Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • ANCAPISM IS IMPOSSIBLE Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is

    ANCAPISM IS IMPOSSIBLE

    Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships.

    There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons.

    The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so.

    There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is ever even possibly sovereign. So a person with property, begs for liberty with his property, by permission – the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission.

    The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything.

    Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust, total prohibition, on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds, travelling salesmen, gypsies, and thieves.

    The only sovereignty, is the militia, of all men of property, who provide one another with reciprocal insurance of sovereignty under the natural law of reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 15:34:00 UTC

  • Ancapism Is Impossible

    Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is ever even possibly sovereign. So a person with property, begs for liberty with his property, by permission – the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust, total prohibition, on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form. Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds, travelling salesmen, gypsies, and thieves. The only sovereignty, is the militia, of all men of property, who provide one another with reciprocal insurance of sovereignty under the natural law of reciprocity.

  • Ancapism Is Impossible

    Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is ever even possibly sovereign. So a person with property, begs for liberty with his property, by permission – the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust, total prohibition, on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form. Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds, travelling salesmen, gypsies, and thieves. The only sovereignty, is the militia, of all men of property, who provide one another with reciprocal insurance of sovereignty under the natural law of reciprocity.

  • How Would An Anarcho-capitalist System Prevent A Monopoly Of Power? Is It A Concern In The First Place?

    Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is every possibly sovereign. So a person with property begs for liberty with is property by permission the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust total prohibition on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form.

    Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds and thieves.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-system-prevent-a-monopoly-of-power-Is-it-a-concern-in-the-first-place

  • How Would An Anarcho-capitalist System Prevent A Monopoly Of Power? Is It A Concern In The First Place?

    Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is every possibly sovereign. So a person with property begs for liberty with is property by permission the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust total prohibition on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form.

    Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds and thieves.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-system-prevent-a-monopoly-of-power-Is-it-a-concern-in-the-first-place

  • Mises Position In Intellectual History

    (from elsewhere) Too long an answer for this forum. If I remember you correctly you’re a smart fellow so here is an analytic reduction for you to mull over: 0 – There are only so many dimensions of actionability available to man, about which he can speak in continuous relations. 1 – A statement of continuous relations (truth) requires consistency of categorical, logical (internal), empirical(external), operational (existential), voluntary (rational), reciprocal (moral), fully accounted within stated limits, and coherent relations (across all above dimensions). 2 – No dimension is closed (knowledge is infinite and semantics and grammar are also.) And therefore any dimension must achieve closure by appeal to (inclusion of) subsequent dimensions. All non trivial knowledge is perishable (closed only within specified limits). 3 – Coherence across all actionable dimensions serves as a competition between dimensions that will falsify inconstant relations within and across dimensions. 4 – Ergo, all arguments are falsifications, and only truth candidates survive tests of all actionable dimensions. Therefore all non trivial statements that survive tests of actionable dimensions are contingent. (actionable). 5 – Mises discovered operationalism in economics, as did bridgman in physics, brouwer in math, falsification by popper in the philosophy of science (epistemology), and Hayek in law (after exploring every field), and dozens of predecessors in accounting. 6 – Mises failure was to rely on the metaphysics (unconscious rules) of his ‘heritage’, as we all do, and conflated law, logic (via-positiva axioms), empiricism (via-negativa theories), and to (again) limit the investments he considered to the intersubjectively verifiable, rather than those investments 7 – The sciences consist entirely of a set of dimensional due diligences against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – and justifications ‘reasons’ (rationalizations) are irrelevant. The means by which we arrive at an hypothesis tells us nothing other than we have found an opportunity for falsification, and if survives falsification we then have a truth candidate in the market for general rules of arbitrary precision that assist us in the identification of opportunities that we may exploit. 8 – we do not create justifications (excuses) in science (testimony), we create moral and legal excuses only in human cooperation (morality and law). We create proof of constant relations (identity). We create proofs of possibility of operational construction using constant relations. We identify constant relations in the universe through testing. We eliminate ‘imaginary content’ by the reduction of all statements to the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (fully formed testable statements) and syntax (testable statements in series, from noun to phrase, to sentence, to paragraph to argument). We objectively test the rationality of choice in matters of conflict (which is possible because in choice we are marginally indifferent). We objectively test reciprocity through property. We test full accounting, limits and parsimony, and finally we test coherence of the constant relations across all actionable dimensions of reality. 9 – The secret of human action is that by limiting our speech to operational language we provide subjective testability to constant relations free of deceits, fictionalisms, obsucrantisms, pretenses of knowledge, suggestion, bias, ignorance, and error. In other words, the most parsimonious testimony we can speak of is in using the constant relations of testable actions of marginal indifference. And if one cannot speak in those terms, one cannot testify to them, since one cannot claim to have performed dimensional due diligence. For a variety of complex reasons, I think something on the nature of the first 15 chapters of Human Action are nonsense. If it were not for the kantian nonsense rationalism and pseudoscience promoted by ‘libertarians’ and in particular that propaganda organization we call ‘the mises institute’, then we could rescue mises from criticism. But his own arrogance was his undoing. he was wrong about a lot of things. Rothbard made it worse. And hoppe made it worse. But if we look at it differently, that this failure to solve the scientific method in the early part of the last century led, as Hayek suggested’ to a new era of pseudoscience. And that mises popper and hayek and bridgman and brower… and to some degree Kuhn, all made some progress. The interesting observation is that Boole, Babbage, Godel, Turing, and finally Chomsky were on the right track. And because the philosophical discipline was off in la-la-land, trying to preserve their ‘science’, and because the disciplines did not cooperate or communicate or speak in the same terms, no one united them into a single commensurable language. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Mises Position In Intellectual History

