademarking.

    Yes. It’s a weight and measure. And it’s testable. Violating trademarks is fraudulent.

    2) Copyrighting.

    Possibly – but only if under the model of the creative commons. Meaning free for non commercial use. I don’t care about patents anywhere near as much as I care about ending copyrights on user copyable media. It is very, very, hard to argue that pop music, film and literature is a public good – and I think the evidence is the opposite.

    The difference between my position on copyrighting and the rothbardian, is that since high trust is necessary for the voluntary formation of even a moderately anarchic polity, then the criteria for moral action necessary for a high trust society will be: “Truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality” is violated by commercially profiting from the creative works of another. While it is hard to say that one should be cast as a criminal for duplicating a non-scarce good, it is another to say that one has the right to profit from it instead of its creator. It would violate the requirement that we all contribute to production rather than act parasitically in order for cooperation to be inter-temporally rational. (ie: Non-retaliatory) I can’t agree that a publisher can make money selling a book without a commission to the author. But I can agree that an author cannot prevent the copying of a book. Same for film, music, and art. And I take this position not because I like it but because I cannot logically find an alternative to it. Humans will retaliate against parasitism, and that is what defines property-en-toto.

    3) Patents.

    Possibly in rare circumstances, but only for very, very, specific public (Citizen-Shareholder) investments that would not be served by the market otherwise. It is arguable that such criteria is not in fact meaningfully similar enough to a patent. But the idea of funding off book research and development at private expense in hope of public reward is difficult to morally argue against – particularly medicine and physical science. If we wanted to put a ten billion dollar bounty on the invention of a fusion reactor that met X criteria it is hard to say that wouldn’t be a good investment.

    Again, I am not sure that this qualifies as a ‘patent’, but to prohibit a voluntarily organized polity from offering a market bounty for the off book production of a high risk good is hard to find argument against.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 15:13:00 UTC

  • MERE POINTS OF VIEW What is the difference between Trust, Property Rights and Li

    MERE POINTS OF VIEW

    What is the difference between Trust, Property Rights and Liberty?

    Well, trust is the name for the experience of low risk, and low risk is the name for low transaction costs. Now, an economists whose theoretical basis evolved during the era of mass production, or the generations that followed him, would perhaps also include information and monetary and political costs, but those in my generation would also include costs of investigating the reliability of any other individual as a trading partner. But in practical terms trust-en-toto is the name we use for the warranty of property rights, rather than trust in an individual to warranty his own actions.

    Property Right is the term we use to positively label our normative warranty granting one another reciprocal insurance against free riding, and for providing the institutional means of resolving insurance claims for violations of the prohibition on free riding.

    Liberty is the term we use for the experience of our normative warranty granting one another reciprocal insurance against free riding by members of the government which we have chartered with the special duty of preventing free riding. Liberty is the term then for the experience of living in conditions where peers use violence to prevent the violation of property rights by the conspiratorial monopoly of the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 04:17:00 UTC

  • Propertarian Aggression versus Libertine (Rothbardian) Aggression

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.

  • Propertarian Aggression versus Libertine (Rothbardian) Aggression

    (worth repeating)

    [I]n political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.

  • PROPERTARIAN AGGRESSION VERSUS LIBERTINE AGGRESSION (worth repeating) –“In poli

    PROPERTARIAN AGGRESSION VERSUS LIBERTINE AGGRESSION

    (worth repeating)

    –“In political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 05:30:00 UTC

  • Libertine “Self Ownership” is Suitable for Children’s Stories

    [U]nfortunately you ‘aren’t’ anything other than a bag of mostly water, and rights only exist when they have been created by an act of promise or contract.

    As such you may DEMAND, or WANT to be treated as the owner of your body, and therefore are seeking CUSTOMERS for your offer, and those customers will offer you the same deal in exchange – albeit with differing degrees of warranty. But until that point you ‘have’ no ‘right’. You cannot. It cannot be made to exist without the action of exchange.

    So if you are willing to fight hard enough that you raise the cost of your subjugation to the point at which those who prefer to subjugate you prefer to engage in the reciprocal exchange of rights to self, life, mind, and body, then you may per-chance, obtain that property right in exchange for your offer of that property right.

    But until you raise the cost of your subjugation such that it is more profitable to give you a right to your self, life, mind and body, it is absolutely demonstrable – empirically, logically demonstrable – that you do NOT in fact, possess such a right.
    Nonsense appeals to ‘rights’ like nonsense appeals to pseudoscience are the modern equivalent religious comforts and promises of life after death. They are just nonsense appeals to make you feel comfortable as a slave with some hope of savior by technology, democracy, Arthur, Jesus, or God.

    Nonsense is for children who fear monsters under the bed, those who need comfort on their death beds, slaves who much suffer without relief, and the lazy and cowardly who fear to act. Use of nonsense words means one is a child, lost to life, lazy or coward.
    The only right you possess is the one you obtain in exchange. And that which you receive in exchange, like that which you obtain by homesteading, is only yours because you act to defend it with your life.

    Wishes are free. Words are cheap. Actions are dear.

    Freedom is purchased by strong arms and pointed weapons.

    Everything else is nonsense-words.

    Leave the false prophecy of the Libertines behind. Come to Aristocracy. We know better: Violence and time are the only wealth you were born with. Spend them wisely.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Libertine “Self Ownership” is Suitable for Children’s Stories

    [U]nfortunately you ‘aren’t’ anything other than a bag of mostly water, and rights only exist when they have been created by an act of promise or contract.

    As such you may DEMAND, or WANT to be treated as the owner of your body, and therefore are seeking CUSTOMERS for your offer, and those customers will offer you the same deal in exchange – albeit with differing degrees of warranty. But until that point you ‘have’ no ‘right’. You cannot. It cannot be made to exist without the action of exchange.

    So if you are willing to fight hard enough that you raise the cost of your subjugation to the point at which those who prefer to subjugate you prefer to engage in the reciprocal exchange of rights to self, life, mind, and body, then you may per-chance, obtain that property right in exchange for your offer of that property right.

    But until you raise the cost of your subjugation such that it is more profitable to give you a right to your self, life, mind and body, it is absolutely demonstrable – empirically, logically demonstrable – that you do NOT in fact, possess such a right.
    Nonsense appeals to ‘rights’ like nonsense appeals to pseudoscience are the modern equivalent religious comforts and promises of life after death. They are just nonsense appeals to make you feel comfortable as a slave with some hope of savior by technology, democracy, Arthur, Jesus, or God.

    Nonsense is for children who fear monsters under the bed, those who need comfort on their death beds, slaves who much suffer without relief, and the lazy and cowardly who fear to act. Use of nonsense words means one is a child, lost to life, lazy or coward.
    The only right you possess is the one you obtain in exchange. And that which you receive in exchange, like that which you obtain by homesteading, is only yours because you act to defend it with your life.

    Wishes are free. Words are cheap. Actions are dear.

    Freedom is purchased by strong arms and pointed weapons.

    Everything else is nonsense-words.

    Leave the false prophecy of the Libertines behind. Come to Aristocracy. We know better: Violence and time are the only wealth you were born with. Spend them wisely.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Legal Prohibitions on Free Riding Must Expand With Minimum Friction

    [E]ntrepreneurs innovate. Property is necessary for calculation and incentives. Trust is necessary for economic velocity (rates). As complexity expands so does the means of free riding and theft, so legal prohibitions must expand in criminal, ethical, moral, conspiratorial coverage at a marginally indifferent rate from the complexity of associations in order to maintain trust and economic velocity.


    This state of affairs is only possible in homogenous polities.