Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(archive) ( we will never run out of useful idiots in libertarianism)

Trey Martin What up, Chris. Are you schooling my redneck friends this morning? Are you familiar with Curt Doolittle and his ideas on propertarianism? Ive been meaning to ask you. And stop sweating Murdoch because he likes fluoride and what not. He’s good people. On another note: Ask Tal why he blocked me? I was just joking when I called him effeminate.

Chris Anpropian Is that the guy who perverted my term propertarianism in to statist crap? No idea about Tal. He has very little patience.

Curt Doolittle ^^^ ( I have the full history of the term back to its first use, and your name never came up. lol ;). Besides I don’t to statism. I do Rule of Natural Law. -hugs )

Chris Anpropian I coined the term AnProp a good deal of years ago. Wrote an article briefly describing it. Some statist fuck then created a web page coopting the term in to some bizarre statist shit. If you say you are an anarchist, you clearly aren’t him.

Curt Doolittle Rothbard (jewish pilpul – ghetto ethics) > Hoppe (german justificationary rationalism – tribal ethics ) > Doolittle (anglo science of law – national ethics)

Took three generations, but we finally got it right. 😉

Chris Anpropian Are you obfuscating? Are you an anarchist or not? There is only one social law and it is absolute, axiomatic, eternal, objective, and universal natural law- the law of private property.

Curt Doolittle That is an interesting statement. But until you define the scope of private property it’s actually non-rational (untestable) one: a logical deception demanding the use of substitution for an undefined (property) term.

If you define the scope of property using rothbardian ghetto ethics, you will be unable to use praxeological reasoning to construct an explanation of the incentives under which such a polity can form and persist. If you define it as Hoppian ethics, you will not be able to construct an explanation of the incentive of how a polity can form and persist in competition with other polities. if you rely on property in toto (demonstrated property), you will be able to construct a polity that can form, survive, and compete.

There is a reason why the american west was a province of the american empire, a reason why eastern europe hosted jews as polish, lithuanian, and russian provices, a reason the german princedom’s existed under french and italian papacy as provinces, a reason why the icelandic experiments existed as danish provinces, a reason why greek settlements existed as greek provinces, and so on: to hold (squat) territory at low cost on behalf of an empire that could afford to defend but not afford to administrate it.

There exists one objective law of voluntary cooperation: full reciprocity: the non imposition of costs against the costs born by another without having imposed costs against the costs born by another and so on – leaving only productive, fully in formed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to productive externalities as the possible means survival. In other words: markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group competition against other polities.

One does not create excuses why another will not retaliate. Others will not retaliate against productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. That would be irrational, and man is neither moral or immoral, but merely rational in the pursuit of his reproductive, and therefore cooperative, strategy.

quod erat demonstrandum.

I killed jewish and german anarchism and left the fully reciprocal natural law of sovereign men as the only possible means of obtaining a condition of sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom by utility, and subsidy as insurance.

There has only ever been one source of sovereignty: the organized use of violence to create a condition of perfect reciprocity by the total suppression of parasitism.

Chris Anpropian Are you still obfuscating? Are you an anarchist or not? What violations of the law of private property are you trying to excuse?

Curt Doolittle I am a bag of mostly water with a few chemicals, arranged by molecular processes into that category we call ‘human’.

I described property-in-toto. You have not defined property at all. As such, it is not I who violates private property, but you.

Which is a thought that undoubtably hadn’t occurred to you because you didn’t think it through. 😉

Curt Doolittle In other words, you do not have the ability to define what property i have invested in – the evidence of my investment exists or it does not. Ergo you do not have the ability to define what I will retaliate against the imposition of costs upon. Ergo, property is defined by actions not by claims.

Curt Doolittle ergo, the scope of private property is defined by actions, not by claims.

Curt Doolittle ergo, the purpose of “intersubjectively verifiable property” (rothbardian property) is an attempt to conduct a fraud by narrowing the scope of property by pretntious claim.

Curt Doolittle (you haven’t got a prayer here. you just don’t know it yet.)

Chris Anpropian Now I know you are obfuscating. You are trying to change the subject. It is not necessary for me to define property for you to explain your position. You write a lot of words but they don’t seem to say much of substance. And now these emotive, multiple…See More

Curt Doolittle I say profoundly substantial things. Whehter you are able to grasp them is an absence of knowledge on your part, or an underinvestment in the burden of your eduation on mine. But since you lack teh ability to test the propositions you cannot make claims about them. Others can. You cannot. Ergo, empirically you lack teh knowledge or ability to test them.

It is ok. Rothbard was a practitioner of Pilpul: a liar by means of half truths. And his lies found purchase in the minds of many useful idiots.

