Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Why Are Americans So Proud Of Their History When The Usa Has A Shorter History Compared To Some Other Countries In The World?

    (a) Because we invented a new form of culture: a purely commercial one, absent of hierarchy.
    (b) Because we invented a new form of constitution and government by adapting the British to this new commercial culture.
    (c) Because we did not fall to the european suicide by internecine warfare (even if the brits suckered us into both world wars).
    (c) Because we are disproportionately productive compared to the rest of the world.
    (d) Because of our disproportionate productivity and size, we have disproportionate wealth and global influence.
    (e) Because we used our wealth and influence to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of colonialism, out of the world war, out of socialism and communism, and right now we’re trying to drag what’s left out of ignorance and mysticism and poverty.

    Now, personally I’m pretty anti-american for an american, because I feel that our conquest of Europe has only exacerbated western (germanic) suicide, by allowing europeans to develop an absurd, immoral, unscientific, and unsustainable economy and political system that can only be perpetuated through suicide by immigration of third world peoples unable to adapt to northern european the high trust nuclear family, truth telling, suppression of free riding, and protestant work ethic.

    Unfortunately, americans aspire to commit the same suicide.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-so-proud-of-their-history-when-the-USA-has-a-shorter-history-compared-to-some-other-countries-in-the-world

  • Why Are Americans So Proud Of Their History When The Usa Has A Shorter History Compared To Some Other Countries In The World?

    (a) Because we invented a new form of culture: a purely commercial one, absent of hierarchy.
    (b) Because we invented a new form of constitution and government by adapting the British to this new commercial culture.
    (c) Because we did not fall to the european suicide by internecine warfare (even if the brits suckered us into both world wars).
    (c) Because we are disproportionately productive compared to the rest of the world.
    (d) Because of our disproportionate productivity and size, we have disproportionate wealth and global influence.
    (e) Because we used our wealth and influence to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of colonialism, out of the world war, out of socialism and communism, and right now we’re trying to drag what’s left out of ignorance and mysticism and poverty.

    Now, personally I’m pretty anti-american for an american, because I feel that our conquest of Europe has only exacerbated western (germanic) suicide, by allowing europeans to develop an absurd, immoral, unscientific, and unsustainable economy and political system that can only be perpetuated through suicide by immigration of third world peoples unable to adapt to northern european the high trust nuclear family, truth telling, suppression of free riding, and protestant work ethic.

    Unfortunately, americans aspire to commit the same suicide.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-so-proud-of-their-history-when-the-USA-has-a-shorter-history-compared-to-some-other-countries-in-the-world

  • I WOULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB OF ARGUING IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE THAN DID

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/29/in-depth-key-questions-and-remarks-from-the-supreme-court-oral-arguments-on-marriage/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqXKZKXonjHpfsX64%2B4vWKS3i4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMS8tqNK%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHmHONESTLY, I WOULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB OF ARGUING IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE THAN DID THE PLAINTIFFS.

    The article is quite good: Roe v Wade did not allow the democratic process to work and therefore created an unsettled matter of profound divisiveness. The argument presented is that the states can continue the experiment. The court has no interest in repeating another roe-v-wade, and cutting short the democratic process.

    This is of course how the court should always have acted.

    But we must grasp that progressives are immoral, unscientific authoritarians and conservatives are moral, scientific, preventers-of-authoritarianism.

    In the end (as Eli Has stated) the problem is the term ‘marriage’. There is no reason that one cannot have all social and political benefits of heterosexual marriage, yet call it something else.

    I made that argument pretty thoroughly back in 2002.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-07 03:26:00 UTC

  • Raise The Cost Of Tyranny Through Violence

    [T]he only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism. We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence. a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism. Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization. Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile. It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty. Or lose it forever.

  • Raise The Cost Of Tyranny Through Violence

    [T]he only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism. We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence. a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism. Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization. Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile. It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty. Or lose it forever.

  • The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation

    [T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff. 

    The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy.  Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.

    Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? 

    Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.

    Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).


  • The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation

    [T]he first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff. 

    The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy.  Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.

    Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? 

    Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.

    Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).


  • EXAMPLE OF ROTHBARDIAN IMMORALITY: ROTHBARDIAN RENT SEEKING Under human moral in

    EXAMPLE OF ROTHBARDIAN IMMORALITY: ROTHBARDIAN RENT SEEKING

    Under human moral intuition, and therefore under Propertarianism, one cannot seek rents (engage in parasitism). Any profit must be obtained through an increase in productivity. That is because cooperation is irrational otherwise. And because property rights are the result of cooperation (not a natural law, not a gift of god, not a natural right, or any other such attempt at deception.)

    As such, ***unproductive profit is theft that is committed by the collection of economic rents on the institution of private property***. In other words, telcos can charge by volume but not by content. That is rent seeking. The same for roads: one could charge by weight(wear and tear), but not by content. One might not permit explosives, but he cannot charge by content.

    This is the very opposite of the Rothbardian attempt to justify parasitism while outlawing retaliation. Because Rothbard’s NAP is an attempt to do just that: preserve parasitism, preserve deceit, and dismiss the requirement for productivity, and to deny retaliation for parasitism and deceit.

    ERIK FAIR ON NET NEUTRALITY

    –“For a very long time during early History of the Internet, the Internet Service Providers (ISP) were not the telephone companies – they were independent businesses buying fixed-price leased lines from the TelCos, and they passed on that pricing structure: no usage (byte) charges.

    But that’s not very profitable. So now that the TelCos are the ISPs, they want to use their Duopoly position & pricing power to extract economic rents by charging by the byte, and (if the can) charging by the value of each byte. It’s rape of the customer.

    So the currently “free” Instant Messaging (IM) and Social Networks might actually cost you extra to access from your ISP, independent of anything you might be paying WhatsApp, or Facebook (if anything).

    The proper Economic Policy is to divorce Internet Infrastructure (carriage of bits) from applications/protocols (what those bits mean and how they are potentially valued), i.e. AT&T should not be allowed to own Netflix. Further, we need to bring back “unbundling of the local loop”, i.e. you should be able to buy Internet service from multiple ISPs atop the exact same wires, fibres, or coax, so that we have real competition there once again, and the owners/operators of that wire, fiber, or coax must be required to charge exactly the same price per bandwidth to all comers atop their infrastructure.”– Erik Fair (Quora)

    Rothbard was no less of an advocate for parasitism than was Marx.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 03:09:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS DETERMINES THOSE THAT FOLLOW I tend to turn liberta

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS DETERMINES THOSE THAT FOLLOW

    I tend to turn libertarianism on its ear: The first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff.

    The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed instead as the default starting point.

    Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not killing you is advantageous.

    Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.

    Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin.

    So a political order is only preferable if not individually, familially or tribally destructive.

    But this is why Hoppe is wrong. Argumentation is a legal question, not one of incentives. It presumes cooperation, rather than illustrating that cooperation is a compromise between the weak and the strong. Cooperation is unequally beneficial. For the weak, a gain; for the cunning, a loss of deceit; and for the strong a barrier requiring sufficient boon to be overcome.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 06:26:00 UTC

  • THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS MUST BE DEFENDED JUST AS WE DEFEND THE NORMATIVE AND P

    THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS MUST BE DEFENDED JUST AS WE DEFEND THE NORMATIVE AND PHYSICAL COMMONS.

    The postmoderns (like Chomsky) are liars. Why should we not punish liars for the pollution of the informational commons, just as we punish pollution of the physical commons?

    Safeguard the helpless. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 05:35:00 UTC