Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • “Curt, some of them are afraid you are right.”— Well I know that. But my argum

    —“Curt, some of them are afraid you are right.”—

    Well I know that. But my argument is rock solid. They’ll catch on. I just have to create a bit of a problem in the space for long enough to get my point across. Then I’ll show them the way to reconcile it. It’s better if they reconcile it themselves before I do that so I will delay as long as possible. But I’ll show them how to reconcile their silly rothbardianism with reality.I’ll give them an out.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 02:48:00 UTC

  • 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 šŸ˜‰

    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: ā€œThe 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.ā€ 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 stateā€™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 doesnā€™t have a claim to a certain percentage of oneā€™s income. The tax code doesnā€™t need to be simplified, shortened, fairer, or less intrusive. The tax rates donā€™t need to be made lower, flatter, fairer, equal, or less progressive. The income tax doesnā€™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

  • 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

  • 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

  • THE IDEOLOGICAL WALKING DEAD The problem with intellectually defeating people oc

    THE IDEOLOGICAL WALKING DEAD

    The problem with intellectually defeating people occurs when they’re too stupid to know when to stay down for the count. Unfortunately you can’t fix stupid. And both the Dunning-Kreuger effect, IQ limits and moral blindness conspire to keep the defeated but stupid, fighting like the walking dead.

    You can’t cooperate with stupid either. And if you can’t cooperate then violence is your only option.

    Gimme that shovel.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 07:52:00 UTC

  • BASIC INFANTRY KNOWLEDGE – OR STAYING ALIVE FOR THE CAUSE Dear Ukrainian and Syr

    BASIC INFANTRY KNOWLEDGE – OR STAYING ALIVE FOR THE CAUSE

    Dear Ukrainian and Syrian friends.

    There is a difference between ‘cover’ and ‘concealment’.

    Concealment is something that prevents an enemy from seeing you, or at least from seeing you completely. Things that could commonly be used as cover include the walls of normal wood frame houses, trees and foliage or car bodies. Cover just prevents you from being seen. It offers no protection from being SHOT.

    Cover is something that prevents an enemy from (easily) shooting you. Unfortunately, cover is actually pretty rare in the world. Most things we think might stop bullets wont. You can be shot through most block and mud walls built cheaply in the third world. A bullet will pass through a tree two feet thick and kill you. You can shoot through nice plates of steel as if it’s cardboard. The best cover in the world is a wall of reinforced concrete with a triple layer of sandbags behind it, but we donā€™t see that very often. What will stop a bullet? Piles of dirt are the best, and a firing position in a ditch, depression or behind a hill is great. Next to that, SOLID concrete or brick walls are good, as are the engine compartments of vehicles (especially large trucks.) Standard brick walls are okay as are large trees (two feet plus). Beware, because things will “break down” after being hit with many rounds. It is absurdly easy to just shoot through a concrete wall or saw a tree in half with not very many rounds.

    Now, you know, a spot to shoot from is equally as scarce. SO when you feel all manly shooting at nothing, all you are doing is giving away your position. And so the spot you just shot from is ‘used’. It means “shoot here”. So every time you use a spot to take a shot, you have to go find a different one.

    You see, the smart guy is lying somewhere in the dark, without any light behind him, where he can see down an entire street, and where there is behind some cover. From that bit of safety he’s waiting for a ‘sucker’. So a few of his friends shoot at your position to bait you into puffing your chest, and sticking your head out of the same spot the second time, and – poof. You’re dead.

    Just because you can’t see them, doesn’t mean they can’t see you.

    I hope that helps. Because the daily stream of videos in my inbox where some guy gets shot because he was firing OVER a wall providing only CONCEALMENT rather than AROUND a wall, from behind COVER is really depressing.

    BTW: Americans come at night, in the dark. The dark is awesome concealment.

