Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Contra Locke on Self Ownership

    Guest Post by Michael Phillip

    [L]ocke’s argument starts with the notion that we own ourselves. It does not rest on us being the creation of our own labour, but a notion of self-ownership. By “mixing our labour” with things acquired from nature we “create” property by a process of extension of our self-ownership.

    There are a series of problems with this argument. First, if we own ourselves, do we really think that we can therefore sell ourselves, either entire or by amputation and alienation of bits? And, if not, in what sense is this ownership? Is there not something perverse about a concept which implies an acceptable separation of our physical self (in whole or in part) from ourself.

    To be property is to be owned by something that is not itself and which can be passed on to others. So, to be property, even of ourself, is to be lessened from what we feel is the proper status of being a moral agent.

    A notion of self-dominion makes more sense; we control ourselves and property extends from that control. By taking some unowned thing from nature, we assert control over it; it is the assertion and acceptance of control which creates property.

    As ever, slavery provides a limiting case. The institution of slavery contradicts Locke’s notion that we own ourselves. Slavery is morally obnoxious (a violation of self-dominion, and so human autonomy, in the most profound sense) but it does not make slaves any less property. It is the acknowledged assertion of control over the slave that creates slavery, not the labour of the slaveowner (even if it is directed to that end) extending the slaver’s self-ownership to cover the slave.

    Do we really think that the process of enslaving is a process of the slaver “mixing their labour” with the slave? Surely not; neither as a description nor as some act of legitimation. No amount of applied labour by the slaver makes slavery legitimate nor is it what makes slaves property.

    The process of enslaving is a process of getting acknowledged control over the slave. The more difficulty involved, the more the slaver has to act to do so, but the effort required does not affect any “level” of being property, merely whether it is worth the bother.

    Locke’s use of the term ‘labour’ directs attention to the effort and not to what is being effected. (Hence the connection to the labour theory of value, which makes the same error.)



    Note: My position is that the necessity of cooperation determines property, not self owenrship. Michael (as usual) is correct. – Curt

  • Contra Locke on Self Ownership

    Guest Post by Michael Phillip

    [L]ocke’s argument starts with the notion that we own ourselves. It does not rest on us being the creation of our own labour, but a notion of self-ownership. By “mixing our labour” with things acquired from nature we “create” property by a process of extension of our self-ownership.

    There are a series of problems with this argument. First, if we own ourselves, do we really think that we can therefore sell ourselves, either entire or by amputation and alienation of bits? And, if not, in what sense is this ownership? Is there not something perverse about a concept which implies an acceptable separation of our physical self (in whole or in part) from ourself.

    To be property is to be owned by something that is not itself and which can be passed on to others. So, to be property, even of ourself, is to be lessened from what we feel is the proper status of being a moral agent.

    A notion of self-dominion makes more sense; we control ourselves and property extends from that control. By taking some unowned thing from nature, we assert control over it; it is the assertion and acceptance of control which creates property.

    As ever, slavery provides a limiting case. The institution of slavery contradicts Locke’s notion that we own ourselves. Slavery is morally obnoxious (a violation of self-dominion, and so human autonomy, in the most profound sense) but it does not make slaves any less property. It is the acknowledged assertion of control over the slave that creates slavery, not the labour of the slaveowner (even if it is directed to that end) extending the slaver’s self-ownership to cover the slave.

    Do we really think that the process of enslaving is a process of the slaver “mixing their labour” with the slave? Surely not; neither as a description nor as some act of legitimation. No amount of applied labour by the slaver makes slavery legitimate nor is it what makes slaves property.

    The process of enslaving is a process of getting acknowledged control over the slave. The more difficulty involved, the more the slaver has to act to do so, but the effort required does not affect any “level” of being property, merely whether it is worth the bother.

    Locke’s use of the term ‘labour’ directs attention to the effort and not to what is being effected. (Hence the connection to the labour theory of value, which makes the same error.)



    Note: My position is that the necessity of cooperation determines property, not self owenrship. Michael (as usual) is correct. – Curt

  • Against Reverse Racism

    Guest Post by Michael Phillip

    I don’t think “reverse racism” is a useful or even entirely coherent concept, and I don’t think thought-experiments are a particularly helpful way to think about racism in the first place: in my view, something about the subject demands an “ecological” or “in vivo” rather than thought-experimental approach.

