Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • CONTRA KINSELLA ON AGGRESSION (I might as well just beat this horse until it’s r

    CONTRA KINSELLA ON AGGRESSION

    (I might as well just beat this horse until it’s really, really, dead.)

    Aggression that causes violence is determined empirically. The definition of Property that people treat as aggressed against is determined empirically. You don’t get to make stuff up. We are supposed to be the smart people you know?

    [kinsella]—“Libertarianism says that only aggression may be countered with force, that aggression is the only way to violate rights so that a forceful response is justified. Other rightful behavior, even if it is immoral or “bad,” is rightful so long as it is not aggression”— [kinsella]

    Yes, rothbardian libertarianism says that immoral and unethical actions are permissible and that you are forbidden from retaliating against people in court, and that you can be taken to court if you retaliate against immoral and unethical actions.

    Yes, rothbardian libertarianism legally authorizes immoral and unethical conduct. Yes, rothbardian libertarians prohibits retaliation for immoral and unethical conduct. Yes rothbardian libertarianism provides incentives to engage in immoral and unethical conduct. Because immoral and unethical actions allow profiting from unproductive professions that are parasitic to the polity. So yes, rothbardian ethics reflect the ethics of the low trust societies of the world. And in all low trust societies, the state is necessary as a suppressor of violence. That is why all low trust societies have strong central states: to suppress violence created by immoral and unethical actions that are non-productive, and which have no peaceful means of resolution other than violence.

    High trust societies force all profiting into the market where it is mutually beneficial. High trust societies force ALL competition into the market. They force all actions into PRODUCTIVE actions.

    It is ONLY high trust societies that have produced liberty. That is why only the formerly aristocratic nations possess liberty. Because through outbreeding and violence they forced all conflict into the market for goods and services, by prohibiting both criminal, unethical and immoral actions.

    Why have no low trust societies that employ the absence of moral and ethical standards ever formed?

    <sarcasm>

    OF COURSE I’M RIGHT.

    I know. You will get there. Or you will go to your grave whispering “I believe in NAP, I believe in NAP, I Believe in NAP” like any other good cult member.

    Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it. Abandon rothbardiansim as the failed program that it is: a pathetic attempt to pretend that cosmopolitanism was somehow a competitor to aristocratic egalitarianism.

    TIme for big boy shoes.

    You can do it if you try.

    <sarcasm/>

    PROPERTY IS DEFINED BY EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL MEANS

    If we define property as people ACT in high trust societies define property then yes it is a trespass. That is what I can’t seem to get across to you.

    Low trust = scarce property rights.

    High trust = lots of property rights.

    People flock TO high trust societies and AWAY from low trust societies.

    High trust = high velocity of trade and low demand for the state.

    Low trust = low velocity of trade and high demand for the state.

    It’s just the evidence. Nothing will change it. No matter how many canticles for rothbard you kneel for. No matter how much hand wringing that you muster.

    Jan lester was almost right. I”m right. This is how it is. Just time to deal with it.

    A voluntary polity is only POSSIBLE under suppression of immoral and unethical behavior via the common law, because people will not abandon or tolerate unethical behavior.

    2 mins · Like

    <sarcasam>

    So. Um. Like usual. I’m right. Yeah. Sorry. It must be painful.

    I kinda wish someone else had this job. You know? But it seems like it’s my civic duty to flush Rothbardian ethics into the toilet of phlogiston theories.

    <sarcasam/>

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 16:26:00 UTC

  • “if you’re not willing to fight for a just society, then you have no right to de

    —“if you’re not willing to fight for a just society, then you have no right to demand one, and no right to share in the benefits of one that others have fought for.”—

    Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 10:56:00 UTC

  • WHY DID WE HAVE TO CREATE YET ANOTHER FORM OF MYSTICISM? Natural rights? Intrins

    WHY DID WE HAVE TO CREATE YET ANOTHER FORM OF MYSTICISM?

    Natural rights? Intrinsic rights?

    OMG. It was the 20th century for goodness sake. What kind of idiot would suggest you “had” (owned, possessed) the equivalent of a soul?

    The source of any property right is anothers grant of it in exchange for the same, for the duration of your cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 09:24:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. I don’t free

    THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. I don’t free-ride on others labors then justify my liberty. I don’t claim my freedom is innate. Or a natural law. Or a gift of the gods. Instead, I claim that property rights are obtained in contractual exchange from others who likewise promise to defend that liberty – those property rights.

    It’s my moral obligation to fight for the self determination of any people who seek to be free. It is only through this agreement that I obtain my freedom, we obtain our freedom, and free men increase in number.

    I’m not afraid of violence. I worship it. I covet it. I want to collect it. To celebrate it. To honor it. Because with enough of it I can free myself, and others from the tyranny of the state.

    Sic Semper Tyrannis.

    The state should fear us. The state shall fear us. And once they fear us we shall win.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 04:16:00 UTC

  • I don’t try to justify anything. I don’t have to. I might advocate what *I* want

    I don’t try to justify anything. I don’t have to. I might advocate what *I* want. I might help you advocate what *you* want, and help someone else with what *they* want – we have different needs.

    I am perfectly happy if the underclasses engage in mutual reinsurance (socialism). I just don’t want to pay for insurance that I don’t need or want – and which harms me. I am, by my abilities, my own insurance. There is no reason we must possess a monopoly under which we all rely upon the same means of insurance. I think very few of us would rely upon ourselves, and the majority rely upon insurance by others.

    But since I want liberty, to obtain liberty without the state, the only means we have of providing a rational means for the resolution of differences is property and property rights, under organically evolving “common” law, I just need to know what is required of the common law to construct a voluntary polity in the absence of the state.

