Pocket Advice —“Although transnational insurgencies comprise highly diverse groups across different conflicts and eras, they still have much in common. For one, such forces are winning: transnational insurgencies have won nearly half of the civil wars in which they have fought, almost twice the success rate of insurgencies overall. Several Israeli prime ministers have acknowledged that Israel’s victory in 1948 relied on the World War II veterans who aided the fledgling state against Arab armies. In other conflicts throughout history, prominent foreign fighters were either instrumental in extending insurgencies or making them costlier to suppress: the Marquis de Lafayette, the French general who fought for the American rebels during the Revolutionary War; the Italian general Giuseppe Garibaldi, who supported the Republican uprising in Brazil in the 1830s; and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed al Qaeda in Iraq under the U.S. occupation. “— –“The patterns of recruitment for such disparate fighters are broadly similar and, because of that, they all have the same Achilles’ heel…. Insurgent groups … use despair rather than optimism to recruit members. Generally, they tell recruits that they are losing a war of survival and that they face an existential threat.”– –“It might not seem like the most persuasive pitch, particularly for fighters who, if they join, must violate a number of laws and take up arms in an unfamiliar territory. But it works. …. The strategy works best with foreign recruits who share the movement’s ideology, ethnicity, or religion but who, unlike local fighters, do not have immediate communities and families in the line of fire.”– –“Such fighters are often persuadable because of their weak affiliations with their own country and national identity,”– –” In these conflicts, the foreign fighters, driven by the belief that they are fighting a desperate battle to the end, act more aggressively than local insurgents — even when their side is actually winning. It’s no accident that most suicide missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out by foreign fighters rather than local militants. “– –“Some insurgent groups, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, have taken advantage of this dynamic by using foreigners to target civilians when the local combatants will not. “–
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Justification vs Explanation
(ethics) 1) Rothbardian ethics: How to justify both private property, and private theft by deception and parasitism. 2) Public Choice Theory (Social Democracy) : How to justify public theft by pseudoscience and parasitism. 3) Hoppe’s Anarcho Capitalism : How to justify private property, and eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and the state. 4) Aristocratic Egalitarianism : How to resolve all *possible* conflicts via the common law, and eliminate all demand for the state – no justification is needed. All I did was base Hoppe’s deductions made from Argumentation on science and reason, rather than pseudoscience (praxeology) and rationalism. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Justification vs Explanation
(ethics) 1) Rothbardian ethics: How to justify both private property, and private theft by deception and parasitism. 2) Public Choice Theory (Social Democracy) : How to justify public theft by pseudoscience and parasitism. 3) Hoppe’s Anarcho Capitalism : How to justify private property, and eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and the state. 4) Aristocratic Egalitarianism : How to resolve all *possible* conflicts via the common law, and eliminate all demand for the state – no justification is needed. All I did was base Hoppe’s deductions made from Argumentation on science and reason, rather than pseudoscience (praxeology) and rationalism. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
The Popular Will: MURDER.
–“…our civilization rests on the death of two persons: a philosopher (Socrates) and the Son of God (Jesus), both victims of the popular will.”– Madariaga
-
The Popular Will: MURDER.
–“…our civilization rests on the death of two persons: a philosopher (Socrates) and the Son of God (Jesus), both victims of the popular will.”– Madariaga
-
Gender Relations: Gender Strategy: Offspring vs Tribe
[W]omen are more comfortable with free riding and with charity, and men are extremely conservative about resources. Women happily sacrifice for their children. Men cautiously sacrifice for their tribe. Women advocate for their children regardless of their merits, while men are more parsimonious because they desire the strongest tribe. For men, a woman and his children are just the smallest possible tribe that he can lead. For a woman, it is very risky, especially in the ignorance of youth, to choose just one man upon which to risk her future. While men cannot articulate this set of intuitions and strategies, women often confuse the difference in evolutionary strategies between men and women. And particularly the difference between a woman’s offspring, and a man’s tribe. I’ve seen so many marriages where the woman expects the man to have the same interest toward her and the children, as she has. And there are some men who approach a woman’s sacrifice. But for the majority of us, it is a very bad investment. And with the state making it impossible for us to save for retirement, given our shorter productive life spans, and greater specialization, and greater variation – it’s now an extremely bad idea to engage in marriage. [M]arriage is an artificial construct. For a man, he is best off if he trades productivity (no longer protection) and affection for as many women as he can get attention from. And a woman’s best interest is to form a group with other women and select from different men what she wants and needs. This is how we evolved: everyone having sex with everyone else – some of which was for bond building, and some of which was for the purpose of reproduction. Any society that does not maintain at least the nuclear family will be dominated an exterminated by those that do.
