Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE REFORMATION SIGNPOST: – NO ANGLO EQUALITARIANISM WANTED – NO GERMAN JUSTIFIC

    THE REFORMATION SIGNPOST:

    – NO ANGLO EQUALITARIANISM WANTED

    – NO GERMAN JUSTIFICATIONISM WANTED

    – NO JEWISH OBSCURANTISM WANTED

    WE ONLY PRACTICE TRUTH TELLING HERE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 04:16:00 UTC

  • “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

    “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 04:14:00 UTC

  • LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRA

    http://c4ss.org/content/37046ROD LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRATIONAL, AND AN IMMORAL JUSTIFICATION OF PARASITISM

    The argument against the NAP is that it is irrational for one to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect property rights – which themselves are the terms of cooperation – unless the suppression of aggression against one includes the total prohibition of aggression against all that I have paid for with non-aggressive actions.

    NAP, under intersubjectively verifiable property preserves all forms of deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking while prohibiting retaliation for deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking. And it is non-rational to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect for property of *any* kind, while deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking (in fact, all acts of aggression against that which one has non-aggressively acted to obtain) are not prohibited by the agreement to cooperate.

    Why this entirely irrational Rothbardian justification we call the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property (physical things) has survived is almost inconceivable until we recognize loading, framing, overloading, suggestion and cognitive biases plague both our arguments and our evaluation of them. And the fact that the argument itself persists, despite its irrationality, is in itself evidence of the necessity of prohibiting aggression through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion.

    For anarchic property rights to come into existence they can only exist as a mutual prohibition on aggression against all one has obtained through non-aggression.

    The American people have staked an electoral signage at every election booth: “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

    Liberty always has been, and only can be, the result of a total prohibition on aggression against all that one has obtained without aggression, the requirement for truthful speech, a requirement for warranty of one’s speech, and the requirement that we profit only from contribution to productivity.

    These are the minimum criterion under which cooperation is rational and the common organic, polycentric law is sufficient in scope to provide a means for the resolution of differences that demand for the state is eliminated.

    As far as I know this is the end of the argument and Rothbardian ethics, and the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property is a closed issue left open only as a desperate appeal by those with no new solution to the problem of the practical achievement of liberty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 03:37:00 UTC

  • EXAMPLE OF ROTHBARDIAN IMMORALITY: ROTHBARDIAN RENT SEEKING Under human moral in

    EXAMPLE OF ROTHBARDIAN IMMORALITY: ROTHBARDIAN RENT SEEKING

    Under human moral intuition, and therefore under Propertarianism, one cannot seek rents (engage in parasitism). Any profit must be obtained through an increase in productivity. That is because cooperation is irrational otherwise. And because property rights are the result of cooperation (not a natural law, not a gift of god, not a natural right, or any other such attempt at deception.)

    As such, ***unproductive profit is theft that is committed by the collection of economic rents on the institution of private property***. In other words, telcos can charge by volume but not by content. That is rent seeking. The same for roads: one could charge by weight(wear and tear), but not by content. One might not permit explosives, but he cannot charge by content.

    This is the very opposite of the Rothbardian attempt to justify parasitism while outlawing retaliation. Because Rothbard’s NAP is an attempt to do just that: preserve parasitism, preserve deceit, and dismiss the requirement for productivity, and to deny retaliation for parasitism and deceit.

    ERIK FAIR ON NET NEUTRALITY

    –“For a very long time during early History of the Internet, the Internet Service Providers (ISP) were not the telephone companies – they were independent businesses buying fixed-price leased lines from the TelCos, and they passed on that pricing structure: no usage (byte) charges.

    But that’s not very profitable. So now that the TelCos are the ISPs, they want to use their Duopoly position & pricing power to extract economic rents by charging by the byte, and (if the can) charging by the value of each byte. It’s rape of the customer.

    So the currently “free” Instant Messaging (IM) and Social Networks might actually cost you extra to access from your ISP, independent of anything you might be paying WhatsApp, or Facebook (if anything).

    The proper Economic Policy is to divorce Internet Infrastructure (carriage of bits) from applications/protocols (what those bits mean and how they are potentially valued), i.e. AT&T should not be allowed to own Netflix. Further, we need to bring back “unbundling of the local loop”, i.e. you should be able to buy Internet service from multiple ISPs atop the exact same wires, fibres, or coax, so that we have real competition there once again, and the owners/operators of that wire, fiber, or coax must be required to charge exactly the same price per bandwidth to all comers atop their infrastructure.”– Erik Fair (Quora)

    Rothbard was no less of an advocate for parasitism than was Marx.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 03:09:00 UTC

  • LOW BRITISH PRODUCTIVITY —“Low productivity is the number one problem Britain

    LOW BRITISH PRODUCTIVITY

    —“Low productivity is the number one problem Britain faces,” says Van Reenen. Even before the crisis, it lagged behind other rich countries. The latest data suggest UK output per hour worked is 30 per cent below US levels, and 17 per cent below the G7 average (at purchasing power parity).—

    John van Reenen, Professor at the London School of Economics

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 23:28:00 UTC

  • DEEPER RETHINKING OF MACRO POLICY. MUCH DEEPER. I’d like to posit a broader gene

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/04/things-i-probably-will-have-time-to-say-rethinking-macro-policy-iii-conference-washington-dc-april-15-16.htmlA DEEPER RETHINKING OF MACRO POLICY. MUCH DEEPER.

