Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • The Moral Deception Of The Ethical Standard Of ‘Psychic Benefit’

    (worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev

  • The Moral Deception Of The Ethical Standard Of 'Psychic Benefit'

    (worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev

  • The Moral Deception Of The Ethical Standard Of ‘Psychic Benefit’

    (worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev

  • What's The Difference

    Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)

  • What’s The Difference

    Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)

  • What's The Difference

    Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)

  • What’s The Difference

    Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)

  • Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.

    –“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.

    –“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • Spinoza: Philosophers Should Have A Trade

    [I]’m not a big fan of Spinoza’s ideas, but am very much a fan both his writing style and his work ethic. Spinoza earned his living as a lens-grinder. He wrote his extremely parsimonious book, taking most of his life, from a musty apartment. It’s what, 200 pages long? A brutally concise work of numbered and ordered sentences. The first statement that struck me was ‘endeavor to speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people’. I’ve always viewed this as my curse. Which is why I work so hard at it. Because I’m aware of my frame of reference, and my near absence of conceptual empathy. The other influential thing that he said, can be roughly translated as “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue”. A sentiment I agree with. And have tried to imitate. I’ve always tried to earn enough money that I could research and write either part time or full time. I don’t like the idea of philosophers trying to earn money from their work. I don’t trust it at all. I can barely respect teaching as a way to pay for writing. Nassim Nicholas Taleb reflects this same sentiment when he says: “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.” And I practice philosophy the same way. I’m trying to find a solution to the problem of ethics. In particular, the problem of deception in ethics, politics, and economics. Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. Use the accumulated wisdom of centuries to solve a problem in the real world. Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place. Curt Doolittle

    COMMENTS by Roman Skaskiw 3 QUOTES ABOUT ACADEMIA ” Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. . . . Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place.” ~ Curt Doolittle “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue” ~ Baruch Spinoza “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.” ~ Nassim Nicholas Taleb