-
Gender Relations: Gender Strategy: Offspring vs Tribe
[W]omen are more comfortable with free riding and with charity, and men are extremely conservative about resources. Women happily sacrifice for their children. Men cautiously sacrifice for their tribe. Women advocate for their children regardless of their merits, while men are more parsimonious because they desire the strongest tribe. For men, a woman and his children are just the smallest possible tribe that he can lead. For a woman, it is very risky, especially in the ignorance of youth, to choose just one man upon which to risk her future. While men cannot articulate this set of intuitions and strategies, women often confuse the difference in evolutionary strategies between men and women. And particularly the difference between a woman’s offspring, and a man’s tribe. I’ve seen so many marriages where the woman expects the man to have the same interest toward her and the children, as she has. And there are some men who approach a woman’s sacrifice. But for the majority of us, it is a very bad investment. And with the state making it impossible for us to save for retirement, given our shorter productive life spans, and greater specialization, and greater variation – it’s now an extremely bad idea to engage in marriage. [M]arriage is an artificial construct. For a man, he is best off if he trades productivity (no longer protection) and affection for as many women as he can get attention from. And a woman’s best interest is to form a group with other women and select from different men what she wants and needs. This is how we evolved: everyone having sex with everyone else – some of which was for bond building, and some of which was for the purpose of reproduction. Any society that does not maintain at least the nuclear family will be dominated an exterminated by those that do.
-
Restructuring the TOC
For the past couple of weeks I’ve been working on the simplicity of the argument and I think I have it pretty close to done. Now I have to think about how to introduce it. And I think I’ll approach it by formulating the right question (stating the right problem). I don’t think I’ll tie it to libertarianism directly, but take Haidt’s approach of simply addressing the issue. That makes my arguments less ‘niche’ and less associated with ‘whacky libertarians’. PART 1 – MORAL REALISM (ETHICS) I think the best thing is to state the problem, then state the whole argument. Then list the extensions to property, ethics and morality. Then show how the argument addresses the problem. Then pose a list of questions that this argument must also address to confirm it’s assertions. Then I rearrange my chapters such that they address those questions. Then I follow that with the (many) applications. PART 2 – POLITICAL ETHICS I think at this point I address moral realism from the ground up. Including the performative (Attestation) theory of truth, and work through each of the major branches of philosophy. Next I attack platonism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and mysticism as immoral, and add the new extensions to political ethics. PART 3 – POLITICAL ECONOMY Work through the institutional solutions now that we’ve built a foundation. PART 4 – APPENDICES APPENDIX 2 – Reform Libertarianism. Address praxeology Address ghetto ethics APPENDIX 3 – Reform Conservatism APPENDIX 4 – Brief Attack on Democratic Ideologies one by one. APPENDIX X – Go through the formal logic of cooperation. This seems very difficult but since I’m just building on Ostrom’s work I don’t have to go into all the multitudinous defenses she does, I just extend that work.
-
Restructuring the TOC
For the past couple of weeks I’ve been working on the simplicity of the argument and I think I have it pretty close to done. Now I have to think about how to introduce it. And I think I’ll approach it by formulating the right question (stating the right problem). I don’t think I’ll tie it to libertarianism directly, but take Haidt’s approach of simply addressing the issue. That makes my arguments less ‘niche’ and less associated with ‘whacky libertarians’. PART 1 – MORAL REALISM (ETHICS) I think the best thing is to state the problem, then state the whole argument. Then list the extensions to property, ethics and morality. Then show how the argument addresses the problem. Then pose a list of questions that this argument must also address to confirm it’s assertions. Then I rearrange my chapters such that they address those questions. Then I follow that with the (many) applications. PART 2 – POLITICAL ETHICS I think at this point I address moral realism from the ground up. Including the performative (Attestation) theory of truth, and work through each of the major branches of philosophy. Next I attack platonism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and mysticism as immoral, and add the new extensions to political ethics. PART 3 – POLITICAL ECONOMY Work through the institutional solutions now that we’ve built a foundation. PART 4 – APPENDICES APPENDIX 2 – Reform Libertarianism. Address praxeology Address ghetto ethics APPENDIX 3 – Reform Conservatism APPENDIX 4 – Brief Attack on Democratic Ideologies one by one. APPENDIX X – Go through the formal logic of cooperation. This seems very difficult but since I’m just building on Ostrom’s work I don’t have to go into all the multitudinous defenses she does, I just extend that work.
-
References For My Fellow Aspie-Tarian Libertarians
[A]s far as I know I’m the only one arguing that the autistic spectrum should be described as the “solipsistic-autistic spectrum”, but I might argue that I’m just using loaded language to demonstrate and allow us to criticize the failure of the female side of the spectrum as well as the male. That is because women are are as comfortable using solipsistic arguments as we are using autistic. However, I’m pretty sure that the basic thesis is correct. That is, that most of these brain states are produce by in-utero chemistry. Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ______. 2002. “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:248–54. ______. 2009. “Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory.” In “The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience,” special issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1156:68–80. Lucas, P., and A. Sheeran. 2006. “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham.” Journal of Bentham Studies 8:1–20.