Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • ROTHBARDIANS CAN CLAIM THEY ARE ANARCHISTS AND LIBERTINES, BUT NOT LIBERTARIANS,

    ROTHBARDIANS CAN CLAIM THEY ARE ANARCHISTS AND LIBERTINES, BUT NOT LIBERTARIANS, OR ETHICAL AND MORAL MEN.

    Anarchist is true, libertine is true, libertarian is false, moral man is false.

    There is no liberty in rothbardian libertinism. No means of obtaining it nor means of holding it.

    Rothbard would have us return to the ethics of the nomadic pastoralists an their endemic warfare. We all bring our cultural heritage with us. As such we can look at the results of pastoral heritage. If we acted as Rothbards’ ghetto inhabitants, or Rothbards’ pastoralists, or Rothbard’s wandering merchants, we would be treated like them: landless, despised, ostracized, and frequently decimated. We cannot construct absurdly utopian social systems on absurdly unsuccessful social systems. The western militia led by professional warriors of equal status, is a unique social system.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 01:44:00 UTC

  • **WHAT** PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A PEACEFUL CIVILIZATION? —The foun

    **WHAT** PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A PEACEFUL CIVILIZATION?

    —The foundation of a peaceful and prosperous civilization is “property rights are human rights and human rights are property rights.”— Bruce Koerber, Auburn University

    Bruce,

    While TRUE, in the sense that our laws and courts must resolve differences by property rights for us to live in a state of LEGAL LIBERTY, it is not true that property rights are the foundation of a peaceful and prosperous civilization, by any means, unless one enumerates all categories and cases of property, and provides for a means of their evolutionary expansion.

    Property defined as that which is Intersubjectively Verifiable (as I have written about profusely) is absolutely, positively, insufficient for the formation of a peaceful polity, and even less so for a civilization, because it offers an insufficient suppression of unethical and immoral actions to prevent conflict, and therefore for demand for an authoritarian state.

    Property must extended to the ethical and moral, which rothbardian ethics of the ghetto’s low trust society do not.

    Primitive societies did not lack internal property rights any more than today’s primitive families lack internal property rights. The problem is extending the treatment we grant to others within the family across family, tribal, cultural, and racial bounds.

    The libertarian fallacy is the presumption of the benevolence of human nature across familial, tribal, cultural, commercial bounds, which is contrary to all evidence from all civilizations, and all cultures at all points in time.

    No people, lacking an authoritarian martial government can defend itself from parasitic conquest without

    Rothbard took his ethics from the Medieval ghetto and like a good Cosmopolitan tried to justify the ethics of the ghetto just as germans the ethics of the land, and the english the ethics of the island. But while german ethics of the land, require nothing external to the polity but neighbors with different norms, the english ethics of the island require a sea to protect them, and the jewish ethic of the ghetto requires an authoritarian overlord to create a fictitious environment in which violence is not permitted but unethical and immoral behavior is tolerated as long as it does not lead to violence.

    Humans require manners, ethics, morals, AND property rights to cooperate. Otherwise conflict or authoritarianism is preferable to the high transaction costs of trying to cooperate.

    The germans were right albeit in the pseudoscientific authoritarian and rational language of Kant, and the anglos were right in their empirical and psychological language, yes, but wrong in that they assumed all men wished to, or were capable of, joining the aristocracy and incurring its responsibility.

    But rothbard was the most wrong of all – in not only his language, but in his methods, logic and assumptions of man. Meaning that rothbard joins Spinoza, Marx, Freud, Cantor and even to some degree Popper, as manufacturer of elaborate verbal pseudosciences – the thinkers that doomed the 20th century to an age of pseudosciences, and destroyed the aristocratic libertarian ethos of western civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 01:27:00 UTC

  • THEFT IS ANYTHING BUT LIBERTARIAN Freedom is evidently obtained and perpetuated

    THEFT IS ANYTHING BUT LIBERTARIAN

    Freedom is evidently obtained and perpetuated at the point of a sword or the barrel of a gun.

    The cosmopolitan myth is that man desires to be free, and the state is his oppressor.

    And true, some of us do desire freedom.

    But the vast majority prefer to free ride and rent seek to their maximum ability, and happily confuse freedom with the possibility of increases in consumption.

    Aristocracy requires property; property requires liberty; liberty requires violence.

    Attempts to obtain liberty otherwise are both futile and all too obviously seeking to obtain liberty at a discount on the efforts of others: theft.

    And theft is anything but libertarian.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 08:34:00 UTC

  • Sean Gabb , if you took the moral loading out of this and put it into NPOV, it’d

    http://www.seangabb.co.uk/?q=node%2F773Damn Sean Gabb , if you took the moral loading out of this and put it into NPOV, it’d be even better. I’m going to borrow huge chunks of it (citation of course), but it’s just about right. Right voice and everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 08:29:00 UTC

  • Martial Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Monarchy and Feudalism) Producer Aristocrat

    Martial Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Monarchy and Feudalism)

    Producer Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Classical Liberal Democracy)

    Consumer Equalitarianism (Mixed Economy Democracy)

    Contractual? Voluntary? Aristocratic Egalitarianism ( Voluntary Contractualism?)

