Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • LAWRENCE VANCE HAD NUMEROUS TERMINOLOGICAL ERRORS IN HIS RECENT POST ON LRC. – I

    LAWRENCE VANCE HAD NUMEROUS TERMINOLOGICAL ERRORS IN HIS RECENT POST ON LRC. – I FIXED THEM. NOW IT’S ACCURATE 😉

    Apparently Larry doesn’t know his etymology, or his history, and like the progressives appropriated the term ‘liberal’, larry is a rothbardian who wants to appropriate the term “libertarian”. Apparently he thinks ‘libertarian’ isn’t a bias toward liberty. And libertarianism isn’t both the philosophy of liberty AND the name rothbard tried to appropriate for rothbardian anarcho capitalism.

    Because larry seems to think that liberty is somehow about the appropriate use of violence instead of liberty. That makes him a rothbardian. Because the opinions of the rest of the libertarians in the world, and one’s analysis of the history of the use of the term libertarian, lead one to conclude that the term ‘libertarian’ means the primacy of liberty first – and before all other political goods. Not that there are no other political goods.

    ACCORDING TO LARRY:

    —“I am a Rothbardian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.

    I am a Rothbardian. I am both thin and brutalist. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old Rothbardian – one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.

    I am a Rothbardian. Rothbardianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.

    I am a Rothbardian. I subscribe to the non-aggression principle that says, in the words of Murray Rothbard: “The only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” I am concerned with actions; I am not concerned with thoughts: I am concerned only with the negative consequences of thoughts. I believe that the non-aggression principle extends to government. Libertarians should therefore oppose or otherwise seek to limit the domestic and foreign meddling and intervention of governments, which are the greatest violators of the non-aggression principle.

    I am a Rothbardian. I believe in the golden rule. I believe in live and let live. I believe that a person should be free to do anything he wants, as long as his conduct is peaceful. I believe that vices are not crimes.

    I am a Rothbardian. Our enemy is the state. Our enemy is not religion, corporations, institutions, foundations, or organizations. These only have power to do us harm because of their connection with the state. And since war is the health of the state, the state’s military, wars, and foreign interventions must be opposed root and branch.

    I am a Rothbardian. I believe in laissez faire. Anyone should be free to engage in any economic activity without license, permission, prohibition, or interference from the state. The government should not intervene in the economy in any way. Free trade agreements, educational vouchers, privatizing Social Security, etc., are not the least bit libertarian ideas.

    I am a Rothbardian. The best government is no government. That government that governs least is the next best government. Government, as Voltaire said, at its best state is a necessary evil and at its worst state is an intolerable one. The best thing any government could do would be to simply leave us alone.

    I am a Rothbardian. Taxation is government theft. The government doesn’t have a claim to a certain percentage of one’s income. The tax code doesn’t need to be simplified, shortened, fairer, or less intrusive. The tax rates don’t need to be made lower, flatter, fairer, equal, or less progressive. The income tax doesn’t need more or larger deductions, loopholes, shelters, credits, or exemptions. The whole rotten system needs to be abolished. People have the right to keep what they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their money: spend it, waste it, squander it, donate it, bequeath it, hoard it, invest it, burn it, gamble it.

    I am a Rothbardian. I am a libertine. I am a hedonist. I am a moral relativist outside of the use of violence. I am a devotee of an alternative lifestyle never seen by man.

    I am a revolutionary. I am a social and moral nihilist. I neither wish to associate with nor aggress against those who are. I believe in the absolute freedom of association and discrimination.

    I am a Rothbardian.”—

    YES, LARRY, YOU ARE A ROTHBARDIAN. I AM NOT SURE YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN.

    We have this big tent kind of thing. So we’ll let you in. No matter how silly your concept of how to obtain liberty is. Because we’re that kind of folk, you know. We’re libertarians.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 02:44:00 UTC

  • “You think IQ research is dangerous to the status quo? Wait until researchers be

    —“You think IQ research is dangerous to the status quo? Wait until researchers begin uncovering population group differences in the moral senses.”—

    Yeah. Um. That will be awkward.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 00:42:00 UTC

  • Why Does The Belief Exist That The Usa Is A Conservative Country?

