Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • The Source Of Private Property Is Violence

    [T]he source of property is the organized application of violence to create it. Even on Rothbard’s Crusoe island, the violence that creates the property of the island FOR Crusoe is provided by the barrier of the sea. (That the see is analogous to the ghetto, which is the model of rebellion rothbard was using whether he know it or not, is obvious and ironic.) But Rothbard’s logic is flawed. The correct analogy is that on an infinite flat plain evenly distributed with people, how do you create the institution of private property so that one person’s will and wisdom can concentrate capital for future production and use? By the application of violence to create that institution. Can an individual do it? Not against numbers. No individual is powerful enough. But can a group do it? Yes. A group requires another group to counter it, which produces diminishing returns for those members, who are more incentivized to also obtain property than reverse their claims. An organized group can create private property by the application of violence. The source of private property is the organized application of violence to create it. Arguments that try to justify private property by some other means, moral or utilitarian, are in fact, attempts to buy the right of private property at a deep discount. And nobody’s selling at that price. You have to rase the price pretty high. And violence is a very high price. The source of private property is violence. Private property is a right one gains in exchange for the commitment to others who share the desire for private property, to use violence to preserve private property for one and all. No other method is possible.

  • ‘Rights’ and Fuzzy Language: You Demand Rights. You Can’t ‘Have’ Them Without an Exchange.

    (Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Bentham’s nonsense. Minor improvement to Hoppe. ) [Y]ou DEMAND contractual RIGHTS in EXCHANGE for entering into a CONTRACT with others for some specific terms – and in the libertarian bias we demand absolute private property rights, and the right of first possession by transformation and homesteading. Other people agree to NONE, SOME or ALL of those demands, in exchange for their specific terms. Non-aggressing on some terms, and preserving the opportunity to aggress on others. One cannot ‘have rights’ without the presence of others to grant them in exchange.

      But without the consent of others, one cannot ‘have or possess’ them. [T]he majority of the world cultures and subcultures evolved an allocation of each’s portfolio of property rights between the private and the commons on one axis, and between a) normative (habits, manners, ethics and morals), b) real (land, built capital, portable property, and c) artificial (intellectual property, limited monopoly privileges) on the other axis. Those DEMANDS do you very little good without the ability to enforce your demands. In the case of private property, the coalition of statists is powerful enough to deny you demands, and force you to adhere to THEIR definition of property rights. Might doesn’t make best. Might doesn’t make right. Might makes possible whatever property rights you have demanded. So you must possess the might to institute the property rights you desire.

    • The Causal Problem Of Government Is The Same Causal Problem Of Ethics: The Incorrect Assumption Of The Value Of Monopoly

      [W]hy on earth, would you assume, that ethical principles must assume we agree upon ends? Seriously? Why is it that the study of ethics assumes that there are optimum ends for all? That’s, really, ABSURD on it’s face, isn’t it? I mean. That’s ridiculous. Why not that ethics agree upon means, but not ends? Is ‘group think’ or ‘group-ness’ such an instinct? I think not. I think it is fear of making the wrong decision about which group to belong to. Or simply a cover for theft… We have spent millennia now trying to apply the rules of the family and extended family and tribe to the market, and to justify takings, and thefts and redistributions so that there can be a monopoly of ethical statements. But that’s not necessary. The market doesn’t require that at all. We cooperate on means, but not ends. We don’t even largely know wo we’re cooperating with. The same is true in banking. We don’t know what use our money is put to. We cooperate with people in exchange for interest. The market, and banking, are institutions that help us cooperate on means even if not on ends. [I]f we instead of monopolies imposing homogeneity via law (commands), our institutions relied upon the voluntary exchange of property (contracts) between GROUPS with different property rights internal to the groups, but consistent across the groups, then Law and monopoly are means of one class forcing another class. Democracy is an attempt to legitimize forcing transfers between classes. But why can’t our classes conduct exchanges? There isn’t any reason.

    • Genies Can’t Be Put Back Into Bottles

      [C]lassical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation. Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle. But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa. Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side. Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.

    • GENIES CAN’T BE PUT BACK INTO BOTTLES Classical Liberalism cannot be restored wi

      GENIES CAN’T BE PUT BACK INTO BOTTLES

      Classical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation.

      Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle.

      But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa.

      Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side.

      Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.

      (Reposted with multiple typos fixed)

      Source date (UTC): 2013-07-09 16:42:00 UTC

    • THE CAUSAL PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME CAUSAL PROBLEM OF ETHICS: THE INCOR

      THE CAUSAL PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME CAUSAL PROBLEM OF ETHICS: THE INCORRECTLY ASSUMPTION OF THE VALUE OF MONOPOLY 🙂

      Why on earth, would you assume, that ethical principles must assume we agree upon ends? Seriously? Why is it that the study of ethics assumes that there are optimum ends for all? That’s, really, ABSURD on it’s face, isn’t it? I mean. That’s ridiculous. Why not that ethics agree upon means, but not ends? Is ‘group think’ or ‘group-ness’ such an instinct? I think not. I think it is fear of making the wrong decision about which group to belong to. Or simply a cover for theft…

      WE have spent millennia now trying to apply the rules of the family and extended family and tribe to the market, and to justify takings, and thefts and redistributions so that there can be a monopoly of ethical statements. But that’s not necessary. The market doesn’t require that at all. We cooperate on means, but not ends. We don’t even largely know wo we’re cooperating with. The same is true in banking. We don’t know what use our money is put to. We cooperate with people in exchange for interest.

      The market, and banking, are institutions that help us cooperate on means even if not on ends.

      If we instead of monopolies imposing homogeneity via law (commands), our institutions relied upon the voluntary exchange of property (contracts) between GROUPS with different property rights internal to the groups, but consistent across the groups, then

      Law and monopoly are means of one class forcing another class. Democracy is an attempt to legitimize forcing transfers between classes. But why can’t our classes conduct exchanges?

      There isn’t any reason.

      Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 10:17:00 UTC

    • Libertarianism and Justificationism

      [A]ny political system wich seeks to implement involuntary transfers must be based upon justification. Any political system which seeks to implement voluntary transfers need not be based upon justification. But this is an INSUFFICIENT ANSWER to the problem. This sounds quite simple. However, the first problem is not voluntary versus involuntary transfer, but the distribution of control between the monopoly of private (several) property, and the prohibition on monopoly of control under the shareholder relations of common property (the commons) – and the difficult means by which commons are privatized without the conduct of free riding, profiting from interference, profiting from fraud by omission, profit from fraud, profit from privatization of the commons, profiting from rent seeking, from organizing for the purpose of extraction (taxes) and corruption, takings and war. It is true that private property improves both incentives and calculation, and reduces the friction, but the problem is that even at that point, the system of property rights is in fact a shareholder agreement, and there are very different moral arguments over the distribution of the proceeds produced by the corporation and its members. This question is not trivial, especially with the introduction of women into the voting pool, since women’s biological moral code, demonstrated by their voting pattern, is by definition one of rent seeking and totalitarian equality. Their moral code is not ‘wrong’ for them. It is very wrong for productive males. These problems are not trivial. And libertarianism’s argument that LIBERTY is a universal desire has been demonstrated to be false. CONSUMPTION has been demonstrated to be a universal desire. But not Liberty. [A]ll moral codes and the philosophies that justify them are in fact, class philosophies. It is illogical for one to adopt a philosophy that is a disadvantage to one and an advantage to another – especially if that advantage plays out over the long rather than the short run. I hope this was more helpful than confusing.

    • Why Is Gold Considered So Precious And Why Does It Have Such High Prices, And What Satisfaction Do People Derive From This €˜precious’ Metal?

      These answers are pretty humorous.  But the correct answer is quite simple:

      **Everybody wants gold because everybody else wants gold, and its hard to get.**

      I mean, really, that’s the reason it’s so precious.

      The real question then, is how did everyone come to want gold so much? Originally it was ornamental – desirable as a demonstration for status. It still is. Most metals served as some sort of barter device in history.

      But, we mostly want gold today, because every government in the world has resorted to fiat money (‘confetti and electrons’), and so gold is the only ‘naturally occurring’ currency that everyone understands is a currency. And they understand it because everyone else understands and wants it as a currency – for partly historical reasons: it was part of the balance-of-power system in Europe when Europe had its great leap forward.