    Not able to get my arms around how to describe this particular evolutionary vector.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 07:56:00 UTC

  • “How do we take a measure of something?” vs “How do we observe something” THese

    “How do we take a measure of something?” vs “How do we observe something”

    THese are synonymous statements, since our observations are narrowly constrained to human scale, and that any observation beyond human scale (perception) requires some form of instrumentation, and some form of scale by which to describe changes in state. There is no difference between instrumentation captured by the eye or that captured by complex scientific machinery other than, while both are often equally fallible, we are born with the first, and must construct the second. But in both cases, external changes in state must be reduced to stimuli that we can contrast and compare.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 07:47:00 UTC

  • DEMONSTRATED BEHAVIOR NOT IMAGINATION OR WORDS —“Of the many things I learned

    DEMONSTRATED BEHAVIOR NOT IMAGINATION OR WORDS

    —“Of the many things I learned from Gary, a single powerful lesson stands out: the value of revealed preference in judging one’s actions. Declared priorities are easily betrayed by actual behavior.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 07:39:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS: ART OR SCIENCE? (FALSE DICHOTOMY) —“Is economics an art or a scienc

    ECONOMICS: ART OR SCIENCE? (FALSE DICHOTOMY)

    —“Is economics an art or a science?” Gary would ask after a particularly difficult problem set. “Both,” he would answer his own question, to the great relief of a lecture hall full of students terrified that they were about to be called on.—

    The question is a fallacy of framing. Theorizing is an Art. Constructing a Proof is a Science. All correspondent proofs are constructed scientifically. Operationalism is the only proof possible in science. Economic statements are operationally reducible to human actions. Therefore economics is both an art and science – just like all other investigative forms of inquiry. That is what Mises failed to comprehend, and why he unfortunately cast his work forever as a pseudoscience, by claiming that a logic (a proof of internal consistency) was a science (a demonstration of correspondence by a proof of operational construction).

    Can’t really blame him. Brouwer and Bridgman were smarter than Mises but didn’t figure it out either. Popper got halfway but couldn’t escape cosmopolitanism’s debilitating empty verbalisms, any more than could Mises.

    Anything extant, the theory of which requires a truth claim, must be describable by operations otherwise it is at best analogy, more often lucky presumption, and generally accidental error.

    Just took me a four years of my adult life to figure all of that out unfortunately. Fortunately I understood computability as operational beforehand or I also might have been confused by the existing literature as well.

    If all logical problems were not tautological then we would not be able to construct tests of internal consistency by the use of axiomatic systems. Operations solve the problem of necessary verbal incoherence by replacing meaning with names of operations that must be extant and demonstrable. This avoids the endemic fallacies in rationalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 07:33:00 UTC

  • ) FIRST Quality that provides an exceptional experience and peak emotional satis

    🙂 FIRST

    Quality that provides an exceptional experience and peak emotional satisfaction is timeless. The more experience you have the more you appreciate quality, and well tested perfection outshines fresh mediocrity. I don’t care about being first. I don’t even care about the number and frequency of drivers. I only care about whatever record of passage that previous drivers have left behind. Only the inexperienced an those lacking confidence care about being first. Aesthetes appreciate perfection that only quality can provide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 05:26:00 UTC

  • DEAR UKRAINIANS: THE PROBLEM IS YOU. Another day dealing with pervasive ukrainia

    DEAR UKRAINIANS: THE PROBLEM IS YOU.

    Another day dealing with pervasive ukrainian incompetence. If any protocol is non trivial in that it crosses boundaries of responsibikity, then in true soviet fashion there is a near certsinty a ukrainian will fuck it up by not handling the exception and instead laziliy and incompetently following the rule.

    And they dont even understand that they fucked up, or that the primary reason they are poor is their failure to understand that they fucked up.

    Here is the rule: if you ate aware of it or can be aware of it, its your problem until you are aware it is fixed completely.

    Soviet version is that you are only responsible for that about which you do not have to think.

    Every time you do not take responsibility for everything not right of which you are aware, you are stealing from the possible prosperity of you and your people.

    There are no conditions – ever – under which you are not responsible for that of which you are aware.

    Ukraine is poor because no one takes responsibility for making it prosper. And what makes a people prosper is not a few big things by government but a million billion tiny things by each individual.

    So the next time you wonder why you are poor, look in the mirror at the person to blame.

    If you are aware of it, then you must fix it until someone else promises you that they will fix it faster and better than you will instead.

    Ukraine is poor for this single reason. People do not pay for the common things that make a people economically efficient and free of risk to compete with the rest of the world.

    Look in the mirror.

    The problem is YOU. Not your culture, not your government, but YOU.

    The culture and the government are made of people just like YOU.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 04:38:00 UTC