Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE DIBILITATING LIBERTARIAN DEPENDENCE ON ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTARIANISM AND THE NA

    http://c4ss.org/content/23175ENDING THE DIBILITATING LIBERTARIAN DEPENDENCE ON ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTARIANISM AND THE NAP

    All,

    *Ending the debilitating libertarian dependence on Rothbardian Libertarianism and the NAP.*

    There is a very great difference between a general rule of thumb, and the necessary basis for a body of law whose properties are reducible to property rights, that are sufficient for the resolution of conflicts between individuals, such that they do not desire an authority to resolve or prevent conflicts via means other than the law reducible to property rights. Furthermore, the means of violation of a persons’ property is not, as Hoppe has demonstrated, important, but instead, the definition of property regardless of how it is violated. To define property by aggression is to confuse cause and consequence. Aggression (NAP) against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) as the basis for the law and resolution of disputes, is not only insufficient in the coverage of human disputes that require resolution, but NAP/IVP licenses deception and externalities, and prohibits retaliation for deception (unethical) and externalities(immoral). Meaning that objectively, the NAP/IVP licenses deception(unethical) and externalized (immoral) actions. The fact that very few human beings seem to be able to rationally articulate that NAP/IVP is immoral, or that Aggression is an insufficient prohibition for constraining unethical and immoral trade, or that defining property by means of prohibition rather than its origin as human action is non-logical, doesn’t seem to alter the fact, that the majority of humans simply intuit that something is ‘wrong’ with Rothbardian Libertarian Ethics.

    Jan Lester has taken the logical route to define property as logically reflecting human actions, and quite nearly found the correct answer with ‘imposed costs’ – at least he has been closer than anyone else. However, as we have stated above, we must reduce imposed costs, up what precisely? We must have a definition of property to impose costs against. (He does, but it’s not sufficient either – and will clarify in a moment.)

    So how do we define property that can be transgressed against; upon which we prohibit the imposition of costs; and limit legal transfers to and from, to voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange?

    We can try to rely upon reason, or we can instead, look empirically at what is necessary for the elimination of demand for the state. My first question is, how do we eliminate the state, by eliminating demand for the state? It is not “what should we ask people to believe?” But what basis of organic law is sufficient for elimination of demand for the state as either a suppressor of unethical and immoral action, or a suppressor of retaliation for unethical and immoral actions, regardless of what people believe or desire.

    Now, while It is difficult to imagine people wanting to enter into contracts that permit unethical behavior, if people want to enter into contracts that license various forms of immoral behavior, then that is entirely permissible – in fact it is desirable. It allows us to ‘trade’ immoralities between classes. It sets terms and limits on immoral behavior, gives contractual license, but does not redefine the fact that immoral behavior is in fact, the involuntary transfer, or consumption, of paid in capital, or the ‘imposition of costs’ upon others. As such contractual exchange allows us to conduct voluntary exchanges of ‘immoral behavior’ via market means. When no other such means of exchange is possible. So if you were to choose some normative violation, as long as you exchanged contractual terms with some other class, an exchange occurs, not a violation of property rights.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 05:47:00 UTC

  • KILLER ROBOTS – YUP. GONNA HAPPEN. I”m not sure where this killer robot chatter

    KILLER ROBOTS – YUP. GONNA HAPPEN.

    I”m not sure where this killer robot chatter is coming from – drones maybe. But the military already disallows autonomous killing machines. Now, I worked on this stuff a bit a long time ago. And you really don’t want these things just killing all observable life forms. Which is pretty easy really. It’s discriminating between those things you DO want to kill and those you DON”T want to kill that’s computationally hard. Not much in the world looks and acts like human form. They’re easy to find. Now, If you’re a government that has some sort of moral legitimacy claim that is a material constraint. But you know, doomsday robots – things that kill every living thing are not very different from nuclear weapons. They’re politically intolerable in use but politically beneficial in possession. Personally, I think they’re not only going to happen but will happen. The moral constraint is that you can’t enable them to reproduce. It’s not that they kill all life forms. It’s that they become a life form when they engage in reproduction. So I kind of think we’re going to see autonomous killing machines. Because like nuclear weapons, there just too good NOT to have them. Bats are perfect for example. You can’t cognitively process what they’re doing, They don’t have to be fast in a straight line, you just can’t mentally compete with their tactics. (We used to hunt them with tennis rackets).

    The problem with something like bats is energy density. We don’t have an answer for that yet. So we’re going to see more vulnerable and slower technology first. (go karts or large arachnids with grenades and machine guns.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-15 13:44:00 UTC

  • Sorry. But I Like Church.