Curt Doolittle It will seem clear to the audience who is correct. You are not the judge of your own arguments. 😉

Curt Doolittle Just as you are not the judge of the scope of property that humans will retaliate against impositions upon.

Curt Doolittle Libertarianism is an act of begging for a lie.

Curt Doolittle It is a cognitively biased excuse to free ride upon the productivity of others in producing complex goods.

Chris Anpropian You sound like Trump: “I say profoundly substantial things” vs “I have the best words.”

We have not even gotten to my “beliefs” yet, aside from me stating the primary axiom of private property. I have merely been asking about your beliefs. You refuse to say whether you believe the existence of a state is legitimate and are instead trying to change the subject and spam the question out of existence. Your emotive, rapid fire, unorganized postings are a symptom of some deeper problem, as is this focus on an “audience.”

Murdoch Pizgatti OMG, if this dude uses ergo one more time I’m going to jump off this cliff. Lmfao. How annoying. Lol

Chris Anpropian I’m pretty sure it’s the guy I thought it was, the jackass statist trying to coopt my philosophy’s currently chosen label. He’s a statist.

Murdoch Pizgatti Well he’s not co-opting anything talking like that. LOL

Chris Anpropian For the record, here is the brief overview I wrote about anarcho-propertarianism: http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/…/anarcho…/

Curt Doolittle lol…. you have to ask yourself, why are you writing,and why are so many naive social misfits writing about, talking about, and attempting to construct introductory level, justificationary arguments, and why are no advanced works extant, and no substantive intellectuals working on advancing said introductions?

Because libertinism consists of little more than nonsense arguments with no rational or empirical basis, and entirely predicted upon intuitionistic, sentimental, agreement.

Chris Anpropian Dude is a bigger windbag than Larken Rose.

Curt Doolittle ergo (here, I said it).

We don’t sell the truth. WE just state it.

We sell lies. Because we need to.

Libertinism is a failed product rejected by every market except pubescient males with little social ability and experience.

The reason libertarianism made any headway at all was its attempt to unify Law and Economics. But rothbard’s ethics were immoral, hoppe’s insufficient, and only anglo-saxon contractualism has any record of possibility.

Curt Doolittle (I eat rothbardians and their non-arguments like chips with my roast beef, cheddar and horseradish sandwich.)

Murdoch Pizgatti Ahahaha, he couldn’t go two posts without saying ergo again. LOL

Curt Doolittle Chris Anpropian

No automatic alt text available.

Curt Doolittle Murdoch Pizgatti Sure I could. But I couldn’t resist baiting you with it. lol

Murdoch Pizgatti Funny stuff. 🙂

Curt Doolittle I love bitch-slapping rothbardians. lol

Chris Anpropian He sures likes battling his straw men.

Curt Doolittle Chris Anpropian you sure like avoiding arguments in order to avoid admitting you don’t understand them. 😉

Curt Doolittle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUv5Q9we_l4

Humiliation (Kill sound Quake III Arena)

YOUTUBE.COM

Chris Anpropian I understand. Somehow you have, in your twisted brain, perverted a term meant to support private property into some unstated defense of government, the greatest violator of private property imaginable. Plus, you are too scared to admit your statism.

Murdoch Pizgatti Anyway, you all talk a big game with quarter words. None of that has me interested one bit. I’m very happy in my philosophy and will use whatever force necessary to defend individual freedom from whoever is intent on stifling it.

Curt Doolittle How is rule of law government? what is the difference between law, government, and state?

Chris Anpropian The LAW is private property, and it rules government criminal.

Curt Doolittle You cannot define property, private property, and you seem to confuse law (empirical decidability in matters of conflcit), government (production of commons), and state (corporeal rather than private government).

Curt Doolittle So, define private property. 😉

Curt Doolittle Is blackmail a violation of private property?

is usury a violation of private property?

is infidelity a violation of private property?

so how do you propose preventing retaliation (violence) against you for your actions if (a) those actions are human nature, and (b) you have no one to impose your will limiting your definition of property, and (c) others are willing to pay high costs to impose their defintion of property upon you?

Curt Doolittle piracy is a pretty libertarian affair. as was all of western arianism. But what happens to pirates?

Curt Doolittle and what happens to free riders?

Chris Anpropian CLEARLY, you are arguing for a state, a monopoly on legalized crime. Before we discuss the alternative, freedom, you should at least admit you are a statist advocating for the state.

