Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • If the ‘Un-Insured’ nuclear family is the majority of society, or at least, grea

    If the ‘Un-Insured’ nuclear family is the majority of society, or at least, greater than the Pareto minimum of 20%, and the polity is homogenous, it’s likely that signaling will take care of containing the dysgenic families. But in a diverse polity I dont see how the signal economy can function, either as an advocate of the nuclear family, or a constraint on free riding.

    The ‘insurance company” traditional family encourages redistribution and at least limited free riding.

    The “corporate insurance company” (The STATE) forcibly redistributes between moral and reproductive structures, but what this means in practice is the conquest of aristocratic uninsured non-free riders, by communal insured, or state corporate insured, free riders and rent seekers.

    America’s miracle, I think, was a combination of two factors: (a) giving away a conquered continent to immigrants, and (b) indoctrination into the combination of nuclear family and property rights. And the extraction of those people from the high-insurance, high free-riding, traditional family of Europe.

    But it couldn’t survive.

    As the germans and anglos, who were the majority until the 20th century, were outbred by less eugenic (catholic) families, the black family was destroyed through progressive good-intentions, and finally dysgenic traditional family (hispanics) and inbred family (muslims), and our legal traditions did not survive jewish intellectual attacks on our institutions.

    If they had be UNDERSTOOD as economic institutions, and social institutions, and WRITTEN DOWN, it’s possible, but but they weren’t. So there has been a scramble for the past century and a half or more, to contain the non-ANF families from expressing their reproductive strategy in politics.

    Aristocracy wants eugenic development and the rest want dysgenic reproduction. The concentration of calories (eugenic aristocracy) the distribution of calories (dysgenic communalism). This is what we should expect from people – who are not equal.

    1) Physical abilities

    2) Structure Of Production

    3) Reproductive Strategy

    4) Family Structure

    5) Moral Code (Property Rights Allocations)

    6) Property Rights (abandonment of free riding)

    7) Homogeneity (pervasive abandonment of free riding)

    8) Trust (lack of necessity to protect against free riding)

    9) Political preferences

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 08:10:00 UTC

  • IS IT THAT SIMPLE? I THINK IT IS: USE INSTITUTIONS TO PUSH FREE RIDING INTO THE

    IS IT THAT SIMPLE? I THINK IT IS: USE INSTITUTIONS TO PUSH FREE RIDING INTO THE MARKET.

    The market suppresses free riding. The market and the ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY, extinguish all opportunities for free riding. Everywhere. you can’t even free-ride on your family.

    The ANF was an unnatural development in human history. Private property was the outcome of it. I had always thought that the

    But marginal indifferences between individual production were low and now they are not. Our physical differences may be minor. But our abilities to use symbols, logic, instruments, and machines, are not. These technologies and tools multiply our abilities, and our differences are compounded by that multiplication.

    The ANF then will survive only as an aristocratic family structure. It is for wealthy people who can accumulate capital. For those people it is both eugenic, and highly competitive.

    That means liberty will be reduced to jewish-liberty, rather than aryan-liberty. It means the high trust society can and will end in america. The ANF is a genetically influenced relation. Its a north-sea thing. Otherwise forget it.

    (Dammit.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 06:38:00 UTC

  • Ruining An Austrian's Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.

  • Ruining An Austrian’s Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.

  • Ruining An Austrian's Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.

  • Ruining An Austrian’s Day

    RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.

  • The Reason You Use The Word 'liberty' And Not 'aristocracy'?

      Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t. Aristocracy: 1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them. 2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service. 3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights. 4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding. 5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms. 6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights. Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them. LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.

  • The Reason You Use The Word ‘liberty’ And Not ‘aristocracy’?

      Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t. Aristocracy: 1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them. 2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service. 3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights. 4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding. 5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms. 6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights. Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them. LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.

  • The Reason You Use The Word 'liberty' And Not 'aristocracy'?

      Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t. Aristocracy: 1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them. 2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service. 3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights. 4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding. 5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms. 6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights. Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them. LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.

  • The Reason You Use The Word ‘liberty’ And Not ‘aristocracy’?

      Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t. Aristocracy: 1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them. 2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service. 3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights. 4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding. 5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms. 6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights. Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them. LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.