Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Evidence Is In. the Left Is a Destroyer of Civilizations

    Oct 18, 2019, 10:57 AM The Left confuses PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION. We evolved Property, Law, Markets and resulting Eugenics to limit Hyper-Consumption, and Impose domestication upon semi-human animals by constraining the reproduction of both genders to what they could produce. One can spend increases in production but if one just spends down accumulated genetic capital, one is not engaging in progress, but burning the winter stores for an endless fall feast. Only far east and far west produced majority genetic middle class civilizations. And Redistribution under ‘democracy’ reversed five thousand years of western civilization’s domestication of human polities in just a century

  • Evidence Is In. the Left Is a Destroyer of Civilizations

    Oct 18, 2019, 10:57 AM The Left confuses PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION. We evolved Property, Law, Markets and resulting Eugenics to limit Hyper-Consumption, and Impose domestication upon semi-human animals by constraining the reproduction of both genders to what they could produce. One can spend increases in production but if one just spends down accumulated genetic capital, one is not engaging in progress, but burning the winter stores for an endless fall feast. Only far east and far west produced majority genetic middle class civilizations. And Redistribution under ‘democracy’ reversed five thousand years of western civilization’s domestication of human polities in just a century

  • “Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?”

    Oct 21, 2019, 5:21 PM

    —“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.

    … The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“

    —Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7

    Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others. Edit

  • “Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?”

    Oct 21, 2019, 5:21 PM

    —“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.

    … The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“

    —Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7

    Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others. Edit

  • Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/um-i-think-youre-confused-about-property-and-commons-and-the-evolution-of-each/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:43:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265684958917668869

  • Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers

  • Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers

  • The Role of Churches in The Proposed Constitution

    Oct 25, 2019, 11:19 AM

    —“I do have a question regarding churches. Under P Law, would they be considered public or private property? And if considered public, would that limit what the preacher can and cannot say? Or would it being private, grant them some clemency when speaking on their faith?”—Stephen Thomas

    P law doesn’t say anything other than “don’t lie”. P-law says you have no rights in the commons other than to continuously walk along property-borders and common ways, while silent, and looking at your feet. That is the only necessary exchange we must grant one another given the impossibility of circumventing three dimensional reality. So teaching ‘sacredness’ is a matter of law under threat of prosecution, not membership in a community under threat of ostracization. So yes, we restore sacredness of the commons. The church’s past and present primary function is education of the psychological, moral, and political intuition – largely in an illiterate (and possibly intentionally illiterate) society. The academy’s primary function is education in the grammars of calculation: letters, numbers, reading, writing, the logics, mathematics, the physics, the law, the economics, and argument. What occurred in the 20th thanks to the second abrahamic attack on western civilization is the invasion of the academy with training the intuition rather than training reason, argument, and calculation. And we must either prevent this from happening, or require both institutions teach universal grammars, universal ethics, morality, and politics, but different means of providing mindfulness given the different constitutions of our minds. But, in a constitution written in P-law, that restores the balance of powers between the institutions, I have suggested that the religious institutions are restored to previous condition as a competitor to the military and the government (not the judiciary), and has dominion over matters of the family, and that we fund these like the schools (instead of the schools) whether scientific, rational, traditional, military, pagan(european historical), or christian – a description of the order we want to be long to. This allows people to choose the educational and social conditions they prefer, with the only constant relation being natural law and the grammars. It allows them to construct churches in the christian ethic of natural law; the extension of christian (familial) love to all as a means of both eliminating petting conflict, eliminating petty emotional and psychological coercion, and eliminating the demand to retaliate, and thereby producing the optimum social order with optimum reciprocal incentives, that assists in the formation of an economically and politically ( commercial) political order; the imitation of jesus in expression of that christian love; surrender of responsibility for fate to god or jesus, thereby limiting self criticism due to normal human frailty and error; and limiting the burden of ethical and moral decision making to dependence upon the accumulated evidence of religious history. If that is the case then they are not only sponsored and defended by the state but competing organizations on competing ethics are prohibited. So in this sense it is difficult to disambiguate the ownership of current libraries and churches as other than state-private partnerships. In fact, hard to describe any institutions as other than partnerships. So as long as a ‘church’ teaches compatibility with natural law, and teaches the grammars, My conflict and the one I just am leaving for markets to search out is that faith and truth are not the same things, and if they were we would not need faith. So christians must be taught the difference between an expression of faith and an expression of truth, and that we deliver undo the faithful and unto our gods, what is due them (the spiritual) and we delver unto the polity and the law what is due it. This has been the practice for all of our history. No other solution is possible while preserving both. Meanwhile those of us who think in archetypal masculine terms will focus our empathy on the pagan, and those who think in archetypal feminine terms will focus our empathy on the christian, and those of us who use reason and science rather than empty will focus on history, economics, and the law. And my hope (and suspicion) is that most people will do ALL OF THEM, and some people will do only ONE of them. And that will keep us unified despite our cognitive differences – without having to oppress one another. It is impossible to make people like me have faith – we are incapable of it. it is impossible to make people who need faith abandon it. But since we all share the natural law across that spectrum – or we are the enemy of not just our people, but all mankind, then this is an amenable solution for military unity, political unity, economic unity, and spiritual unity despite our differences. “MARKETS IN EVERYTHING.” (And yeah, that was freaking hard problem.)

