Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • “So where is it that I actually go to check my privilege? I want to be a good se

    –“So where is it that I actually go to check my privilege? I want to be a good self-hating white American male.”–

    Justin Ptak

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 02:47:00 UTC

  • HOPPE’S RIGHT – YOU CAN’T SAY ‘LIBERTY’ IN STATE-FUNDED ACADEMIA – YOU HAVE TO W

    HOPPE’S RIGHT – YOU CAN’T SAY ‘LIBERTY’ IN STATE-FUNDED ACADEMIA – YOU HAVE TO WORK OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA TO DO THE WORK THAT MUST BE DONE.

    I bet I couldn’t find a dissertation committee for my project. I bet if I was in state-funded-academia there is no way I could keep my job and do this work. Sean Gabb lamented a few weeks ago, that we used to have people in academia, media, and government, but we don’t. You have to do your work outside of the state-system. Even our closest allies at GMU never violate the sanctity of the social democratic state, democracy, and equality except in very timid terms: policy preference.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 02:31:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://poseidonawoke.blogspot.com/2014/04/meme-libertarian-leon-and-moral.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 16:56:00 UTC

  • WHY DIDN’T I SAY THAT? –“It seems to me that ethics(/”morals”) dependently “exi

    WHY DIDN’T I SAY THAT?

    –“It seems to me that ethics(/”morals”) dependently “exist” ONLY so long as there also exists at least TWO cognitively willful physical actors … who can volitionally interact. Physics “exists” independently. I think.”–

    Frank Lovell

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 10:40:00 UTC

  • Zwolinski 🙂 Heaven

    http://capture2text.sourceforge.net/Matt Zwolinski

    🙂 Heaven.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 11:45:00 UTC

  • DEBATE IS NOT FOR THE GENTLEMAN? I’m a warrior. I have no desire to be a gentlem

    http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=7138PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE IS NOT FOR THE GENTLEMAN?

    I’m a warrior. I have no desire to be a gentleman. Too boring. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 07:21:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://on.wsj.com/1javNsa

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 05:57:00 UTC

  • POSTMODERNS, HICKS, HEGEL, DUCHESNE AND HOPPE (hegel standing there waiting for

    POSTMODERNS, HICKS, HEGEL, DUCHESNE AND HOPPE

    (hegel standing there waiting for you)

    Whoever said that at the end of your philosophical journey, you will find Hegel standing there waiting for you was painfully accurate. The problem is (and I am dealing with this today) that you can’t know that when reading him. I simply could not translate his emotionally and spiritually loaded self conscious language into the emotionless, unloaded, and autistic language of economics that I make use of. This failure is a personal weakness born of my own autistic nature. But that said, it is terribly humbling even if Hegel merely, standing there at the end, has confirmed that which you have struggled to recreate by your own means.

    I did not understand fully understand the postmodernists until Hicks put them into context for me. And I did not fully understand Hegel until Duchesne put him into context for me. With those contexts, I could then map my understanding of cognitive science, my understanding of economics, and my understanding of politics, to those contexts using propertarian language that I learned from Hoppe.

    It is unfortunate that Hoppe is tainted. Because his genius is, and probably always will be underrated.

    ‘Property’ is the unit of human cooperative commensurability.

    Always and everywhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 02:27:00 UTC

  • WE DON”T NEED THEORISTS TO BE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, JUST BEING RIGHT ABOUT ONE

    WE DON”T NEED THEORISTS TO BE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING, JUST BEING RIGHT ABOUT ONE THING IS ENOUGH

    (worth repeating)

    Rothbard’s work on banking is some of the best that’s ever been done. His history of economics is some of the best that’s ever been done. He blows it on ethics (which if you follow me is a pretty simple argument) he blows it on praxeology (which a first year philosophy student probably can demonstrate). Hoppe’s the same. If you ignore Argumentation and Praxeology and focus on his theory of socialism and capitalism, his Ethics of Property, his criticism of the incentives of private vs corporate governance, and his solutions to privatizing regulation via competing insurance companies, it’s some of the best and most revolutionary work that’s been done in the past century.

    Philosophers don’t need to be right about everything, they just need to contribute a single novel idea. Hoppe did more than one. And I think his greatest contribution is probably the means of constructing his arguments – which is why I was drawn to him. He has successfully employed economic reasoning to ethics on a scale never done before, in rigorous form.

    If you want to refute Rothbardian ethics, Argumentation Ethics, and Praxeology, then it’s not all that hard (although it took me a long time myself). The thing is, that if you refute those things, it doesn’t change ANYTHING regarding Rothbard’s history or Hoppe’s institutional solutions. In fact, all it does is eliminate a lot of nonsensical justification that isn’t necessary. It’s just a holdover from before the soviet union fell and chia abandoned central planning for state capitalism, and the world understood that socialism was empirically dead, as well as logically. We have evidence now that previous generations didn’t.

    If you pick something you want refuted it’s pretty easy. Search for criticisms of those three topics. I’m probably the best critic of Rothbard’s ethics, but you’ll find Hoppe’s arguments criticized all over the place. But what you won’t find is his solution to the problem of institutions criticized, or Rothbard’s history criticized. Or of you do, I’ll bet its pretty stupid criticism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 16:47:00 UTC

  • It's Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.