    Asking who wins versus the vote distribution is confusing you. Our votes are polarized between right and left, and must be since these two views are in direct competition.

    If american had a european mulit-party parliamentary system rather than just two choices our government would be very different, and it is likely that compromises would be achieved. However, the american system favors extremes because the party in power has really, too much power.

    Europeans invented hard right politics. And had a war over it.  European progressivism comes from (a) multiple homogenous local nations that act like extended families, (b) the collapse of european self-confidence during the wars (the second time since the 30 years war) (c) because europe is not required to pay for, or perform it’s own defense.

    Americans have always been somewhat heterogeneous, a virtual island (like britain and australia), have had confidence, and are self-defending.  On top of that (a) we follow the anglo absolute nuclear family model, (b) the culture is pure commercialism at its core, and (c) we are very heterogeneous.

    Both european and american models are collapsing right now due to a century of postwar bad judgement, but the seriousness of that collapse is only now becoming visible. Which is why the academics have abandoned the taboo and started writing about it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-belief-exist-that-the-USA-is-a-conservative-country

  • What Do American Girls Think About Chinese Guys?

    Over the past decade we have collected amazing data from dating sites, and it confirms most of our old fashioned assumptions. In the case of asian males, while it depends upon which race of Americans we’re talking about, ethnically Asian men are slightly less desirable, and ethnically Asian women are slightly more desirable. Whites and Asians intermix, I think, at around 10% of Asian marriages right now. (I can’t remember exactly.) The more culturally Chinese you are the more narrow your choices are, since American women see this as ‘backward’. (Out of all the cultures on earth, why you would want an American women is another question I’ll leave open since that data is interesting too.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-American-girls-think-about-Chinese-guys

  • Why Does The Belief Exist That The Usa Is A Conservative Country?

    Asking who wins versus the vote distribution is confusing you. Our votes are polarized between right and left, and must be since these two views are in direct competition.

    If american had a european mulit-party parliamentary system rather than just two choices our government would be very different, and it is likely that compromises would be achieved. However, the american system favors extremes because the party in power has really, too much power.

    Europeans invented hard right politics. And had a war over it.  European progressivism comes from (a) multiple homogenous local nations that act like extended families, (b) the collapse of european self-confidence during the wars (the second time since the 30 years war) (c) because europe is not required to pay for, or perform it’s own defense.

    Americans have always been somewhat heterogeneous, a virtual island (like britain and australia), have had confidence, and are self-defending.  On top of that (a) we follow the anglo absolute nuclear family model, (b) the culture is pure commercialism at its core, and (c) we are very heterogeneous.

    Both european and american models are collapsing right now due to a century of postwar bad judgement, but the seriousness of that collapse is only now becoming visible. Which is why the academics have abandoned the taboo and started writing about it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-belief-exist-that-the-USA-is-a-conservative-country

  • What Do American Girls Think About Chinese Guys?

    Over the past decade we have collected amazing data from dating sites, and it confirms most of our old fashioned assumptions. In the case of asian males, while it depends upon which race of Americans we’re talking about, ethnically Asian men are slightly less desirable, and ethnically Asian women are slightly more desirable. Whites and Asians intermix, I think, at around 10% of Asian marriages right now. (I can’t remember exactly.) The more culturally Chinese you are the more narrow your choices are, since American women see this as ‘backward’. (Out of all the cultures on earth, why you would want an American women is another question I’ll leave open since that data is interesting too.)

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-American-girls-think-about-Chinese-guys

  • HOPPE’S EEoPP AS A BRIDGE? NOPE. I thought that maybe if I went through and brie

    HOPPE’S EEoPP AS A BRIDGE? NOPE.

    I thought that maybe if I went through and briefly restated each chapter in Hoppe’s Economics and Ethics of Private Property I could so some good at bridging the gap. But it was a surprising bit of work today.

