Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS (important piec

    YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (important piece)

    There is no distinction between legal and moral (criminal, ethical, moral) content in disputes. This fallacy is a central problem of the logic of libertarian property theory.

    The first question is whether we compensate people for defense of property rights (criminal ethical and moral) or expect them to pay those costs even if they cannot participate in production (which I argue is immoral.)

    I argue that this is a mere matter of compensating people via commission on overall production for their action in defense of the means of production (a low transaction cost society where voluntary organization of production is possible). And that people who participate in production and who choose to be involved in production should capture their wealth.

    Our error is in not acknowledging the costs of respecting property rights. Which are very high. And that is why respect for property rights, especially high trust property rights of the protestant northern europeans, is so rare. It’s terribly expensive, even if dramatically more productive.

    Like all fundamental philosophical questions (of which I only know half of a dozen that exist), the central question is either you have a right to reproduce if you cannot support your offspring. Is that immoral and therefore illegal? That question determines whether your arguments are simple and rational or complex and non-rational (incalculable).

    This division of labor and compensation does not require nonsense-bullshit moralizing from continental and cosmopolitan schools of thought (ie:deception, obscurantism, authoritarianism, and loading, framing,) to load and frame the argument. It is merely respect for individual property rights through and through.

    Low property rights with low ethical and moral standards will produce high demand for the state, while high property rights with high ethical and moral standards will produce low demand for the state.

    As such, for any libertarian order, the relationship between law and morality is one-to-one. There is no difference.

    However, it is a practical necessity to pay those who cannot engage in production but who can engage in creating the social, legal and economic means of production, for their efforts. And failing to do so is criminal as well as immoral.

    This approach gives everyone in the society (local polity that facilitates the voluntary organization of production) the same interests: suppression of the predatory state monopoly, while at the same time maintaining parity between law and morality.

    There is no need for emotional loading and framing if you actually do a bit of thinking. But libertarians are often lighter on the discipline of thinking than they let on.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 05:58:00 UTC

  • "Regulation" Under Libertarianism

    [L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.

  • “Regulation” Under Libertarianism

    [L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.

  • "Regulation" Under Libertarianism

    [L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.

  • “Regulation” Under Libertarianism

    [L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.

  • The End Of The Fantasy Of International Law

    —“American might allowed the advocates of international law to live in an imaginary world in which their doctrines actually matter. And now that they have finally succeeded in tearing down American strength and ushering in a post-American world, their own world will end. International law is a Potemkin village. A hollow facade upheld by the might of the United States. A post-American world means the end of international law.”—

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-end-of-international-law/

  • The End Of The Fantasy Of International Law

    —“American might allowed the advocates of international law to live in an imaginary world in which their doctrines actually matter. And now that they have finally succeeded in tearing down American strength and ushering in a post-American world, their own world will end. International law is a Potemkin village. A hollow facade upheld by the might of the United States. A post-American world means the end of international law.”—

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-end-of-international-law/

  • LIBERTARIAN ‘REGULATION” (cross posted from elsewhere) Libertarians do not advoc

    LIBERTARIAN ‘REGULATION”

    (cross posted from elsewhere)

    Libertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate:

    a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law.

    b) requirement that companies be insured.

    c) elimination of liability protections for executives.

    The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors.

    It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology.

    But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-02 23:30:00 UTC

  • “Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they h

    –“Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they have not the might to secure.”–Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-20 18:24:00 UTC

  • THANK RUSSIANS AND CHINESE: THERE IS NO NEW WORLD ORDER WITHOUT THE MYTH OF INTE

    THANK RUSSIANS AND CHINESE: THERE IS NO NEW WORLD ORDER WITHOUT THE MYTH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

    Maybe we should just thank the Russians and the Chinese for their contribution to anarchy.

    I mean, first they disprove socialism.

    Now they disprove postmodernism.

    I mean, the bad guys really do all the hard work for us, don’t they?

    The collapse of the progressive fantasy continues.

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:31:00 UTC