Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF (from elsewhere) I describe myself as any of the fo

    HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF

    (from elsewhere)

    I describe myself as any of the following:

    – A Conservative Libertarian

    – A Classical Liberal Libertarian

    – An Aristocratic Libertarian

    – An advocate for aristocratic liberty

    – A Propertarian (in my technical sense of the term).

    Reasons:

    1) It is impossible to possess property rights in demonstrable fact, except in voluntary exchange of them in the form of reciprocal insurance.

    2) It is illogical to forgo aggression, violence, fraud, deceit, conspiracy, and free riding, unless one obtains the same promise to forgo those parasitic actions in exchange. Our original exchange was permission to participate in the market. At present, given the advent of generations of labor saving technology, combined with rapid reproduction by the lower classes, has led to an oversupply of labor with nothing to sell in the market, and therefore no incentives to forgo aggression, violence, fraud, deceit, conspiracy and free riding.

    3) It is illogical to abandon the production of commons when the western competitive advantage has been in the production of the commons made possible by our most important commons – the total prohibition on parasitic, and even unproductive actions.

    4) It is only possible to produce commons by prohibiting their privatization, or the free riding upon them.

    5) The classical liberal political model under an independent judiciary constructed a loose market for the facilitation of exchanges of benefits between classes by means of constructing commons. Our failure was in not adding a house of proletarians when we enfranchised them. And thereby allowing them to circumvent the common law. The collapse of the church, which had previously provided an independent taxation system, insurance, education and care-taking for the proletarians, exacerbated the problem of creating demand in the state. And the usurpation of moral argument by the academy, intellectuals and media in lieu of the church created malincentives for everyone. The ability to sell advertising on the back of distribution of the content that generated the greatest agitation, created yet another set of malincentives.

    6) The attempt by (profligate) jewish intellectuals (the cosmopolitans) to justify immigration in order to maintain their ‘separate-but-apart’ culture, and, for various other producers to obtain discounts by immigrating labor at the cost of: social norms, traditions, history, language, intergenerational conflict, political polarization, has been destructive not only to the rule of law, to truth telling, but to the vast consequences of that immigration. We were able to indoctrinate the wave through 1925 by 1960, but in no small part because of the militarism of the war. Conversely, the only honest non-parasitic exchange is to export capital to locations where there is excess labor, and pay the cost of adapting the local norms to commercial and libertarian ends, rather than forcing others to bear the cost of increased transaction costs in every walk of life, and the consequential destruction of the civic society, liberty and truth telling. In other words, the argument to free immigration is an act of fraud in an attempt to privatize the gains produced by the commons.

    7) The common law, truth telling, and the jury (of which the classical liberal model of government is an evolution) are responsible for western exceptionalism. The reason being that prohibitions on parasitism (involuntary transfer of property en toto – and in the extreme, the prohibition on profiting from non production), (a) deprive people of all possible means of sustenance other than productive participation in the market, and (b) produce what we call ‘trust’ (reduction of transaction costs), (c) allow the rapid identification of new prohibitions on parasitism BEFORE such behavior can develop into a norm, and institutionalize even the subtle parasitism of rent seeking or free riding.

    So neither Hayek nor Hoppe solves the problem of identifying causality. Of the two, Hoppe gives us the full transformation of social science into statements of property rights, but he is misled by his heritage (as well all are), his education (as we all are) and likely by his friendships (as we all are), by incorrectly identifying property as the object of consideration, instead of an institution that suppresses parasitism, and forces all of us into productive labors.

    It is irrational – at least for the strong – to abandon violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, deceit, theft by indirection, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, and outright conquest, unless others grant us the same. When the weak ask the same, they are merely seeking to preserve means of theft by the only means available to them anyway. A hollow exchange if there ever was one.

    The reason man developed cooperation was that it is a multiplier on productivity that is unmatched in living organisms. The problem with cooperation is that it invites parasitism in all its forms. The reason we have moral intuitions is that evolution needed to guarantee that we punish free riders (parasites) even at high cost (altruistic punishment).