    (from elsewhere) Too long an answer for this forum. If I remember you correctly you’re a smart fellow so here is an analytic reduction for you to mull over: 0 – There are only so many dimensions of actionability available to man, about which he can speak in continuous relations. 1 – A statement of continuous relations (truth) requires consistency of categorical, logical (internal), empirical(external), operational (existential), voluntary (rational), reciprocal (moral), fully accounted within stated limits, and coherent relations (across all above dimensions). 2 – No dimension is closed (knowledge is infinite and semantics and grammar are also.) And therefore any dimension must achieve closure by appeal to (inclusion of) subsequent dimensions. All non trivial knowledge is perishable (closed only within specified limits). 3 – Coherence across all actionable dimensions serves as a competition between dimensions that will falsify inconstant relations within and across dimensions. 4 – Ergo, all arguments are falsifications, and only truth candidates survive tests of all actionable dimensions. Therefore all non trivial statements that survive tests of actionable dimensions are contingent. (actionable). 5 – Mises discovered operationalism in economics, as did bridgman in physics, brouwer in math, falsification by popper in the philosophy of science (epistemology), and Hayek in law (after exploring every field), and dozens of predecessors in accounting. 6 – Mises failure was to rely on the metaphysics (unconscious rules) of his ‘heritage’, as we all do, and conflated law, logic (via-positiva axioms), empiricism (via-negativa theories), and to (again) limit the investments he considered to the intersubjectively verifiable, rather than those investments 7 – The sciences consist entirely of a set of dimensional due diligences against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – and justifications ‘reasons’ (rationalizations) are irrelevant. The means by which we arrive at an hypothesis tells us nothing other than we have found an opportunity for falsification, and if survives falsification we then have a truth candidate in the market for general rules of arbitrary precision that assist us in the identification of opportunities that we may exploit. 8 – we do not create justifications (excuses) in science (testimony), we create moral and legal excuses only in human cooperation (morality and law). We create proof of constant relations (identity). We create proofs of possibility of operational construction using constant relations. We identify constant relations in the universe through testing. We eliminate ‘imaginary content’ by the reduction of all statements to the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (fully formed testable statements) and syntax (testable statements in series, from noun to phrase, to sentence, to paragraph to argument). We objectively test the rationality of choice in matters of conflict (which is possible because in choice we are marginally indifferent). We objectively test reciprocity through property. We test full accounting, limits and parsimony, and finally we test coherence of the constant relations across all actionable dimensions of reality. 9 – The secret of human action is that by limiting our speech to operational language we provide subjective testability to constant relations free of deceits, fictionalisms, obsucrantisms, pretenses of knowledge, suggestion, bias, ignorance, and error. In other words, the most parsimonious testimony we can speak of is in using the constant relations of testable actions of marginal indifference. And if one cannot speak in those terms, one cannot testify to them, since one cannot claim to have performed dimensional due diligence. For a variety of complex reasons, I think something on the nature of the first 15 chapters of Human Action are nonsense. If it were not for the kantian nonsense rationalism and pseudoscience promoted by ‘libertarians’ and in particular that propaganda organization we call ‘the mises institute’, then we could rescue mises from criticism. But his own arrogance was his undoing. he was wrong about a lot of things. Rothbard made it worse. And hoppe made it worse. But if we look at it differently, that this failure to solve the scientific method in the early part of the last century led, as Hayek suggested’ to a new era of pseudoscience. And that mises popper and hayek and bridgman and brower… and to some degree Kuhn, all made some progress. The interesting observation is that Boole, Babbage, Godel, Turing, and finally Chomsky were on the right track. And because the philosophical discipline was off in la-la-land, trying to preserve their ‘science’, and because the disciplines did not cooperate or communicate or speak in the same terms, no one united them into a single commensurable language. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • 1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculat

    1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculation of demand under inflexible prices. 2 – Trade requires only normative property, and production to satisfy estimated demand under flexible prices. 3 – Exchange requires only possession, and neither prices or anticipated demand. Demand always exists, whether under exchange, trade, or market. We tend to use the word market to refer to demand. But demand exists under exchange, trade, and market. The question is scale, investment risk, and institutions (insurance (law), contract, money, prices) that mitigate investment risk. We trade low volume and high prices for high volume and low prices. To achieve high volume and low prices requires an ever expanding division of capital(risk), knowledge, and labor, under ever greater insurance regimes.

  • 1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculat

    1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculation of demand under inflexible prices.

    2 – Trade requires only normative property, and production to satisfy estimated demand under flexible prices.

    3 – Exchange requires only possession, and neither prices or anticipated demand.

    Demand always exists, whether under exchange, trade, or market.

    We tend to use the word market to refer to demand. But demand exists under exchange, trade, and market. The question is scale, investment risk, and institutions (insurance (law), contract, money, prices) that mitigate investment risk.

    We trade low volume and high prices for high volume and low prices. To achieve high volume and low prices requires an ever expanding division of capital(risk), knowledge, and labor, under ever greater insurance regimes.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-25 13:21:00 UTC

  • 1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculat

    1 – Markets, like ‘property rights’ require insurers, and production on speculation of demand under inflexible prices. 2 – Trade requires only normative property, and production to satisfy estimated demand under flexible prices. 3 – Exchange requires only possession, and neither prices or anticipated demand. Demand always exists, whether under exchange, trade, or market. We tend to use the word market to refer to demand. But demand exists under exchange, trade, and market. The question is scale, investment risk, and institutions (insurance (law), contract, money, prices) that mitigate investment risk. We trade low volume and high prices for high volume and low prices. To achieve high volume and low prices requires an ever expanding division of capital(risk), knowledge, and labor, under ever greater insurance regimes.