    In other words, the topic demands engagement with the living, breathing complexity of real-live experiences of racism, not with thought-experiments that abstract away from them.

    I also think that if the topic is racism, as it should be, focusing on black-white relations in the U.S. is overly narrow, and problematically distortive of our thinking.

    It doesn’t even capture race relations in the U.S., much less race relations beyond American borders.

  • Against Reverse Racism

    Guest Post by Michael Phillip

    I don’t think “reverse racism” is a useful or even entirely coherent concept, and I don’t think thought-experiments are a particularly helpful way to think about racism in the first place: in my view, something about the subject demands an “ecological” or “in vivo” rather than thought-experimental approach.

    In other words, the topic demands engagement with the living, breathing complexity of real-live experiences of racism, not with thought-experiments that abstract away from them.

    I also think that if the topic is racism, as it should be, focusing on black-white relations in the U.S. is overly narrow, and problematically distortive of our thinking.

    It doesn’t even capture race relations in the U.S., much less race relations beyond American borders.

  • REFUTING A HOPPEIAN FALLACY: RIGHT TO VALUE Regarding: –“a common mistaken beli

    REFUTING A HOPPEIAN FALLACY: RIGHT TO VALUE

    Regarding:

    http://kinsella.liberty.me/2011/06/12/hoppe-on-property-rights-in-physical-integrity-vs-value/

    –“a common mistaken belief is that one has a property right in the value, as opposed to the physical integrity of, one’s property.”–

    Corrected:

    Oothers cannot promise you that the value of any property will remain constant.

    –“the basis of many fallacious notions of property rights, such as the idea that there is a right to a reputation because it can have value.”–

    This is unclear at best, false under scrutiny. I can, and do value my reputation; and my reputation demonstrably has value to me and to others. But that is not to say that I can control that reputation – it is information. Only that I may act to claim restitution for the use of false statements in the actions of defamation, libel and slander. Just as I cannot claim to control the market price of an asset, but I can act to protect against others damage to it.

    –“According to this understanding of private property,”–

    That statement contains no truth proposition. It posits a straw man as a means of criticism. This is a marxist technique developed in the art of deceptive argument we call “Critique”. The author posits a straw man as a vehicle for criticism of an opposing position rather than defending one’s proposition as incontrovertibly true. (See Rockwell’s most recent book which promises an hypothesis but never delivers, just consists of chapter after chapter of critique.)

    –“property ownership means the exclusive control of a particular person over specific physical objects and spaces.”–

    -and-

    —“property rights invasion means the uninvited physical damage or diminution of things and territories owned by other persons.”–

    There is no evidence of this anywhere in the world. Humans demonstrate universally that they consider the following categories of relations their property: physical and mental, kin, allies and useful relations, and private property, corporeal property, common property, and normative property.

    So to state that any definition of property is other than those demonstrated by man requires that we define some utility – some purpose, for which we select some subset of demonstrated property to be enforced by consent (under law); or even that some subset of demonstrated property is only possible to enforce by consent under law. But we cannot without dishonesty state that the definition of property is other than that which is demonstrated by man to be evidentially categorized as property.

    As for the entire paragraph: –“According to this understanding … …complete ignorance of others’ subjective valuations.”–

    It is difficult to tell if this is a disingenuous argument, an incomplete argument, or a mistaken argument. Why?

    Let’s start with what humans demonstrate to be non-parasitic beneficial cooperation: the prevention of imposed costs (what term free-riding) expressed as the requirements for: (a) Productive, (b) Fully informed, (c) Warrantied, (d) Voluntary Exchange free of (e) Negative Externality.

    In various polities, one or more of these attributes can be violated for the purpose of practical expediency. The less conformity to these properties the lower the trust and slower the economic velocity, and the greater conformity the higher the trust and higher economic velocity. And this is in fact what we see.

    Now, why do people tolerate competition on price, when competition on price causes losses? Well, they don’t. In fact, it was very hard to break natural ‘price’ cartels, and in many agrarian cultures the trend persists. Humans naturally seem to tolerate competition on quality but not on price.

    Early market owners understood by practice what we have learned through the study of economics: that competition forces positive incentives to innovate, which rewards all consumers while increasing stress on producers. Just as we have learned that suppression of unethical and immoral activity increases trust.

    So, now lets look at Hoppe’s argument: he talks about the market effects that we cannot control, and that we had to learn are positive consequences of what we may intuit as unethical and immoral.