    Austrian economics is best understood as a research program into the institutions by which we improve voluntary exchanges. Whereas mainstream economics is best understood as the means by which we maximize consumption regardless of individual volition. The Austrian method makes use of all available information in society. The democratic and mainstream economic method does not. It aggregates this only in a single measure: consumption. And the consequence is rapid expansion of the population. So we practice moral economics and the mainstream practices immoral economics.

    But in this same light, the abandonment of the means of producing commons, when commons are one’s greatest competitive advantage is merely an admission of failure to solve the intellectual challenge of recreating a market for commons equal in productivity to the market for private goods and services.

    Either that or it is something much worse: yet another version of marxism, socialism, neo-conservatism: elaborate means of justifying parasitism that our civilization was more successful than any other in eradicating.

    Group evolutionary strategies matter. Liberty is but one. But do we mean aristocratic liberty, or libertinism?

    Western liberty is inseparable from the requirement for truth telling. And the Rothbardian Hoppeian model is specifically (conveniently) designed to preserve the utility of deceit and conspiracy, yet prohibit retaliation for deceit and conspiracy. Whereas for law to provide sufficient means of resolving conflict, we must resolve all possible sources of conflict. Otherwise, demand for the state fills what the does not.

    The levant remains a low trust society because it practices low trust property rights. The west evolved a high trust and wealthy society because it practices high trust property rights. The levant remains a center for high demand for authoritarian government. Because the common law cannot function where people are so comfortable and free to engage in deceit.

    The rule of law, the common law (organic poly-centric), strictly (Operationally) constructed, the jury, and the decidability of property-en-toto: the prohibition on all non-productive actions that create demand for retaliation. A market for the commons that divides individuals into classes (and genders) based upon the categories (scale) of property under their control – wherein all contracts can be negotiated, not monopolies imposed.

    It’s not complicated. Or at least, it isn’t once you know it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-11 04:07:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE IS EVIDENCE OF THE FOLLY OF HOPPE’S DEFINITION OF PROPERTY We have an ol

    UKRAINE IS EVIDENCE OF THE FOLLY OF HOPPE’S DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

    We have an oligarchical government in Ukraine. That government is populated by the people who own the property – not judges resolving conflicts. What has happened is that they either rent seek, privatize commons, or socialize losses wherever possible.

    As far as I can see, Rothbardian and Hoppeian arguments lead to Ukrainian despotism. Without prohibition on involuntary transfer of property-en-toto by full informed voluntary exchange, and the requirement for productivity, the law cannot be used to construct a condition of liberty.

    We have Hoppeian/Rothbardian law here. The courts resolve conflicts in physical property only.

    Hence, systemic, intergenerational parasitism.

    Hoppe may be right that only property matters in so far as he means it. However, Hoppe is wrong that the scope of property can be limited to the intersubjectively verifiable.

    Either your law is predicated upon property en toto, or you gave up your wealth of violence in exchange for being subject to indirect and dishonest predation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-11 03:18:00 UTC

  • RUNNING WITH CIVILIZATION’S SCISSORS Western Politicians are like excited childr

    RUNNING WITH CIVILIZATION’S SCISSORS

    Western Politicians are like excited children running with scissors: they may have the best of intentions, but are still taking risks with dangerous weapons. Worse, they tend not to be very bright; and they don’t always have the best of intentions; and they don’t hurt themselves with the scissors they carry – they destroy western civilization’s rule of law, property rights, liberty, truth telling, the family, and the suppression of reproduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-11 01:19:00 UTC

  • THE NECESSITY OF PRIVILEGE (DISCOUNTS ON OPPORTUNITY COSTS) AS INFORMATION (wort

    THE NECESSITY OF PRIVILEGE (DISCOUNTS ON OPPORTUNITY COSTS) AS INFORMATION

    (worth repeating) (from elsewhere) (hayek)

    While, as I’ve written before, I agree with the general argument that women sense some things and men others (and progressives, libertarians and conservatives different things as well) I have a more complete theory of the inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor than Hayek (and one that eliminates equality, and monopoly decision making). And so there is a minor error in the logic of the first paragraph, and that is that it is irrelevant that we understand others – it is only relevant that we conduct exchanges with them.

