Can I tell you how much I hate library pricing? Great idea: since libraries are a public good produced either through taxation or student loans, we outlaw punitive pricing for libraries as a form of rent seeking. 🙂
And we do the same for all publications that make use of public funds either directly or through the institutional process. 🙂
Parasitism is everywhere.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 04:33:00 UTC
So, the way we reform debate, is not to assume the best of the opposing party, but to test their statements for involuntary transfers.
It’s a more elaborate version of ‘follow the money’. Except, we’re looking for property-en-toto.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 11:57:00 UTC
HOW DO WE ELIMINATE POLITICS (CORRUPTION) FROM GOVERNMENT?
It’s not terribly difficult really.
You start with the question, in an age of communication at the speed of light, why do we need politicians?
Then you ask, why do we need majority rule?
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-26 07:53:00 UTC
GUNS: TIME FOR REFORM, BUT NOT OF GUNS
(feminist ideology trigger warning)
THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER
It certainly means that people taking brain altering chemicals should be required to put them in storage for the duration. So far, it looks like the primary difference between American ‘shooters’ and others, is that an absurd amount of Americans are taking various brain altering chemicals for various forms of depression. And that they have this depression and are taking those chemicals for the simple reason that American culture produces intolerable loneliness in exchange for extraordinary levels of personal consumption.
– The Absolute Nuclear Family creates the potential for loneliness.
– Internal Migration of people to capital rather than capital to people creates loneliness.
– Normatively diverse schools create conflict in youth.
– Normative diversity creates conflict in life.
– Access to political power under capitalism rewards normative diversity, cultural diversity and genetic diversity, and conflict.
Blame: Socialists, Economists: the prioritization of monetary consumption over familial insurance, and Feminists: the prioritization of feminism over family bonds and insurance.
Women are the world’s consumers, and they created consumerism because they cannot resist the nesting impulse, any more than an addict can resist his fix. And women prefer permissive motherhood rather than normative constraint motherhood, because it is much more work to raise your child to be a competitive, productive and cooperative member of society than it is to not train your child to be so.
Labor was a trivial problem. Women were the reason for the decline of western civilization.
It’s painful. It’s impolitic. But it’s true. Period.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-20 06:15:00 UTC
[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…
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
We have series 7 for investment.
We have the md for medicine.
We have the rn for medicine
We have the bar for law.
We have the cpa for accounting
Why not an equivalent for lending?
Why not an equivalent for handling money in any capacity (all employees)?
Why not the same for speech-for-fee? (journalism)
The academy makes no warranty.
The Libertarian solution is private insurance.
But losing your ticket is insurance enough. Insurance creates perverse incentives also.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-07 10:57:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A TIME”.
Libertarianism 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 sallow 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. 🙂 )
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 date (UTC): 2015-06-07 04:15:00 UTC
@paulromer #mathiness Operational testing (criticism) is most necessary in economics and psychology. Psychology reformed. Economics didn’t.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 08:35:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606378687949357056
Conservatism is not an intellectual movement. It’s an intuitionistic one. But it can be repaired. Slowly.
Source date (UTC): 2015-05-27 02:27:00 UTC