    But he falsely categorizes ALL activity under the EXCEPTION of competition – which produces beneficial externalities, instead of under the RULE of the prevention of free riding – which we evolved as cooperative organisms to prevent negative actions and externalities. He conflates the minor exception with the major rule.

    So his argument is either dishonest or false: just because we cannot control and do not want to control prices, does not mean that we cannot control and do not want to control criminal, immoral, and unethical actions, particularly those actions which impose costs upon one another.

    Just as we bear a cost by forgoing opportunities for personal gain by engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial behavior, and in doing so we construct property rights, we bear the cost of forgoing opportunities for prosecution of competition on prices in order to create the normative incentive, and the consumer economy.

    As such, price competition is the exception to moral intuition, not the rule from which moral intuition can be deduced. Period.

    Furthermore, since prices are the exception to the prohibition on parasitism necessary for the rational formation of cooperation and the abandonment of violence in exchange for the benefits of trade, all other non-price, non-production assets retain their prohibition on criminal, ethical, moral, and conspiratorial actions that cause the involuntary imposition of costs; and therefore the use of violence for the purpose of punishment and restoration is categorically ethical, moral, and rational. Because cooperation is not logical or in one’s interest, and violence is useful and necessary preference in order to prevent parasitism.

    The virtue of suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial imposition of costs other than those conducted under the constraints of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, exchange, is that individuals are forced exclusively into productive activity rather than parasitism. Whether that parasitism be physical, deceptive, indirect, or conspiratorial.

    By contrast, Rothbardian ethics, argue for the expressed legalization of unethical, immoral, conspiratorial parasitism, because such moral rules, embodied in law, by logical necessity, legalize and prohibit retaliation for unproductive, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, actions.

    Quod erat demonstrandum.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    December 2014

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-05 04:52:00 UTC

  • Racism Is Curable: By Eliminating Demand for It

    RACISM AND REVERSE RACISM: OR PERHAPS IT’S TRIVIALLY SIMPLE AND SUCH DISCUSSION IS DISHONEST

    In response to Matt Zwolinski : http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/11/on-reverse-racism-three-thought-experiments/

    [F]acts:

    1) The distribution of physical desirability for mating, the demonstrated behaviors of impulsivity and time preference, aggression, and demonstrated intelligence vary between individuals. (true)
    2) The social classes are organized by these distributions due to reproductive desirability, status utility, and cooperative (economic) utility. (true)
    3) The races demonstrate different relative distributions of these classes. (true)
    4) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in mating, neighborhoods, friendship, social organizations, and business organizations. (true).
    5) The norms demonstrated by racial groups reflect behavior at the mean (true). This means lower trust, less intelligent groups must compete against norms in groups with higher trust and higher intelligent groups. (true). It also means that the group that holds dominant political power, and biases toward their norms, determines the economic velocity of the entire polity (true).
    6) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in voting (true).
    7) INABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges limits political competition and conflict, whereas ABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges increases political competition and conflict. (true)
    8) Economic Wealth reduces dependence upon kin for mutual insurance under kin selection. (true). Economic stress increases dependence upon kin for mutual insurance via kin selection. (true)
    9) The difference between economic, political, social, reproductive and status success of one race or another is due to the distribution of superior talents versus inferior liabilities of the members of those races – plus normative factors, the most important of which is in-group trust, and the second is the degree of the suppression of free riding. (true)
    10) As such the only reason for racism is the rates of reproduction between the classes. And the only possible means of achieving equality in any and all cases is to suppress the reproduction of the lower classes of the races whose distribution is bottom weighted.
    11) It is non-rational to treat unknown individuals who are visually indistinguishable by other than the properties of their peer groups. (true) (which is what people do). One cannot both demand rational action, defend Praxeology, and deny this statement.
    12) Equality is achievable and desirable in just four generations. But it is upward reproductive redistribution that must mach downward economic redistribution for equality to be possible. If china can do this so can the rest of the world.

    Otherwise, it is non-rational for people with higher reproductive desirability, lower impulsivity, lower aggression, and higher intelligence to tolerate political competition from those who are less desirable and in the net, parasitic, just as it is politically preferable to compete via parasitism if one is less desirable at the bottom.

    Human beings are not unique and precious snowflakes. It is only that disregard for life is a moral hazard. The fact that mothers MUST believe their dysgenic offspring are precious is an evolutionary convenience, not a demonstrable fact.

