Curt Doolittle

Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • The purpose of keynesianism is debt slavery. No question

    The purpose of keynesianism is debt slavery. No question.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 05:07:00 UTC

  • Lower prices are not an intrinsic good. They appear to be bait for consumption.

    Lower prices are not an intrinsic good.

    They appear to be bait for consumption.

    Higher productivity is hard to argue is not an intrinsic good.

    Saving the Results of Productivity Increases, rather than expanding the population, appears to be an intrinsic good.

    In other words, encouraging hyper-consumption is an attack on the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 04:14:00 UTC

  • “Take comfort from the gasoline price. It indicates that the powerful aren’t rea

    “Take comfort from the gasoline price. It indicates that the powerful aren’t really what they believe they are. In the long run, decentralized markets always outpace and outwit the ability of elites to dictate and manipulate them. Every penny by which the price drops signals to the world: freedom can prevail even in a world in which the powerful are conspiring to destroy it.” – Jeffrey Tucker

    —“Once you reject the Hayekian insight of the spontaneous nature of the social order, everything looks like a consequence of deliberation and war. All social and economic effects have a powerful, volitional, intentional cause. It’s a fundamental error.” –Tucker

    Well the first statement is a psychologism.

    It is not necessary to reject spontaneous order.

    It is always possible for asymmetries – particularly state asymmetries – to distort that order.

    Ergo there is no incompatibility between the self organising market and asymmetric influence that distorts it.

    As such, as far as I know, the current price is a reflection of intentional distortion of the price through sale at below necessary return rate in order to achieve aforementioned ends.

    So the source of your error is the intentional use of the pretence of rule ethics outside of the discipline of rule of law, applying it to truth propositions.

    This is the source of Rothbards and mises errors, the source of Hoppe’s error of argumentation, and the source of kinsella’s error.

    That this is nothing but justificationary excuse making is logically obvious.

    That does not mean that a generation or two of useful idiots didn’t fall for it. They did.

    The reality of the current state of affairs is that your era’s gentlemen should stick to advocacy of Liberty and leave philosophy to those of us who practice social science.

    It seems that molyneux has learned and therefore move to advocacy after failing at philosophy.

    I defend you as a moral man. I know you well enough.

    But the difference between your eras use of justificationary rationalism and my eras use of ratio-scientific testimonialism is as great a difference as that between accounting and calculus.

    Better to learn from my work and ask questions than think ones self able to participate in philosophical discourse of this magnitude.

    “Curt how did you come to that conclusion?” is a great way to start. 😉

    Affections. Always.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 09:13:00 UTC

  • IP: Why Should An Author Have The Right To Income On Ideas and Opinions

    [W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.

  • IP: Why Should An Author Have The Right To Income On Ideas and Opinions

    [W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.

  • The Family Institution…

    [W]ithout the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vastly the cost of individual housing, insurance, and sustenance and survival, That’s all. Marriage makes people wealthier by lowering costs, and creating a higher barrier to reproduction that prevents the underclasses from reproductive parasitism. So it is less important that our BEST breed a LOT, than it is for our worst not to breed even a little. IT IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR OUR BEST TO BREED A LOT THAN IT IS FOR OUR WORST NOT TO BREED EVEN A LITTLE

  • Without the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vast

    Without the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vastly the cost of individual housing, insurance, and sustenance and survival, That’s all.

    Marriage makes people wealthier by lowering costs, and creating a higher barrier to reproduction that prevents the underclasses from reproductive parasitism.

    So it is less important that our BEST breed a LOT, than it is for our worst not to breed even a little.

    IT IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR OUR BEST TO BREED A LOT THAN IT IS FOR OUR WORST NOT TO BREED EVEN A LITTLE

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 05:56:00 UTC

  • IP: WHY SHOULD AN AUTHOR HAVE THE RIGHT TO INCOME ON IDEAS AND OPINIONS? Well, I

    IP: WHY SHOULD AN AUTHOR HAVE THE RIGHT TO INCOME ON IDEAS AND OPINIONS?

    Well, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear.

    Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use.

    This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism.

    This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better.

    One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward.

    This is what I object to, and I consider immoral.

    I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:33:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIANS ARE TO THE COMMONS AS SOCIALISTS ARE TO PRODUCTION ***I’ll simplify

    ROTHBARDIANS ARE TO THE COMMONS AS SOCIALISTS ARE TO PRODUCTION

    ***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.***

    A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action.

    Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language.

    Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government.

    Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer.

    And much more.

    Rothbardianism is just parasitism.

    If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:39:00 UTC

  • ***Now, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call ass

    ***Now, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do? They retaliate. That’s what they do. If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically. You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES.***

    Not why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity. As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy.

    This is natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 06:36:00 UTC