  • The Role of Churches in The Proposed Constitution

    Oct 25, 2019, 11:19 AM

    —“I do have a question regarding churches. Under P Law, would they be considered public or private property? And if considered public, would that limit what the preacher can and cannot say? Or would it being private, grant them some clemency when speaking on their faith?”—Stephen Thomas

    P law doesn’t say anything other than “don’t lie”. P-law says you have no rights in the commons other than to continuously walk along property-borders and common ways, while silent, and looking at your feet. That is the only necessary exchange we must grant one another given the impossibility of circumventing three dimensional reality. So teaching ‘sacredness’ is a matter of law under threat of prosecution, not membership in a community under threat of ostracization. So yes, we restore sacredness of the commons. The church’s past and present primary function is education of the psychological, moral, and political intuition – largely in an illiterate (and possibly intentionally illiterate) society. The academy’s primary function is education in the grammars of calculation: letters, numbers, reading, writing, the logics, mathematics, the physics, the law, the economics, and argument. What occurred in the 20th thanks to the second abrahamic attack on western civilization is the invasion of the academy with training the intuition rather than training reason, argument, and calculation. And we must either prevent this from happening, or require both institutions teach universal grammars, universal ethics, morality, and politics, but different means of providing mindfulness given the different constitutions of our minds. But, in a constitution written in P-law, that restores the balance of powers between the institutions, I have suggested that the religious institutions are restored to previous condition as a competitor to the military and the government (not the judiciary), and has dominion over matters of the family, and that we fund these like the schools (instead of the schools) whether scientific, rational, traditional, military, pagan(european historical), or christian – a description of the order we want to be long to. This allows people to choose the educational and social conditions they prefer, with the only constant relation being natural law and the grammars. It allows them to construct churches in the christian ethic of natural law; the extension of christian (familial) love to all as a means of both eliminating petting conflict, eliminating petty emotional and psychological coercion, and eliminating the demand to retaliate, and thereby producing the optimum social order with optimum reciprocal incentives, that assists in the formation of an economically and politically ( commercial) political order; the imitation of jesus in expression of that christian love; surrender of responsibility for fate to god or jesus, thereby limiting self criticism due to normal human frailty and error; and limiting the burden of ethical and moral decision making to dependence upon the accumulated evidence of religious history. If that is the case then they are not only sponsored and defended by the state but competing organizations on competing ethics are prohibited. So in this sense it is difficult to disambiguate the ownership of current libraries and churches as other than state-private partnerships. In fact, hard to describe any institutions as other than partnerships. So as long as a ‘church’ teaches compatibility with natural law, and teaches the grammars, My conflict and the one I just am leaving for markets to search out is that faith and truth are not the same things, and if they were we would not need faith. So christians must be taught the difference between an expression of faith and an expression of truth, and that we deliver undo the faithful and unto our gods, what is due them (the spiritual) and we delver unto the polity and the law what is due it. This has been the practice for all of our history. No other solution is possible while preserving both. Meanwhile those of us who think in archetypal masculine terms will focus our empathy on the pagan, and those who think in archetypal feminine terms will focus our empathy on the christian, and those of us who use reason and science rather than empty will focus on history, economics, and the law. And my hope (and suspicion) is that most people will do ALL OF THEM, and some people will do only ONE of them. And that will keep us unified despite our cognitive differences – without having to oppress one another. It is impossible to make people like me have faith – we are incapable of it. it is impossible to make people who need faith abandon it. But since we all share the natural law across that spectrum – or we are the enemy of not just our people, but all mankind, then this is an amenable solution for military unity, political unity, economic unity, and spiritual unity despite our differences. “MARKETS IN EVERYTHING.” (And yeah, that was freaking hard problem.)

  • A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism:

    Nov 19, 2019, 2:39 PM A summary essay of the book, The Origins of English Individualism: Family Property and Social Transition, by Alan Macfarlane, professor of social anthropology and historical anthropology at Cambridge university from 1975-2006. —by Lisa Outhwaite “…one of the most thoroughly investigated of all peasantries in history turns out to be not a peasantry at all. The classical example of the transition of a “feudal”, peasant-based society into a new, capitalist, system turns out to be a deviant case”. The general point made is the refutation of previous claims of English life prior to the 16th Century being predominantly that of a peasantry (here defined as land ownership and property rights generally being held by the family and extended kin and not the individual, with a general lack of social mobility or capitalist economy).

    • Ample evidence for frequent land ownership transference outside of the family group in the 13th century.

    • Inheritance was subject to a will and not birth-right laws.

    • Children did not work as a collective family unit and left home, often marrying late.

    • Households were predominantly nuclear, with little evidence of multiple married couples sharing the same dwelling (typical for collectivist societies).

    • Marriage tended to be later.

    • In 13th Century England, single women, married women and widows all had very considerable property rights as individual persons.

    • In the period prior to the Black Death up to half the adult population were primarily hired labourers, which is incompatible wth notions of a peasant economy.

    • The exchange of labour services for cash was widespread by the middle of the 12th Century.

    • Production was often for exchange rather than personal use.

    • Strong evidence of individual mobility, in marked distinction to typical peasant societies.

    “Evidence for this re-assessment comes primarily from local and legal records. It is based on what happened in particular villages and the nature of the law. It reveals a picture of a social and economic structure greatly at variance even with what we know of most of continental countries in the 19th Century, let alone Asian or other peasantries.” Travel diaries of the time made frequent comment on the peculiar system in England with its absence of communities, family ties etc. Montesquieu observed in 1729 that England “hardly resembles the rest of Europe” Other writers commented on the peculiar independence, individuality and freedom of the English. The primary comparative historians of the 19th Century stress the differences between the legal, economic and social structure of medieval England. Only in England was the concept of indivisible, individually held, private property present by the 13th Century. A difference which made England “wholly exceptional in Europe”.