    The purpose of science is quite often to force us to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. Equality is not a problem of belief (lying), but one of fact (truth).

    Try not to lie.

    It hurts the discipline of philosophy. It hurts mankind.


  • Racism Is Curable: By Eliminating Demand for It

    RACISM AND REVERSE RACISM: OR PERHAPS IT’S TRIVIALLY SIMPLE AND SUCH DISCUSSION IS DISHONEST

    In response to Matt Zwolinski : http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/11/on-reverse-racism-three-thought-experiments/

    [F]acts:

    1) The distribution of physical desirability for mating, the demonstrated behaviors of impulsivity and time preference, aggression, and demonstrated intelligence vary between individuals. (true)
    2) The social classes are organized by these distributions due to reproductive desirability, status utility, and cooperative (economic) utility. (true)
    3) The races demonstrate different relative distributions of these classes. (true)
    4) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in mating, neighborhoods, friendship, social organizations, and business organizations. (true).
    5) The norms demonstrated by racial groups reflect behavior at the mean (true). This means lower trust, less intelligent groups must compete against norms in groups with higher trust and higher intelligent groups. (true). It also means that the group that holds dominant political power, and biases toward their norms, determines the economic velocity of the entire polity (true).
    6) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in voting (true).
    7) INABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges limits political competition and conflict, whereas ABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges increases political competition and conflict. (true)
    8) Economic Wealth reduces dependence upon kin for mutual insurance under kin selection. (true). Economic stress increases dependence upon kin for mutual insurance via kin selection. (true)
    9) The difference between economic, political, social, reproductive and status success of one race or another is due to the distribution of superior talents versus inferior liabilities of the members of those races – plus normative factors, the most important of which is in-group trust, and the second is the degree of the suppression of free riding. (true)
    10) As such the only reason for racism is the rates of reproduction between the classes. And the only possible means of achieving equality in any and all cases is to suppress the reproduction of the lower classes of the races whose distribution is bottom weighted.
    11) It is non-rational to treat unknown individuals who are visually indistinguishable by other than the properties of their peer groups. (true) (which is what people do). One cannot both demand rational action, defend Praxeology, and deny this statement.
    12) Equality is achievable and desirable in just four generations. But it is upward reproductive redistribution that must mach downward economic redistribution for equality to be possible. If china can do this so can the rest of the world.

    Otherwise, it is non-rational for people with higher reproductive desirability, lower impulsivity, lower aggression, and higher intelligence to tolerate political competition from those who are less desirable and in the net, parasitic, just as it is politically preferable to compete via parasitism if one is less desirable at the bottom.

    Human beings are not unique and precious snowflakes. It is only that disregard for life is a moral hazard. The fact that mothers MUST believe their dysgenic offspring are precious is an evolutionary convenience, not a demonstrable fact.

    The purpose of science is quite often to force us to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. Equality is not a problem of belief (lying), but one of fact (truth).

    Try not to lie.

    It hurts the discipline of philosophy. It hurts mankind.


  • CRITICIZING PUBLIC SPEAKER’S DEMANDS (cross posted for archival purposes) So and

    CRITICIZING PUBLIC SPEAKER’S DEMANDS

    (cross posted for archival purposes)

    So and so speaker, actress, musician, diva etc, demands these things from his/her hosts.

    You know, this stuff is pretty normal – its not demanding. When you come to talk somewhere they ASK YOU what you want for intelligent reasons. You write it into the agreement. For me I want apples, pears, bananas, coca cola, Evian. No local bottled water please. Coke is safe world-round, grapes contain allergens that set off my asthma, and other fruits are too challenging to be sure are safe. If I can’t eat local-anything, I can survive on Evian, fruit and coca cola for a few days – especially if I can find granola bars.

    If you haven’t lived your life in planes, airports, taxis and hotels over many time zones – and done so for extended periods, then you don’t really grasp how important it is to have ‘anchors’ – things that are familiar. I stay in five star hotels for an extra two or three hundred dollars a night. I fly business class. And I eat very carefully. Because otherwise I can’t PERFORM my function when people pay a LOT for you to perform your function. (and get really angry if you can’t.)