    Because their reaction to their senses are not accurate or ‘true’ in any meaningful sense other than as a reflection of the individual’s reproductive strategy – any more than any of the rest of our senses are all that accurate – they themselves are fragments.

    This single insight is the principle cause of why democracy does not work, and the market does. The market allows us to cooperate on multitudinous means even if on disparate ends, with our successes and failures informing both us and others.

    Whereas a monopoly government prevents us from learning anything of value, and the institutionalization of foolish policy by unexpriable law, and the accretion of bureaucratic self interests, prevents adaptation outside of catastrophic chains of failure.

    In fact, monopoly government (monopoly production of commons by majority rule) promotes failure because it is precisely failed policy that permits the greatest rent seeking for all involved.

    It is not that we should prohibit government (as Hayek warns) but that we should prohibit monopoly government. It is not that we should prevent taxation, it is that we should allocate our dividends from the commons we live in to the production of commons we prefer, and not to commons we do not.

    As, furthermore, so called ‘privilege’ is precious information. It is information that informs you whose behavior you should imitate in order to gain discounts on opportunity costs. Privilege is as necessary to the human information system as is status, property rights, rule of law, money and interest.

    Privilege, if it exists, is an inter-temporal store of value that informs others as to the behaviors that they should imitate in order to obtain a discount on opportunities. Likewise, hygiene, dress, manners and language are advertisements for one’s worthiness to engage in increasingly complex inter-temporal risks and returns.

    Those who accumulate such behaviors obtain opportunity at the lowest discounts. Those that fail to adapt, and ask others to ’empathize’ with them, are seeking discounts without bearing the cost of adaptation.

    In other words, they’re free riders participating in an act of fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 16:10:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND SATISFACTION IN MORAL ARGUMENT It is appealing to seek feeli

    PROPERTARIANISM AND SATISFACTION IN MORAL ARGUMENT

    It is appealing to seek feelings of satisfaction by criticizing the morality of one’s opponents; or the rejection of others’ criticism of one’s opinions on moral grounds.

    In propertarianism, we avoid almost all the various emotional distraction, loading, framing, overloading and consequential entanglements by identifying the various forms of property that are affected the described actions, and determine whether voluntary or involuntary transfer is being advocated (or caused), and whether such transfers are truthfully or untruthfully articulated. In this way we make clear arguments in economic terms that are free of loading and framing. But we do not escape the moral conclusion. Because, in the end, if you are a thief or a liar, we call you a thief and a liar. But we do it on logical, internally consistent, and unavoidable grounds.

    Religious argument in the form of scriptural decree; it’s reformation into Moral argument as rationalism; and its reformation into pseudoscientific argument as psychologizing; are all forms of deception perpetrated through the use of analogy, loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion, in an attempt to abuse our cognitive and moral biases, by largely guilting and shaming us into justifying one form of parasitism or another: involuntary transfer.

    Propertarianism replaces pseudoscientific psychologizing, moral rationalism, and religious scripturalism, with a single universal test, and a single universal operation. That single test being that the only moral action is the fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property-en-toto, and the single operation of voluntary exchange.

    Propertarianism is a language for the logical analysis of the content of moral statements. In propertarianism all moral statements are commensurable. And and all moral questions are decidable.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 16:09:00 UTC

  • ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CIVILIZATION AND MILITARY TECHNIQUE —“There is a b

    http://wordpress.com/BOOKS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CIVILIZATION AND MILITARY TECHNIQUE

    —“There is a book to be written—but not by me—on the relationship between civilization and military technique. Why is it that the more civilized states in history tend to rely on infantry (Greece, Rome, the modern West) and the more barbaric cavalry?”— Coyle Neal

    The books have been written.

