Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHAT MORAL RULES DO YOU USE IN GLOBAL STRATEGY? (anti-russian pro-conflict warni

    WHAT MORAL RULES DO YOU USE IN GLOBAL STRATEGY?

    (anti-russian pro-conflict warning) (i warned you)

    I don’t understand why Crimea can’t be an independent country. I view voluntary secession as an inviolable human right of free association. I don’t understand why Crimea, which has been a Russian asset for a very long time, cannot choose to join Russia. I completely understand why Russia’s internal security requires the Crimean warm water ports.

    But that is very different from taking it by force. Especially when it could have been leased or purchased outright, and a referendum constructed that would easily have been possible by merely negotiating a discount on gas with Ukraine.

    If Russia cannot be a good world citizen, the the only alternative, is to yet again, militarily punish Russia; and to keep punishing Russia economically and politically every few generations until it learns to be a good world citizen. Fascination with the quality of life of one’s citizens, stable borders, and plentiful trade: period. Not restoration of the Caliphate or the Soviet Empire. The world needs far more smaller states not bigger ones, whose only value is the ability to conduct of war.

    We have spent five-hundred years of blood and treasure incompetently but steadily dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty. And we have spent spent the past twenty years building commercial ties and dependence the post-soviet sphere and the west, in the hope of bringing Russia into the modern word of prosperity.

    Because a militaristic and totalitarian Russia is intolerable to the west.

    Because while a German-Russian partnership, where both countries Suppress corruption, share resources and skills, is an asset to both the world and the west, and allows the american empire to contract – – while a Europe held hostage by a totalitarian Russia is a strategic impossibility for both america

    The only way to prevent energy being used as a weapon is to conquer or colonize the source of the energy.

    So, if Russia has given up on the respect for boundaries, maybe the west should give up on respect for boundaries, and colonize Moscow and Russian resources.

    Just drive them into poverty yet again, collapse their economy. And acknowledge that Russia is not ready willing and able to enter the modern world on its own.

    And it’s self defense to leave that kind of government in your back yard.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 15:06:00 UTC

  • THE IMMORALITY OF PACIFIST LIBERTARIANISM Pacifist (peasant and merchant) libert

    THE IMMORALITY OF PACIFIST LIBERTARIANISM

    Pacifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty.

    Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence.

    Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language.

    We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy.

    The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty.

    The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense.

    Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard.

    For millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them.

    Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them.

    That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 10:05:00 UTC

  • THE END OF MORAL INTUITIONISM AND THE RISE OF MORAL REALISM (meaningful) Most ph

    THE END OF MORAL INTUITIONISM AND THE RISE OF MORAL REALISM

    (meaningful)

    Most philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms.

    That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism.

    But if propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases.

    That means an end to moral intuitionism.

    Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations.

    And that is why we need formal logics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 12:44:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS: TERNARY ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN ETHICS vs BINAR

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS: TERNARY ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN ETHICS vs BINARY GHETTO ETHICS

    The first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff.

    If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff.

    If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff.

    It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange.

    You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence.

    The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary.

    It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence.

    The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior.

    But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea.

    But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary.

    So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding.

    Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies.

    It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less.

    We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 11:48:00 UTC

  • Improving Hoppe's Origin Of Human Cooperation

    –“Human cooperation is the result of three factors: the differences among men and/or the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production; the higher productivity achieved under the division of labor based on the mutual recognition of private property (the exclusive control of every man over his own body and his physical appropriations and possessions) as compared to either self-sufficient isolation or aggression, plunder and domination; and the human ability to recognize this latter fact. “– Hoppe – “NATURAL ORDER, THE STATE, AND THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM”

    [I]’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the result of these properties:

    • 1) the differences in abilities among men.
      2) the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production.
      3) the local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
      4) the local structure of the family and inheritance rights.
      5) the distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
      6) the degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
      7) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
      8) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
      9) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.
      10) The recognition of these facts. (I question whether this last one is true.)

    CONVERTING HOPPE FROM CONTINENTAL TO EMPIRICAL [T]he more work I do the more I come to see my work as converting hoppe’s Continental arguments into Anglo Empirical arguments. Just like Hoppe converted Rothbard’s Cosmopolitan arguments into more rigorous continental language. [callout]The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will.[/callout] I think a few people have caught on to what I mean when I say that Hoppe got most everything right. He just didn’t get to the CAUSE of liberty. He was able to deduce all the applications of property rights, but not it’s cause. I got to its cause. The organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms, and the grant of property rights reciprocally to those who thusly applied their violence. Understanding the cause changes our tactic in obtaining and maintaining liberty. You don’t appeal for it. You demand it. If your demands aren’t met you take it. The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will. Property rights are a moral conspiracy so to speak.