    Now if you’re just an average joe that doesn’t matter. But when people pay you real money for your time, and when their time is precious, the RISK of non-performance is a serious issue for everyone involved. So rooms that are away from elevators (noise) above a certain floor (noise) without the hindi-family next door (noise), where you can count on the heat, air-conditioning, and cleanliness (disease). Where fans, prostitutes, scam artists, paparazzi, thieves, and whatever are trying to put you on the defensive or get your scarce, tired, attention.

    So it’s not self appreciation that these things are meant to serve, but SELF PRESERVATION.

    Only privileged […insert derogatory….] who live life in a western-bubble fail to grasp this kind of thing.

    Anchors matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-29 05:35:00 UTC

  • AND REVERSE RACISM: OR PERHAPS IT’S TRIVIALLY SIMPLE AND SUCH DISCUSSION IS DISH

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/11/on-reverse-racism-three-thought-experiments/RACISM AND REVERSE RACISM: OR PERHAPS IT’S TRIVIALLY SIMPLE AND SUCH DISCUSSION IS DISHONEST

    1) The distribution of physical desirability for mating, the demonstrated behaviors of impulsivity and time preference, aggression, and demonstrated intelligence vary between individuals. (true)

    2) The social classes are organized by these distributions due to reproductive desirability, status utility, and cooperative (economic) utility. (true)

    3) The races demonstrate different relative distributions of these classes. (true)

    4) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in mating, neighborhoods, friendship, social organizations, and business organizations. (true).

    5) The norms demonstrated by racial groups reflect behavior at the mean (true). This means lower trust, less intelligent groups must compete against norms in groups with higher trust and higher intelligent groups. (true). It also means that the group that holds dominant political power, and biases toward their norms, determines the economic velocity of the entire polity (true).

    6) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in voting (true).

    7) INABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges limits political competition and conflict, whereas ABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges increases political competition and conflict. (true)

    8) Economic Wealth reduces dependence upon kin for mutual insurance under kin selection. (true). Economic stress increases dependence upon kin for mutual insurance via kin selection. (true)

    9) The difference between economic, political, social, reproductive and status success of one race or another is due to the distribution of superior talents versus inferior liabilities of the members of those races – plus normative factors, the most important of which is in-group trust, and the second is the degree of the suppression of free riding. (true)

    10) As such the only reason for racism is the rates of reproduction between the classes. And the only possible means of achieving equality in any and all cases is to suppress the reproduction of the lower classes of the races whose distribution is bottom weighted.

    11) It is non-rational to treat unknown individuals who are visually indistinguishable by other than the properties of their peer groups. (true) (which is what people do). One cannot both demand rational action, defend Praxeology, and deny this statement.

    12) Equality is achievable and desirable in just four generations. But it is upward reproductive redistribution that must mach downward economic redistribution for equality to be possible. If china can do this so can the rest of the world.

    Otherwise, it is non-rational for people with higher reproductive desirability, lower impulsivity, lower aggression, and higher intelligence to tolerate political competition from those who are less desirable and in the net, parasitic, just as it is politically preferable to compete via parasitism if one is less desirable at the bottom.

    Human beings are not unique and precious snowflakes. It is only that disregard for life is a moral hazard. The fact that mothers MUST believe their dysgenic offspring are precious is an evolutionary convenience, not a demonstrable fact.

    The purpose of science is quite often to force us to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. Equality is not a problem of belief (lying), but one of fact (truth).

    Try not to lie.

    It hurts the discipline of philosophy. It hurts mankind.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-29 03:20:00 UTC

  • THE COWARDICE AND INCOMPETENCE OF LIBERTINES (cross post) (example argument for

    THE COWARDICE AND INCOMPETENCE OF LIBERTINES

    (cross post) (example argument for use by others)

    James, Xander:

    Gossip: Ridicule, Rallying and Shaming: refuge of schoolgirls and libertines. Gossip is, after all, one of the three possible modes of human coercion. It is just the most dishonest. Force is honest. Exchange is honest. But gossip is not.

    Either construct an argument or admit that you cannot. That is what honest men do.

    But no. You see, Libertinism is merely a restatement of ghetto separatism – a feel good cult of incompetence for Pussy-tarians. Libertines. Free-riders on liberty created by the actions of others – the reason the liberty movement has failed.

    See? I even ridicule better than you do.

    So, do you want to stick to adult conversation, or are you going to jump up and down in your pink dress trying to rally real men to fight for you?

    Because that is the evolutionary origin of rallying and shaming.

    But it’s a hollow threat – libertines have no real men to call upon.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-28 04:01:00 UTC