Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Why Is Gold Or Silver Precious In The First Place? I Would Say That Rice Is Precious.

    I will improve Paul Frank’s statement slightly:
    1) Scarcity
    2) Universal Utility.
    3) Non-perishability
    4) Volume and weight to value ratio (and therefore transportability)
    5) Nearly universal convertibility.
    6) Functional unit of account, store of value, and medium of exchange.

    Very few goods meet this criteria. Silver and gold are pretty much the only goods that do meet this criteria.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gold-or-silver-precious-in-the-first-place-I-would-say-that-rice-is-precious

  • RETURN ON RESPECT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS? What is the return on an individual’s res

    RETURN ON RESPECT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS?

    What is the return on an individual’s respect for property rights?

    For him?

    For the polity?

    For man?

    We cannot construct the voluntary organization without widespread respect.

    So then how do we calculate the cost if that adherence?

    Labor has no known value except in exchange. At which point we learn its value.

    But respect for property rights, and active construction and perpetuation of them, always produces value.

    Earlier thinkers assumed that membership and participation in the market was sufficient compensation for respecting property rights.

    But this exchange was possible only because of the possibility of entry.

    In a world of mandatory inclusion, this choice no longer exists.

    In a world of marginally different productivity, where the underclasses no longer can provide useful skills, they are mandatorially included, but necessarily excluded.

    In fact, their only value is in providing instructions in the form of demand, for the organization of production to satisfy their wants and to reward producers.

    But they have nothing to exchange except constructing and maintaining the voluntary organization of production.

    This presents us with a logical contradiction. They are forcibly included but necessarily excluded.

    How do we solve this contradiction?

    Par them for services rendered, and do not pay them if they fail to render services.

    Voluntary exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-20 06:40:00 UTC

  • Peace is an idiot’s obsession. The only rational pursuit is the positive express

    Peace is an idiot’s obsession.

    The only rational pursuit is the positive expression in property rights of the negative prohibition on free riding. Violence toward that end is always rational and moral. Peace is an undesirable pursuit, since it simply justifies whatever level of immorality is currently extant.

    People who pursue peace for its own sake are, if necessity, immoralists.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-17 09:56:00 UTC

  • POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS And of course there are other options: Land can be owne

    POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS

    And of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

    The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

    Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

    Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

    Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

    Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

    This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.

    THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS

    The “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

    Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

    However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

    Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

    (I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 15:17:00 UTC

  • WEAPONIZING REPRODUCTION You know, I had bought into the ‘equality’ thing pretty

    WEAPONIZING REPRODUCTION

    You know, I had bought into the ‘equality’ thing pretty deeply. But yet again, I”m overturning my own biases.

    While patriarchy made possible by property helped to constrain female reproduction rates, and female reproductive parasitism, one of the northern european innovations was to further improve on the suppression of feminine reproductive parasitism, by delaying childbirth as well. Both patriarchy, the absolute nuclear family and manorialism further suppressed female reproductive parasitism.

    The state by contrast, within just one generation of enfranchisement of women, was used by women to reverse thousands of years of innovations in the institutions of property which controlled female reproduction – particularly in the lower classes.

    The state has not only been the source of predation but under universalism the sponsor of both dysgenia and suicide. The most paternal cultures are the most successful. The most aggressive males produce the most aggressive paternalism. The most aggressive paternalism produces the most aggressive family structure.

    We weaponized norms and technology, while other groups of people weaponized reproduction, and yet others weaponized deception.

    Why then should we abandon truth and violence so that we can be conquered by reproduction and deception?

    (This was a conclusion I certainly didn’t expect to come to. Especially as a maker of alpha widows. The family is more important than my own demonstrated preferences illustrate.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 14:28:00 UTC

  • UKRAINIAN WIFE’S POV: “A man can have as many mistresses and pets as he wants, a

    UKRAINIAN WIFE’S POV:

    “A man can have as many mistresses and pets as he wants, as long as he doesn’t spend the family budget on them.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 05:38:00 UTC

  • WHY? THE FALLACY OF NON AGGRESSION AS JUSTIFICATION. Why would you develop an et

    WHY? THE FALLACY OF NON AGGRESSION AS JUSTIFICATION.