Murdoch Pizgatti He is just throwing up words. He has yet to say very much

Murdoch Pizgatti Ergo, a lot of Sound and Fury signifying nothing

Trey Martin Says who? Curt has invested some hours into his premise. Ergo, I have found his thought process to be unlike any others I’ve discovered. I too am curious about perceived violations such as usury, blackmail, and infidelity as it applies to society. I’ve heard your argument about propertarianism, Chris. As far as I am concerned life is about a continual maturation. I hope that’s the case; for me anyway.

Trey Martin Ergo…lol

Murdoch Pizgatti Ergo, he needs to back up first and set the stage. He’s jumping into the center of concepts without outlining what ideology he is pulling from. Can we get some context first?

Chris Anpropian He is anathema, using the term propertarianism while supporting legalized violations of private property. He is evil and-or a liar and-or ignorant and-or stupid.

Chris Anpropian Ergo.

Murdoch Pizgatti Chris, I can’t take you seriously unless to edit that post and inset “ergo” at the beginning. 😉

Chris Anpropian Ergo, ergo, ergo…. I’ve got the best words.

Murdoch Pizgatti See, I ask nicely for him to calm his tits and explain a bit before rapid firing turd balls and he dissapears.

Chris Anpropian He is just a minarchist. You know how those clowns try and say they aren’t statists….

Trey Martin By the way, exactly what defines an anarchist? Are there any daily chores required? Do I need to go shoot a couple bald eagles? Lol.

I’m being sarcastic. But in all reality I apply my business acumen to my present tense politics these days. I measure the outcome. Anarchists have no outcome. Behind the magic curtain you’re no different from me or most others on this thread, Chris.

Addendum: a belief system is like playing Pong within the 6 inches of real estate between your ears. Without action it really has no measurable result.

Chris Anpropian It is ideas in the long run which determine all action.

Murdoch Pizgatti What defines an anarchist?

What defines an anarchist?

Well, the literal translation is no ruler.

Ergo, an anarchist is someone who is against having rulers.

Right when you think something is so elementary and self explanatory you see people make up 100 different definitions for a simple word.

Trey Martin That last “ergo” doe. Lol.

Curt Doolittle Murdoch Pizgatti rule of natural law does not require a ruler, only the discover of parasitism. If you fear being discovered as a parasite, then you merely confirm the natural law. If you desire to exist without natural law, or limits upon you, then you either are unwilling pay for it and move to where no such thing exists, or unwilling to pay for it by fighting for it, or unwilling to admit that your fantasiy is equivalent to wishing for unicorns to fly around you as you walk down the street.

Curt Doolittle one’s fantasies are merely fignments of one’s imagination.

one’s wants must be both existentially possible, and demonstrably preferable. Anarcy is niether existentially possible nor demonstrably preferable. Which is why you just talk about it and do nothing but fantasize.

Murdoch Pizgatti You sir have no idea what I do and don’t do. You sir are acting as a pompous tool. You sir are devoid of any social skills to participate in an actual conversation and would rather preach. Until you can have respect for the other person you are not welcome on my page. Grow up and join those of us that know how to talk with people and not AT them.

Curt Doolittle one either can state how one’s ideas are existentially possible, or one can shout at the moon while braying the pretense of reason.

I know you cannot make an argument under which anarchism is both possible and preferable. It’s just not possible. If it is, state how. To state that the impossible is good is merely a deciet when one states it is not only preferable but possible.

Curt Doolittle So, are you stubborn, a fool, or a liar?

Murdoch Pizgatti Well one thing is for sure. I’m not a compete dick like you apparently are. Thanks for running your mouth full of nonsense all day. I hope you had fun wasting your time. But I’m sure you have this problem most of the time.

Murdoch Pizgatti I find it funny when these “know it all” types get in your page and spit half a book of nonrelated items then demand you answer their questions like you’re in a police interrogation. I don’t owe you jack squat. So move along little doggie. You gunna bark all day or are ya gunna bite?

Murdoch Pizgatti Trey Martin, this obnoxious guy always talk down to everyone like this? Kinda a shitty way to be.

Curt Doolittle It is the only way to force people to confront the lies that they tell themselves and then spread to others – all of which prevents the unification of those who desire sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom by utility, and subsidy by need.

In other words, as a useful idiot, those with false beliefs spread harm to others and in doing so undermine the cause of sovereignty, liberty, freedom and subsidy.

Murdoch Pizgatti Blah blah blah.

Why are you still talking?

I told you that you were no longer welcome here. Good day sir.

Murdoch Pizgatti These kind of fools think they are making people analyze their own philosophies by being a brazen cuckold. But it actually does the opposite. Nothing changes and in the end they are just viewed as a poor social skill freak reject that might have orange fingers from all the cheetos packages strewn about the basement in his mom’s house.