    This is an empirical question. It’s not a moral one. I do not argue what people SHOULD want. Since what they ‘should’ want and what they ‘do’ want are almost always accurate reflections of their reproductive strategies. I argue instead that given what any group wants, here is how to achieve it under the common law, cooperatively rather than violently – as the state now does.

    That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t replace some sections of that common law with ‘rule-by-man’ institutions within your own group – rather than rule of law under the law. Within your group you’re welcome to. We liberty lovers won’t allow you to force us to participate with you in an ‘involuntary’ organization.

    We won’t allow you means that we will use violence to make sure that you cannot. We’re smarter. That’s the thing, you know.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 09:42:00 UTC

  • MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING. (pulled out and reposted) Liberta

    MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING.

    (pulled out and reposted)

    Libertarianism argues that Non Aggression, (NAP) + Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) constitute a universal moral natural law. This is ‘almost real’. And any claim that natural rights or natural law exist is to claim moral realism (constant correspondence.)

    Now, I disagree with IVP and NAP, because I have learned that human moral standards are universally higher than that. That no groups exist and can exist by treating internal members as such. And that peoples who use the NAP with outsiders are usually outcast and exterminated.

    However, if we look at universally demonstrated human behaviors, we see that it is quite possible to identify a small number of constant moral constraints upon our action. And that these moral constraints reflect our reproductive strategies – and must. Further, that all cultures may implement more or less of these moral constraints, and that many of these moral constraints are mixed with signaling (which is not a moral constraint, but a signal of commitment to moral constraints – usually ritualistic costs that one must bear). This means that all moral systems include the universal moral rules, a level of adoption of those rules that suits their reproductive structure within the particular moral structure of production available to them, and a body of rituals and signals. And that all moral codes in all groups can be reduced to technical descriptions on the axes I have described.

    If this is true, and I am correct, and I think the evidence suggests that I am correct, then the underlying moral code is on that is in favor of cooperation while prohibiting free riding, where failing to engage in cooperation is also free riding. As such, the underlying moral intuition begins with the prohibition on free riding. Further that depending on a number of environmental variables such as geography and competition, humans will produce predictable moral codes, albeit a wide variety of signals. And yes, the genders differ in the distribution of weights that they give to those underlying moral codes.

    As such, we have finally uncovered the logic and science of morality. And as such, morality is both real, and non arbitrary.

    Thus the only means of moral action we possess is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange, free of negative externalities, in which we contributed to production. It implies that one cannot refuse a trade that causes one no loss, takes no effort, exposes one to no risk, and benefits another.

    Everyone has something to trade. Even if it’s merely respect for life, property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. And that is enough to trade for the benefits of the market, and the opportunity to conduct other trades with those who likewise enter into the bargain.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 09:09:00 UTC

  • WHAT ARE THE TERMS UNDER WHICH ONE CHOOSES TO COOPERATE? –“Free men should neve

    WHAT ARE THE TERMS UNDER WHICH ONE CHOOSES TO COOPERATE?

    –“Free men should never regulate their conduct by the suggestions or dicta of others, for when they do so, they are no longer free. No man ought to obey any contract, written or implied, except he himself has given his personal and formal adherence thereto, when in a state of mental maturity and unrestrained liberty. It is only slaves that are born into contracts, signed and sealed by their progenitors. The free man is born free, lives free, and dies free. He is (even though living in an artificial civilization) above all laws, all constitutions, all theories of right and wrong. He supports and defends them of course, as long as they suit his own end, but if they don’t, then he annihilates them by the easiest and most direct method.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 03:38:00 UTC

  • WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS OVER ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS? I mean, what k

    WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS OVER ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS?

    I mean, what kind of person wants it to be legal to lie, cheat, deceive, but not use violence against those who lie, cheat and deceive?

    It’s not complicated.

    Rothbard was wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 10:24:00 UTC

  • I support trusting people with self determination. But hold them accountable for

    I support trusting people with self determination. But hold them accountable for what they do with it.Not everyone is worthy of that trust.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 21:17:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/461615454185074688

  • WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SOCIAL ORDER: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING VS THE PROMOT

    WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SOCIAL ORDER: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING VS THE PROMOTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    (worth repeating)

    If I am right, and I think I am, then we just look at private property incorrectly because it’s a positive assertion. But the negative assertion is more informative: free riding. Because it is free riding that mirrors the human moral instincts that evolved with us because they were necessary for cooperation. And while we can suppress free riding (and parasitism) and obtain private property as a defense against the state, in order to form a polity we must also suppress unethical and immoral conduct so that we do not have demand for the state. And to form an anarchic polity free of the state, we must further suppress conspiracy and statism so that those who desire to free ride cannot band together to do so. As such, ‘private property’ is not the basis for society, but the basis for the voluntary organization of, and execution of, production. The suppression of free riding then, is the basis for society, and private property is one of its byproducts. Instead of only codifying private property in law, if we restate all moral instincts as property rights, then we can construct a legal code that mirrors completely the human moral code, and one which, allows both the resolution of differences over property, but also eliminates demand for the state, as well as forbids the formation of a state (monopoly). In this sense, morality, stated as a prohibition on free riding, is the basis for the velocity of cooperation, private property is the basis of the voluntary structure of production, prohibition on unethical and immoral conduct is the basis for a polity, and prohibition on conspiracy to construct a monopoly is the basis for anarchy. And altogether this full spectrum of prohibitions on free riding, delivers us to liberty and the maximum opportunity for prosperity.

    I think this is the correct analysis.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 02:40:00 UTC