    – Van Creveld on The culture of war.

    – Keegan on History of War.

    – Gimbutas and Armstrong on origins.

    – Malory on Indo Europeans

    – Hansen as you’ve mentioned.

    Each civilization evolved out of a combination of feast ritual and means of war. The west evolved debate, reason, science, common law, and the jury, (which democracy is an evolution of) because we invented truth telling, and required it of one another – all because of our battle tactics. And our battle tactics because we relied upon expensive technology, and voluntary participation (“enfranchisement”) Which in exchange we obtained what we call today ‘property rights’ and the reciprocal insurance of one another’s property.

    However, the answer to your question is simple really: raiding, and retreat of the herdsman vs the problem of holding territory of the agrarian.

    Low trust herdsman and a lack of property rights, medium trust agrarians and organized armies. High trust militias that are self financed and aristocratic.

    Fukuyama is wrong – or at least incomplete.

    He has correctly understood that the transition to bureaucracy requires the prior development of bureaucracy. But he does not grasp for some reason, that trust, truth, and jury are the reason that the west developed higher rates of adaptation than all others.

    Why? Because a law can be constructed under common law, that suppresses an innovation in parasitism (free riding, theft, fraud, conspiracy) faster than in any other method of juridical evolution. And as such the time between innovation and suppression eliminates the opportunity for the systematic development of rents.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    — ARTICLE EN TOTO —

    (link below)

    Discourses on Livy: II.18-19

    by Coyle Neal

    II.18–19

    There is a book to be written—but not by me—on the relationship between civilization and military technique. Why is it that the more civilized states in history tend to rely on infantry (Greece, Rome, the modern West) and the more barbaric cavalry? In merely asking the question I’ve exhausted my knowledge of the topic, but I can at least suggest The Art of War in the Middle Ages, Kenneth Clarke’s Civilization, and Victor Davis Hanson’s The Western Way of War as companion pieces for further reflection on the subject.

    Machiavelli begins to give us something of an answer when he discusses Rome’s reliance on infantry as its primary military force. He notes that Rome always preferred to use infantry rather than cavalry (and certainly, we can add, rather than sea power). This prejudice remained to the very end of the empire when infantry had been, for better or worse, surpassed by cavalry technologically and logistically, and even to some extent through the end of the Byzantine Empire as well—though they were less dogmatic about the subject.

    For Machiavelli, the ultimate evidence of the virtue of infantry over cavalry is not just that Rome preferred the former to the latter, but that Rome repeatedly won. Victory on the battlefield was for him the proof of superior Roman military power, and therefore superior virtue. Example after example from the time of Rome and from recent history (especially drawing on the Swiss) are used to demonstrate the virtue of those who rely on foot soldiers over horsemen. Though Machiavelli does not explicitly say so, he implies that the occasions when cavalry do win the victory are examples of failures of virtue on the part of infantry, not necessarily of superior virtue on the part of the victors.

    But again, we have to ask: why is this the case? What makes infantry so much better than cavalry, either in terms of Machiavelli’s virtue or in civilization itself? Machiavelli gives a number of reasons:

    A man on foot can go many places where a horse cannot go. He can be taught to observe order, and that he has to resume it if it is disturbed; it is difficult to make horses observe order, and impossible to reorder them when they are disturbed. Besides this, as in men, some horses are found that have little spirit and some that have very much; and often it happens that a spirited horse is ridden by a cowardly man, and a cowardly horse by a spirited one, and, in whichever mode this disparity occurs, from it arises uselessness and disorder. Ordered infantry can easily break horse, and only with difficulty be defeated by them. (II.18.2)

    In other words, infantry is to be preferred because it relies more on virtue and less on fortune. Infantry, if well trained, will “observe order” while remaining flexible (going “many places where a horse cannot”). Men can be shaped and trained and formed into a military power which directly translates virtue into victory. Interestingly, many of Machiavelli’s examples are drawn from Roman losses, in which the infantry was defeated, and yet because of the strong discipline present in the Roman forces not all was lost—”Mark Antony,” for example, “virtuously saved himself” (II.18.3) despite having lost the battle in question.