    Sorry. But I like church. I like monumental architecture. I like Catholic pageantry. I like Protestant ceremony. I wish we still ‘stood and voiced our minds’. I prefer the heroic pagan ethos to that of christian suffering. I prefer the historical narrative of Athens to that of Babylonian mysticism. But mostly I like the whole listening and singing and chanting together thing – because for a few minutes each week I get to feel part of an enormous extended family – a big, safe, pack. It has never bothered me that some people do not distinguish between mystical allegory and historical fact, while others fail to grasp the value of mystical allegory as more accessible, less subject to human error, and less fragile than reason. The reason that religion can be a problem is because we can, especially under democracy, use government to apply violence based upon on mythological principles, rather than use religion as a means of including others in our manners, ethics, morals, myths and rituals so that we extend kinship trust to those who are not our kin, and to ostracize those who will not adopt those manners, ethics, morals, myths and rituals. Not because myths and rituals are true, but because the cost of observing those myths and rituals is evidence of one’s commitment to his moral kin. Secular ratio-scientific education provides us with myths, but few and infrequent rituals, and ignores the necessity to pay costs to demonstrate and adhere to kinship trust that facilitates the extension of kinship trust. Consumerism is a nice temporary alternative to kin, but it’s a devil’s bargain. We are lost and lonely at the end of that selfish satisfaction.

  • Sorry. But I Like Church.

    Sorry. But I like church. I like monumental architecture. I like Catholic pageantry. I like Protestant ceremony. I wish we still ‘stood and voiced our minds’. I prefer the heroic pagan ethos to that of christian suffering. I prefer the historical narrative of Athens to that of Babylonian mysticism. But mostly I like the whole listening and singing and chanting together thing – because for a few minutes each week I get to feel part of an enormous extended family – a big, safe, pack. It has never bothered me that some people do not distinguish between mystical allegory and historical fact, while others fail to grasp the value of mystical allegory as more accessible, less subject to human error, and less fragile than reason. The reason that religion can be a problem is because we can, especially under democracy, use government to apply violence based upon on mythological principles, rather than use religion as a means of including others in our manners, ethics, morals, myths and rituals so that we extend kinship trust to those who are not our kin, and to ostracize those who will not adopt those manners, ethics, morals, myths and rituals. Not because myths and rituals are true, but because the cost of observing those myths and rituals is evidence of one’s commitment to his moral kin. Secular ratio-scientific education provides us with myths, but few and infrequent rituals, and ignores the necessity to pay costs to demonstrate and adhere to kinship trust that facilitates the extension of kinship trust. Consumerism is a nice temporary alternative to kin, but it’s a devil’s bargain. We are lost and lonely at the end of that selfish satisfaction.

  • FOUR LEGAL MODELS AND BLACKMAIL Given that necessary morality is objectively def

    FOUR LEGAL MODELS AND BLACKMAIL

    Given that necessary morality is objectively defined (in-group cooperation: the prohibition on free riding), and unnecessary moral rules are defined (in-group signals and rituals) and out-group cooperation is also defined (rothbardian ethics – the ethics of states) we can look at four possible permutations of representing the causes of criminal, ethical and moral in-group conflict under different legal prohibitions:

    1) ILLEGAL or LEGAL and NON-MORAL: If two people want to engage in blackmail, but the victim doesn’t want to prosecute, then there is no crime, because without a state there is no one else to make the claim of wrongdoing.

    2) ILLEGAL: If blackmail is illegal, because it is immoral, and the party wants to sue, he can.

    3) LEGAL: If it is not illegal but it is immoral, then the victim has no other recourse but violence.

    I do not see how one can claim innocence if one aggresses via blackmail, then is murdered for his aggression.

    4) MINIMUM LEGAL SCOPE, FREEDOM OUTSIDE THAT SCOPE. So that means the fourth scenario is that violence is of course always available as a means of settling unethical and immoral conflicts. So the law can only be used for rothbardian levels of conflict (crime) and violence remains available for unethical and immoral actions.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 13:17:00 UTC

  • Dear government. We aren’t cooperating any longer. You and me, I mean. You aren’

    Dear government.

    We aren’t cooperating any longer.

    You and me, I mean.

    You aren’t helping us cooperate.

    Me and my fellow man, I mean.

    Instead, you put us into conflict.

    Then you tax and fine me,

    For resolving a conflict,

    That you created.

    And so many conflicts,

    and so many fees,

    That, now you’re farming me.

    Like a farm animal.

    Like a slave.

    So, sorry.

    The deal is off.

    I withdraw my consent.

    I take back my right of violence.

    I take back my sovereignty.

    I know what you think:

    I have no choice.