    Why would you develop an ethics of non-aggression rather than an ethic of non-theft, for a philosophical framework that purports to reduce all right to property rights, for some reason other than legitimizing deception and forbidding retaliation for deception?

    You see, cosmopolitanism is merely a philosophical framework for justificationism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-15 08:23:00 UTC

  • Capitalism: Cronyism Or Collectivism?

    I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN INTERESTING AND POSSIBLY NOVEL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

    Neither Capitalism (the voluntary organization of production, and distributed control of property) nor Socialism (the involuntary organization of production, and the centralized control of property) is possible.   Both systems result in totalitarian oligarchies.  Economic operation under socialism is impossible.  Economic concentration under capitalism is undesirable (by the masses).  The general argument is that capitalist oligarchies destroy each other in a constant process of creative destruction, and that socialist oligarchies do not.  This appears to be fairly obvious from both the logic and the evidence.

    Given the impossibility of either, the open question is the following:

    1) HOW DO WE MAINTAIN SYMMETRY OF COSTS OF THE SOCIAL ORDER NECESSARY FOR THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION GIVEN THE ASYMMETRY OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY OF INDIVIDUALS
    Under agrarianism, when we developed political universalism, we were equally able to contribute to the economy, because human physical effort and human mental discipline were the only determinants of relative productivity.  However, increasingly, the ability to work with abstract ideas has evolved to become competitively advantageous, while labor and learning by observation and imitation have lost all value in the economy.  As such, some individuals are highly productive and others are not. And there is no evidence of this difference in productivity.

    Capitalism is the name we use for the distribution of property to individuals where they may voluntarily organize and participate in production, and where they possess the incentive to participate in production, even if their only property is their body, time, and effort.

    When we respect property: private, shareholder and commons, and when we respect norms : manners, ethics, morals, myths, traditions and rituals, we pay for access to society and the market, and the system of production.  Unfortunately,

    Conversely, respect for law, order, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and norms – all of which ask us to forego opportunities for gratification, fall increasingly on the unproductive classes.  So if the lower classes must both observe laws, order, property, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and rituals, while at the same time they are unable to participate in the economy, then it is no longer logical for them to continue to forgo all these opportunities and pay the high cost of deprivation, when they obtain only access to the market for good and services, but not the ability to participate in the voluntary organization of production that forgoing opportunities for gratification makes possible. 

    2) WHY MONOPOLY FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
    Then second question is whether a society, under an homogenous government, practicing homogenous manners, ethics, morals, rituals, and myths,  really needs to exist as it has in the past.  Why for example, cannot the upper classes make use of a libertarian government, while the lower classes make use of a socialist government?  There is no reason really.  Most of western history relied upon state (nobility) and church (laity), or aristocracy (farmers) and labor (slaves – in the old world not new world sense).  The idea that we must possess a single economic and political system for people with different needs was an artifice of the enlightenment and most of our wars, and in fact, the war that nearly ended western civilization (ww1+ww2) was largely caused by the attempt to create an ideology justifying a monopoly form of government over people with dissimilar economic and political interests. 

    For economic cooperation to be possible one must possess uniform individual property rights, or economic cooperation and calculation is not possible.

    However, individuals can choose to collectivize their property, and others to atomize it, as suits their interests, and then the lower classes can negotiate with the upper classes for access to the lower classes as a market, the way states with different economies conduct trade policy with states with higher or lower standards of living and therefore costs.

    The reason we are in conflict is artificial.  We do not need to choose between socialism and capitalism.  We do not need to blend the two.  We can make use of both as we desire. Monopoly is just another word for tyranny, if our interests are sufficiently dissimilar, because our abilities to engage in productivity are sufficiently dissimilar.

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-CRONYISM-OR-COLLECTIVISM

  • Why Haven’t Western Countries Signed The International Convention On The Protection Of The Rights Of All Migrant Workers & Members Of Their Families?

    All human rights are reducible to property rights, because all rights that can be brought into existence are reducible to property rights.  The International charter of human rights consists, in all but the last three line items, of statements of private property rights.  The last three, are not rights but ‘ambitions’ and were reluctantly admitted to the charter at the time under pressure of the then-communist governments.  These last three are not human rights but political obligations that developed countries use to hold undeveloped political authorities accountable for their acitons.