    By comparison, reliance on cavalry brings too much fortune into the equation. To be sure, horsemen need training and “order” too. There is virtue involved in creating a well-disciplined unit of this kind as well. But involving animals brings an inherently irrational element into play—horses can be “impossible to reorder… when they are disturbed” (II.18.2). Likewise, horses and riders each have their own spirits which can be cowardly or bold, and an army might end up with cowardly riders on bold horses or vice versa, all of which brings yet another uncontrollable element of fortune onto the battlefield. At the end of the day, whatever advantages cavalry bring to the table (and Machiavelli is clear that they do have a role to play in combat) are not offset by their disadvantages when they become the crux of the state’s war plans.

    We can add the interesting tidbit as a corollary to Machiavelli’s examples of infantry losses as proofs of the virtue of those nations that societies which rely exclusively on cavalry do have a tendency to topple with a single military defeat. Hannibal could crush army after army of Roman soldiers, but one loss sent him packing for North Africa. (And yes, I’m being generous there and counting “elephants” as “cavalry.”) It is fairly remarkable how much of a beating ancient Rome, or modern America, could absorb on the battlefield without seriously disrupting its civilization. And while I might not go as far as to say it’s solely because of their reliance on infantry over and above other forms of combat, there might still be some kind of correlation there.

    Having won the battle and established rule over new territories, what next? Once again, Machiavelli argues that if we’re not virtuous in the manner of Rome we should not expect any kind of lasting success. In fact, we should expect what little victory we’ve achieved to come undone and leave us in a worse position than that in which we started. The problem is that people “these days” either think times have changed so much that these Roman examples no longer apply, or think those examples were never true to begin with. But if only we would believe what we read in the histories, that well-ordered infantry can defeat whatever is thrown at it:

    republics and princes would err less, would be stronger in opposing a thrust that might come against them, and would not put their hope in flight; and those who have in their hands a civil way of life would know better how to direct it, either by way of expanding it or by way of maintaining it. And they would believe that increasing the inhabitants of one’s city, getting partners and not subjects, sending colonies to guard countries that have been acquired, making capital out of booty, subduing the enemy with raids and battles and not with sieges, keeping the public rich and the private poor, and maintaining military exercises with the highest seriousness is the true way to make a republic great and to acquire empire. (II.19.1)

    The Roman way of war is the key to everything that Machiavelli has been discussing up to this point. Any attempt on the part of a republic to grow without growing in this way is not only futile, but actively destructive to the republic itself. Even if the republic doesn’t wish to expand into an empire, it still must pursue this because “if it will not molest others, it will be molested” (II.19.1). While the German republics might be exceptions to this rule, that is rather the result of oddities of geography than universal truths about republics.

    The republic that does wish to grow and develop must grow and develop its military at the same time, or else risk perishing:

    For he very likely acquires empire without forces, and whoever acquires empire without forces will be fittingly ruined. Whoever impoverishes himself through wars cannot acquire forces, even should he be victorious, since he spends more than he obtains from his acquisitions. (II.19.2)

    Rome itself ultimately fell victim to this process, when its borders finally expanded beyond what it could reasonably hope to rule. As a result, the bad influences of the nations it conquered, instead of being restrained and transformed into virtuous pursuits (as with the Roman conquests in Italy), gradually sapped the strength of Rome until it collapsed of its own corrupted weight. And if the Romans with all their virtue couldn’t save themselves, what hope do modern Americans have?

    http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2015/04/10/discourses-on-livy-ii-18-19/

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 07:44:00 UTC

  • MORAL ARGUMENT AND RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION It was entirely possible, and often recom

    MORAL ARGUMENT AND RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION

    It was entirely possible, and often recommended, that Russia purchase Crimea and Donbas from Ukraine, by means of discounted oil price for 99 years. This would have been mutually beneficial, since the Donbas was the source of most ukrainian corruption, gangsters, and russophilia. And was the responsible for the political divisiveness that prevented reform.