  • Improving Hoppe’s Origin Of Human Cooperation

    –“Human cooperation is the result of three factors: the differences among men and/or the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production; the higher productivity achieved under the division of labor based on the mutual recognition of private property (the exclusive control of every man over his own body and his physical appropriations and possessions) as compared to either self-sufficient isolation or aggression, plunder and domination; and the human ability to recognize this latter fact. “– Hoppe – “NATURAL ORDER, THE STATE, AND THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM”

    [I]’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the result of these properties:

    • 1) the differences in abilities among men.
      2) the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production.
      3) the local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
      4) the local structure of the family and inheritance rights.
      5) the distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
      6) the degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
      7) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
      8) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
      9) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.
      10) The recognition of these facts. (I question whether this last one is true.)

    CONVERTING HOPPE FROM CONTINENTAL TO EMPIRICAL [T]he more work I do the more I come to see my work as converting hoppe’s Continental arguments into Anglo Empirical arguments. Just like Hoppe converted Rothbard’s Cosmopolitan arguments into more rigorous continental language. [callout]The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will.[/callout] I think a few people have caught on to what I mean when I say that Hoppe got most everything right. He just didn’t get to the CAUSE of liberty. He was able to deduce all the applications of property rights, but not it’s cause. I got to its cause. The organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms, and the grant of property rights reciprocally to those who thusly applied their violence. Understanding the cause changes our tactic in obtaining and maintaining liberty. You don’t appeal for it. You demand it. If your demands aren’t met you take it. The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will. Property rights are a moral conspiracy so to speak.

  • Good Economics and Bad Economics / Good Philosophy and Bad Philosophy

    [I] love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions. Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality. Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods. In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’. Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science. There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.

  • Good Economics and Bad Economics / Good Philosophy and Bad Philosophy

    [I] love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions. Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality. Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods. In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’. Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science. There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.

  • Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

    Contrary to rhetoric it is, indeed, a ponzi scheme, which is defined as early entrants are paid by later entrants under the assumption that there will always be enough new entrants to pay for each person exiting. 

    It’s not insurance because Insurance works by a lot of people giving a little bit of money to an investor who invests the money at a reasonable rate of return, then pays out to some small percent of people in the event that a few of them actually need a lot of money.   That is not the case, since all of us both enter and leave.

    When social security was conceived, people didn’t live very long. It was in fact, at that time, insurance.  But as we have lived much longer, we are confronted with the problem that old people are still not very useful in the work force, and it’s hard for them to work at even small jobs as they age, and we have smaller population growth and a smaller population who must sacrifice more and more of their incomes to pay for aged people who live much longer and have very high health care costs.

    To compensate for this problem, western countries have brought in large numbers of immigrants in order to increase the number of working people, But this has in turn created cultural friction as the only people that can be brought into the country are largely the poor from the third world, who are much less productive per person than the prior generations. 

    The counter argument is that people should be forced to save, even if we redistributed money via taxation to people’s savings accounts. Then this money could be insured by the government, and people could actually plan.

    There are numerous arithmetic arguments to suggest that it is possible to perpetuate this scheme indefinitely, but they are heavily biased with assumptions. The reason is that most of our economic data starts with the postwar era, And economic data before that time, with the colonial period. And it is not certain that our country can remain competitive.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Social-Security-a-Ponzi-scheme

  • Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

    Contrary to rhetoric it is, indeed, a ponzi scheme, which is defined as early entrants are paid by later entrants under the assumption that there will always be enough new entrants to pay for each person exiting. 

    It’s not insurance because Insurance works by a lot of people giving a little bit of money to an investor who invests the money at a reasonable rate of return, then pays out to some small percent of people in the event that a few of them actually need a lot of money.   That is not the case, since all of us both enter and leave.

    When social security was conceived, people didn’t live very long. It was in fact, at that time, insurance.  But as we have lived much longer, we are confronted with the problem that old people are still not very useful in the work force, and it’s hard for them to work at even small jobs as they age, and we have smaller population growth and a smaller population who must sacrifice more and more of their incomes to pay for aged people who live much longer and have very high health care costs.

    To compensate for this problem, western countries have brought in large numbers of immigrants in order to increase the number of working people, But this has in turn created cultural friction as the only people that can be brought into the country are largely the poor from the third world, who are much less productive per person than the prior generations. 

    The counter argument is that people should be forced to save, even if we redistributed money via taxation to people’s savings accounts. Then this money could be insured by the government, and people could actually plan.

    There are numerous arithmetic arguments to suggest that it is possible to perpetuate this scheme indefinitely, but they are heavily biased with assumptions. The reason is that most of our economic data starts with the postwar era, And economic data before that time, with the colonial period. And it is not certain that our country can remain competitive.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Social-Security-a-Ponzi-scheme