    Section one, on economics, wouldn’t require any modification. It’s his best work.

    But, I just re-read section two and it’s little more than a set of arguments justifying praxeology and apriorism. Sigh. Which I’ve put an operational bullet it.

    As a nit, I don’t t think hoppe understood WHY operationalism didn’t satisfy all of mathematics only all demonstrable math. I think that it’s understandable, because very few people within the mathematical philosophy discipline understand it. But the reason is very simple: arbitrary precision, and the necessity of general rules. Mathematicians can get away with certain claims because it’s acceptable in all cases to apply their deductions in the absence of precision. But that’s a scary monster of a rat hole. I think i’ve settled this topic so I’m going to ignore it for now.

    Chapter 15 (Rothbardian Ethics) could be restated as the ethics of out-group exchange, or the ethics of nation-states. But I would have to then add propertarianism as the ethics of in-group exchanges necessary to form a polity. One might counter that the rothbardian solution is to view each of us as ethically equal to a sovereign state, but that’s just an empty verbalism. We are still stuck with the reality of needing to get non-kin cooperate as kin up to some limit where interests diverge sufficiently that such cooperation is no longer in one’s interest.

    The evidence that my ‘faction’ of libertarians are so bogged down in the fallacies of a priorism, that its impossible to move them is just piling up. And rothbardians aren’t that unique really. The percentage of mathematicians who subscribe to mathematical platonism is probably only slightly lower than the percentage of libertarians who subscribe to apriorism. Both are wrong, but you know, that doesn’t seem to matter if they can find a nail to hit with the hammer that they have in hand.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 11:52:00 UTC

  • “if you’re not willing to fight for a just society, then you have no right to de

    —“if you’re not willing to fight for a just society, then you have no right to demand one, and no right to share in the benefits of one that others have fought for.”—

    Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 10:56:00 UTC

  • WHY DID WE HAVE TO CREATE YET ANOTHER FORM OF MYSTICISM? Natural rights? Intrins

    WHY DID WE HAVE TO CREATE YET ANOTHER FORM OF MYSTICISM?

    Natural rights? Intrinsic rights?

    OMG. It was the 20th century for goodness sake. What kind of idiot would suggest you “had” (owned, possessed) the equivalent of a soul?

    The source of any property right is anothers grant of it in exchange for the same, for the duration of your cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 09:24:00 UTC

  • TO THE END OF LIBERTARIAN SUPERSTITION I think he mean’s he’s a Rothbardian. Unl

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/laurence-m-vance/i-am-a-libertarian/WELCOME TO THE END OF LIBERTARIAN SUPERSTITION

    I think he mean’s he’s a Rothbardian. Unless there is a Copyright on the term ‘libertarian’ held by the some group of rothbardians.

    Unfortunately, Rothbardian is a little too close to ‘stupid-tarian’ and ‘aspie-tarian’ and ‘immoral-tarian’.

    The NAP/IVP is a dead argument. Not by opinion, not by rationalization, but by evidence in our grubby hands, produced by science. It’s also one of the main reasons that the liberty movement has failed: because Rothbard’s ghetto ethics are objectively immoral.

    Period. End. Of. Story.

    Sorry you invested all your self-rewarding status signals out of a false premise, but that’s the price of the early adopter. You were wrong. You need to pick up your shattered dreams and walk out of rothbard’s ghetto, into the sunshine and learn about the logic of cooperation, the necessity of cooperation, and the relationship between cooperation and moral instincts, intuitions and rules.

    The thick folks aren’t doing too well at keeping up with science (that seems to be a conservative or post-libertarian endeavor.) So they’re still hoping that they can reconstruct the church with some kind of continental , kantian, justificationary form of rationalism. The priests of libertarianism that will through genius introspection save us from the evils of statism. But once again the drudgery of science does what introspective gazing cannot.

    Thin is dead. Thick is incomplete. And conservatives are the only people who act anyway.

    Welcome to the scientific method.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 09:04:00 UTC