    I’d like to posit a broader generalization that not only keeps up with current events but looks past them.

    Political behavior since the beginning of this correction – particularly the expression of moral intuition as austerity – is evidence that all human organizations, at all scales, act to advance their interests, and those interests remain heterogeneous and irreconcilable. The optimum economic performance in any political order is determined by the homogeneity of their interests – not the maximum velocity under the assumption of common interests. As such, we must construct any science of economics – the study of cooperation that is predictive, within those constraints – or it is ideology: meaning persuasive, not science: meaning descriptive.

    I believe we could argue that – as we did in 1913 – we have reached the maximum tolerable homogeneity in both the country, and the world. And with that maximum tolerable homogeneity, the limit of the generalization of the principles of the 1930’s. And the limit of the origins of those principles in the generalization of the Anglo, German and Jewish enlightenment visions of man, in which each group attempted to advance its group strategy as a universal good. All theories fail at some scale, but we never know in advance, that limit. All those theories persist today unmodified and irreconcilable. And to their visions of the future we have now added the economic, political, demographic and military force of other civilizations once again. We call this effect ‘globalization’. Which is in itself the implication of homogenous universal interest among those who cooperate.

    Yet, man cooperates because it is a more beneficial means of competition, not a de-facto good. But in the end, within and without, intra and inter, we compete. Cooperation is only as sustainable as it is beneficial. Its benefit has limits, and those limits are political.

    Without the abandonment of the myth of a monopoly of interests, and the introduction of polycentric morality, and political reality, into economics, we will remain unable to forecast, or even describe events.

    But that said, Braid is right: without reforming the financial system we will not stop the unnecessary privatization of the commons endemic to the distribution of liquidity through an unnecessary distributor.

    So I think the necessary reformation of our thought is the one in which we bypass the financial system, instead of one in which we attempt to improve it. I think the discourse then becomes one of fiscal policy and not one of monetary policy. I think we then avoid the monopoly of interests assumed in monetary policy, and conduct exchanges between the interests of heterogeneous classes, rather than manipulate those classes in an attempt to conquer the middle and upper by the lower. And that world is likely the only one that can marginally improve on the universalist model of the 20th century, which is an institutional expression of the anglo enlightenment, and our friends Smith and Burke.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 23:06:00 UTC

  • THIEL GETS IT RIGHT “I would bet on globalization slowly being in abeyance,” tec

    THIEL GETS IT RIGHT

    “I would bet on globalization slowly being in abeyance,” tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel said in a video interview with George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen. “I think with the benefit of hindsight, we will realize that 2007 was not just the peak year of the finance boom, but also the peak year of globalization, like maybe 1913.”

    His reference to 1913 was surely meant to be — and should be — chilling. That was the last full year before the outbreak of World War I, a conflict in which about 16 million people died. In its wake, Communists took over Russia and Hitler took over Germany. The war made the world safe not for democracy, as Woodrow Wilson had hoped, but for totalitarianism.

    The globalization resulting largely from British policies — free trade, the gold standard — was not re-established after World War I. Instead, trade protectionism and unstable currencies led to the Great Depression.

    World trade fell about 90 percent between 1929-33, as shown in the famous spiral graph in MIT economist Charles P. Kindleberger’s classic The World in Depression 1929-1939. The result was not, as current critics of globalization might suggest, good for the workingman. It was economic disaster, political instability and World War II, in which about 60 million people died.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 22:08:00 UTC

  • WRITE FOR AVOCATION, NOT VOCATION —“The research, commissioned by The Authors’

    WRITE FOR AVOCATION, NOT VOCATION

    —“The research, commissioned by The Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, found the top 5 per cent of writers earned close to half of all the income received by professional authors in 2013. The median income for professional writers is just £10,432, less than the minimum wage. Technical and academic writers are among the worst paid.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 17:12:00 UTC

  • ELEGANT WORDS —“The wicked king of parody is kissing all his enemies.”— Moll

    ELEGANT WORDS

    —“The wicked king of parody is kissing all his enemies.”— Molly Anderson

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 11:32:00 UTC

  • “The Will Of God” = “Our Evolutionary Strategy” That’s about it really. And in t

    “The Will Of God” = “Our Evolutionary Strategy”

    That’s about it really.

    And in that sense, it is ‘True’.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-21 07:48:00 UTC