    Thanks. Yeah. I know. It won’t do any good. It’s just cathartic.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-08 17:26:00 UTC

  • SURE WHY THIS IS SURPRISING. ITS SO OBVIOUS ITS PAINFUL But then, nobody listens

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/libertarian-atheists-have-highest-iq/question-2841489/NOT SURE WHY THIS IS SURPRISING. ITS SO OBVIOUS ITS PAINFUL

    But then, nobody listens to smart people, they listen to USEFUL people. šŸ™‚

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 14:11:00 UTC

  • Juan Sebastian Ortiz: —“BritainĀ“s approach to evolution has not been the selfi

    Juan Sebastian Ortiz:

    —“BritainĀ“s approach to evolution has not been the selfish gene one but a value loaded social darwinistic one which raises an eyebrow of suspicion as it developed in the imperialistic era of agricultural-industrial domination over hunter gatherers throughout the world. If the data about the Ashkenazi jewish IQ is correct and the argument proposed by Gregory Clark in his Farewell to Alms is correct. ThereĀ“s no reason to disbelieve that: given an unhampered market, sovereign private property society without a state and the consequent welfare programs that follow from it(military overproduction, affirmative action, minimum wage, etc included) the intergenerational tendency would be eugenic. EVEN controlling for higher availability of medical facilities, pharmaceuticals, etc. After all many of the genes responsible for immune processes are fairly recent….The [active] social darwinism of the 19th century is antiquated and unnecessary given the fundamental institutions of a free society. Having said that here are some Hegelian thoughts on anarcho-libertarianism as the millennial crusade for the Spirit of the world emanating the ultimate and final ethic.”—

    Well said. Elegantly. My question is whether the NAP/IVP is a sufficient basis for that order anarchic order. Propertarianism would suggest that high performing groups adhere to much, much, higher standards, and then subjugate their masses by using lower standards, and trade with other states on even lower standards. I think that the NAP/IVP is too low a standard if we ask people to voluntarily join an anarchic polity. And we only think it’s OK because as libertarians we have a cognitive bias (moral blindness) that discounts the cost of OBJECTIVELY unethical and immoral actions as described by Propertarianism’s spectrum that prohibits free riding.

    Free Riding is the negative claim and property the positive claim, but the two claims are identical under propertarianism. Where under NAP/IVP prevention of free riding stops at physical aggression. However, people with higher moral thresholds (and who are stronger) see actions such as blackmail, and ‘cheating’, as well as immoral behavior, as violations of the contract for cooperation which puts in place the prohibition on free riding.

    I would never join a low trust polity, because it would be poorer than a higher trust polity, since trust determines the velocity of innovation, production and trade.

    So I agree with your argument that all we need is an anarchic polity. I disagree that the NAP/IVP is sufficient for the formation of it. And while I haven’t done surveys yet to prove it (I will) science, logic and history, are pretty clearly on my side.

    Anarchy is right. Sure. But the NAP/IVP is insufficient. I do not have the empirical evidence to demonstrate what level of suppression of free riding in the unethical and immoral range would be required for the formation of a voluntary polity, but I suggest that it will be far closer to the very limit of Propertarianism’s spectrum of prohibitions, than it is to rothbard’s NAP/IVP.

    Hopefully within a year or two I will have that evidence.

    But I’ll put money on the fact that only indoctrinated rothbardians choose the NAP/IVP level of suppression. That’s because it’s pretty clear that human beings prefer (logically) seller beware, rather than buyer beware. And propertarianism ensconces that in the legal code.

    Thanks for great (rare) dialog.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 01:48:00 UTC

  • READING: _STRATEGY: A HISTORY_ (AMAZING). One of those books you don’t read. You

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00F3D4IVGTONIGHT’S READING: _STRATEGY: A HISTORY_ (AMAZING).

    One of those books you don’t read. You study. You contemplate. You apply.

    (Not going to get through this in one sitting. No chance.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:37:00 UTC

  • VALENTINE IS ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING PEOPLE WORKING TODAY Why? Because he wr

    http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=308020AYELAM VALENTINE IS ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING PEOPLE WORKING TODAY

    Why? Because he writes about something new: the struggle against socialist ideas in Africa. He doesn’t retread old arguments. He gives us something new. And in philosophy, economics, and politics, new thought, and good new thought, is worth paying attention to.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 16:34:00 UTC