    This accountability is part of the post-war consensus, enforced by the United States as a world policeman,  that granted all states rights to respect for their borders if they obeyed human rights.  (Which Russia recently violated, destroying the postwar consensus.)

    The proposed charter is a license for the theft of property from high trust western polities by peoples of low trust cultures who are themselves unable to create high trust polities.  As such it cannot be considered a ‘right’ but instead a luxury good, or perhaps a license for limited theft.

    The rapid abandonment of socialism and communism and the worldwide adoption of capitalism have eliminated the privileged status of Western peoples because of the artificial shortage of labor.  Now that this shortage has been eliminated, western cultures no longer have labor advantages, and only have institutional advantages. As such increasing the immigration, power, or privileges of expensive underclasses is no longer affordable.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-western-countries-signed-the-International-Convention-on-the-Protection-of-the-Rights-of-All-Migrant-Workers-Members-of-Their-Families

  • Capitalism: Cronyism Or Collectivism?

    I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN INTERESTING AND POSSIBLY NOVEL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

    Neither Capitalism (the voluntary organization of production, and distributed control of property) nor Socialism (the involuntary organization of production, and the centralized control of property) is possible.   Both systems result in totalitarian oligarchies.  Economic operation under socialism is impossible.  Economic concentration under capitalism is undesirable (by the masses).  The general argument is that capitalist oligarchies destroy each other in a constant process of creative destruction, and that socialist oligarchies do not.  This appears to be fairly obvious from both the logic and the evidence.

    Given the impossibility of either, the open question is the following:

    1) HOW DO WE MAINTAIN SYMMETRY OF COSTS OF THE SOCIAL ORDER NECESSARY FOR THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION GIVEN THE ASYMMETRY OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY OF INDIVIDUALS
    Under agrarianism, when we developed political universalism, we were equally able to contribute to the economy, because human physical effort and human mental discipline were the only determinants of relative productivity.  However, increasingly, the ability to work with abstract ideas has evolved to become competitively advantageous, while labor and learning by observation and imitation have lost all value in the economy.  As such, some individuals are highly productive and others are not. And there is no evidence of this difference in productivity.

    Capitalism is the name we use for the distribution of property to individuals where they may voluntarily organize and participate in production, and where they possess the incentive to participate in production, even if their only property is their body, time, and effort.

    When we respect property: private, shareholder and commons, and when we respect norms : manners, ethics, morals, myths, traditions and rituals, we pay for access to society and the market, and the system of production.  Unfortunately,

    Conversely, respect for law, order, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and norms – all of which ask us to forego opportunities for gratification, fall increasingly on the unproductive classes.  So if the lower classes must both observe laws, order, property, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and rituals, while at the same time they are unable to participate in the economy, then it is no longer logical for them to continue to forgo all these opportunities and pay the high cost of deprivation, when they obtain only access to the market for good and services, but not the ability to participate in the voluntary organization of production that forgoing opportunities for gratification makes possible. 

    2) WHY MONOPOLY FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
    Then second question is whether a society, under an homogenous government, practicing homogenous manners, ethics, morals, rituals, and myths,  really needs to exist as it has in the past.  Why for example, cannot the upper classes make use of a libertarian government, while the lower classes make use of a socialist government?  There is no reason really.  Most of western history relied upon state (nobility) and church (laity), or aristocracy (farmers) and labor (slaves – in the old world not new world sense).  The idea that we must possess a single economic and political system for people with different needs was an artifice of the enlightenment and most of our wars, and in fact, the war that nearly ended western civilization (ww1+ww2) was largely caused by the attempt to create an ideology justifying a monopoly form of government over people with dissimilar economic and political interests. 

    For economic cooperation to be possible one must possess uniform individual property rights, or economic cooperation and calculation is not possible.

    However, individuals can choose to collectivize their property, and others to atomize it, as suits their interests, and then the lower classes can negotiate with the upper classes for access to the lower classes as a market, the way states with different economies conduct trade policy with states with higher or lower standards of living and therefore costs.

    The reason we are in conflict is artificial.  We do not need to choose between socialism and capitalism.  We do not need to blend the two.  We can make use of both as we desire. Monopoly is just another word for tyranny, if our interests are sufficiently dissimilar, because our abilities to engage in productivity are sufficiently dissimilar.

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-CRONYISM-OR-COLLECTIVISM