    And, we have no choice.

    But we do.

    We have a bunch of choices:

    Some of us will leave.

    Some of us will check out.

    Some of us will just ride it out

    Some of us will rebel.

    Some of us will depose you.

    And some of us will kill you.

    The virtuous use of violence.

    A return to rule of law.

    A return to liberty.

    A return to nobility.

    A return to aristocracy.

    The love of liberty.

    The cult of sovereignty.

    The religion of non-submission.

    The government of law not men.

    One has freedom of his own choosing.

    Or one merely has permission.

    Welcome to the new revolution.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 10:31:00 UTC

  • Why Does The Belief Exist That The Usa Is A Conservative Country?

    Asking who wins versus the vote distribution is confusing you. Our votes are polarized between right and left, and must be since these two views are in direct competition.

    If american had a european mulit-party parliamentary system rather than just two choices our government would be very different, and it is likely that compromises would be achieved. However, the american system favors extremes because the party in power has really, too much power.

    Europeans invented hard right politics. And had a war over it.  European progressivism comes from (a) multiple homogenous local nations that act like extended families, (b) the collapse of european self-confidence during the wars (the second time since the 30 years war) (c) because europe is not required to pay for, or perform it’s own defense.

    Americans have always been somewhat heterogeneous, a virtual island (like britain and australia), have had confidence, and are self-defending.  On top of that (a) we follow the anglo absolute nuclear family model, (b) the culture is pure commercialism at its core, and (c) we are very heterogeneous.

    Both european and american models are collapsing right now due to a century of postwar bad judgement, but the seriousness of that collapse is only now becoming visible. Which is why the academics have abandoned the taboo and started writing about it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-belief-exist-that-the-USA-is-a-conservative-country

  • Why Does The Belief Exist That The Usa Is A Conservative Country?

    Asking who wins versus the vote distribution is confusing you. Our votes are polarized between right and left, and must be since these two views are in direct competition.

    If american had a european mulit-party parliamentary system rather than just two choices our government would be very different, and it is likely that compromises would be achieved. However, the american system favors extremes because the party in power has really, too much power.

    Europeans invented hard right politics. And had a war over it.  European progressivism comes from (a) multiple homogenous local nations that act like extended families, (b) the collapse of european self-confidence during the wars (the second time since the 30 years war) (c) because europe is not required to pay for, or perform it’s own defense.

    Americans have always been somewhat heterogeneous, a virtual island (like britain and australia), have had confidence, and are self-defending.  On top of that (a) we follow the anglo absolute nuclear family model, (b) the culture is pure commercialism at its core, and (c) we are very heterogeneous.

    Both european and american models are collapsing right now due to a century of postwar bad judgement, but the seriousness of that collapse is only now becoming visible. Which is why the academics have abandoned the taboo and started writing about it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-belief-exist-that-the-USA-is-a-conservative-country

  • How Is Anarchism A Functional System For A Country?

    Anarchism depends upon rule of law, where the only law is private property, as the only formal institution of social order.  As far as we know this is the minimum requirement for the formation of a division of labor, trade, and contracts, and therefore an economy, wherein people possess a peaceful means for the resolution of disputes.

    For an homogenous outbred people with secure borders experiencing limited rates of change, there is no reason that this system cannot work, but only in rare cases does it work. 

    The problem we see in most of history, is that it has been hard for these groups to deny others the ability to impose a government.

    In modern times, it has become extremely difficult to compete economically without the organization of a body that can tax and produce commons (infrastructure).   This does not mean that it cannot be done by private means. Only that it is rare that it is.

    There is nothing terribly novel about anarchism other than the idea that it would exist outside of a ‘tribal’ polity.

    https://www.quora.com/How-is-anarchism-a-functional-system-for-a-country

  • How Is Anarchism A Functional System For A Country?

    Anarchism depends upon rule of law, where the only law is private property, as the only formal institution of social order.  As far as we know this is the minimum requirement for the formation of a division of labor, trade, and contracts, and therefore an economy, wherein people possess a peaceful means for the resolution of disputes.

    For an homogenous outbred people with secure borders experiencing limited rates of change, there is no reason that this system cannot work, but only in rare cases does it work. 

    The problem we see in most of history, is that it has been hard for these groups to deny others the ability to impose a government.

    In modern times, it has become extremely difficult to compete economically without the organization of a body that can tax and produce commons (infrastructure).   This does not mean that it cannot be done by private means. Only that it is rare that it is.

    There is nothing terribly novel about anarchism other than the idea that it would exist outside of a ‘tribal’ polity.

    https://www.quora.com/How-is-anarchism-a-functional-system-for-a-country