      After gold, the USA’s currency is more valuable and stable and lower risk, since it’s such a large economy, and has such a large military force, and that large military force controls the sea and air lanes, and as such can dictate the world terms of commerce and trade (to some degree at least) both by trade policy, monetary policy, and strategic policy.

      So gold the best currency to flee to when the demand for (value of) the USA’s currency is in doubt. You cant easily make more gold, so it’s not going to lose value until the confidence in some OTHER currency is higher than the confidence they have in the price of gold. 

      Because, say, If the USA disappeared tomorrow so would the value of all dollars world wide. But not the value of gold. Everyone remaining would still want it. And until some other hegemon arose that gave them the same confidence, gold would remain in high demand at high price.

      https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gold-considered-so-precious-and-why-does-it-have-such-high-prices-and-what-satisfaction-do-people-derive-from-this-‘precious’-metal

    • YOU CAN’T GET AROUND IT. Equalitarianism requires Totalitarianism. And women pre

      YOU CAN’T GET AROUND IT.

      Equalitarianism requires Totalitarianism.

      And women prefer both. They vote as blocks to demonstrate that they prefer both. Always. While some men prefer them, most women prefer them. And between some men and most women, the totalitarians have a slight majority in our republican democracy.

      Without women’s votes, women would have property rights equal to men, but not political privileges to vote for totalitarianism, and against the family.

      Men may have made western civilization over 5000 years, but women will either convert it to middle eastern, and eastern tyranny, or make us vulnerable to biological conquest by middle eastern tyranny, in less two centuries.

      It’s counter intuitive, but paternalism was made possible by the technology and fighting for property: over land and the domestication of animals, was the innovation that allowed the west to escape its matriarchal poverty, by forcing the creation of private and familial property.

      Matriarchy is equalitarianism in poverty. And equalitarianism is tyranny. Paternalism is private property and meritocracy. The difference is equality of outcome in maternal poverty or equality of opportunity in paternal prosperity.

      (Still working on this argument a bit.)

      🙂

      Source date (UTC): 2013-06-24 09:54:00 UTC

    • Are There Objectively Moral Statements?

      “There is no such thing as objective morality only preferences and demonstrated preferences.” I’m not sure that’s true. [I]n every society, the portfolio of norms consisting of maners (signals of fitness for voluntary transfer), ethics and morals (prohibitions on involuntary transfer), vary considerably. But all of them are signals of fitness, signals of contribution to a commons, and prohibitions on involuntary transfer. Some of these suites of property rights produce superior economic outcomes, and some inferior. That’s true. But they aren’t preferences. Norms are not preferences they are artifacts of the process of evolutionary cooperation according to prejudices (pre-judgements). Given that human beings universally eschew involuntary transfer, in every possible culture and circumstance, and will act twice as hard to punish it as they will for their own interest, its clear that it’s not a purely subjective phenomenon. And in fact it is a necessary phenomenon which genetics must eventually enforce. So while the arrangement of property rights and obligations in any set of norms may vary, the fact that humans observe norms out of prohibition on involuntary transfer is entirely objective. So, moral actions are only a preference in those cases where normative codes, like laws, are general proscriptions, and where for specific circumstances, one’s actions do not create an involuntary transfer. Moral codes may correctly or incorrectly constituted at any given moment (because they are intergenerational habits and must be constantly re-tested by each generation). But as long as they are prohibitions on involuntary transfers, then they are in fact, objective. If members of a group observe a set of norms, and by observing those norms, forgo opportunities for gratification or self interest, then they have in fact paid for those norms. If others do not pay for those norms, and constrain themselves to signaling, then that’s not an involuntary transfer.if however, others choose to sieze opportunities created by the normative sacrifice of others, then that’s theft, plain and simple. This is a quick treatment of one of mankind’s most challenging topics, but hopefully it will at least give you a few ideas. – Curt BTW: ALSO a) an action is a demonstrated preference. b) a preference is a demonstrated bias c) a bias may or may not be subject to cognition d) a habit is not subject to cognition, thats’ the value of them. They’re cheap. e) a normative habit is rarely understood, but almost universally practiced. Which is the reason we even have this conversation in the first place. f) a metaphysical bias is not subject to cognition, it’s almost never understood by anyone in any culture.