    The Russians systematically conquered eastern Ukraine over the past two centuries, and created a false mythology to justify the muscovite conquest of european lands. Ukrainians had frequent debates about splitting the country. And this was the correct, non-aggressive means of solving the problem for all sides. But solving the problem was not the Russian intentino. The Russian intention is to preserve their power by preventing the spread of capitalism into Russia by the same form of uprisings that have restored Poland and Ukraine to european civilization after Muscovite (mongolian) conquest.

    I have only one moral principle I must follow: liberty for all who will exchange it with me. But in exchange for liberty I require not only insurance of physical property, but truth telling: the total prohibition of parasitism. Because without the total prohibition of parasitism, it is irrational for me to forgo the utility of violence to obtain what I desire.

    This demand for the total suppression of parasitism what separates european aristocratic liberty, from parasitic libertine pretenses of liberty.

    Speak the truth, by warrantying your speech, or admit that you do not warranty your speech to be truthful, and as such engage in parasitism:

    1 – Internally consistent (logical)

    2 – Externally correspondent. (empirical)

    3 – Operationally Defined (praxeological)

    4 – Free of parasitism, consisting only of voluntary transfers. (moral)

    5 – Parsimonious (falsified)

    We must end parasitic deceits in the pursuit of liberty. Rothbardian ethics are another pseudoscientific, elaborate, cosmopolitan deceit, just as Freudian Psychologizing, and Marxist History.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 06:29:00 UTC

  • TRUTH IN DISCOURSE ON RUSSIAS AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE It is one thing to say:

    TRUTH IN DISCOURSE ON RUSSIAS AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE

    It is one thing to say:

    1) THE CONTRACTUAL:

    –“–“We are obligated to assist those who desire liberty in the construction of liberty, because the exchange of such insurance is the only possible means by which liberty can be constructed. We believe that we cannot win this fight. But our contract with one another for the preservation and expansion of liberty is an inviolable one without self contradiction, and as such, I saddle up, and go to war in the hope the I err in my estimate of the enemy.”–

    2) THE TRUTHFUL AND PRAGMATIC:

    –“We are obligated to assist those who desire liberty in the construction of liberty, because the exchange of such insurance is the only possible means by which liberty can be constructed. However we believe that we cannot win this fight.”–

    3) AN IRRELEVANT JUSTIFICTATION FOR FREE RIDING

    “the USA does not need another war to fight, and it only expands the state and bureaucracy”.

    OR

    “I want americans to withdraw from around the world”

    VERSUS

    4) AN IMMORAL JUSTIFICATION OF FREE RIDING

    –“Russians were justified in the combination of deceit and aggression.”—

    VERSUS

    5) AN OUTRIGHT DECEIT AND CONSPIRATORIAL ACTION

    –“Russians did not commit an act of deceit or aggression”–

    Immoral-tarians choose the fourth and fifth options. Classical liberal pragmatists the third, and aristocracy the first two.

    There is only one liberty possible: aristocracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 06:09:00 UTC

  • Mark. So you mean to argue that it is immoral or illogical for people to struggl

    Mark.

    So you mean to argue that it is immoral or illogical for people to struggle to free themselves of tyranny and poverty? And that it is immoral or illogical to send them weapons to free themselves of tyranny and poverty?

    And that you are so omniscient, knowledgeable and wise that you can predict the future of these people?

    Do you mean to justify statism? Do you mean to justify invasion? Do you mean to justify the usurpation of borders? Do you mean to justify aggression by military means? Do you mean to state that the Ukrainian people, to whom Russians prosecuted a holocaust and intentional starvation to kill the by the millions have nothing to fear from the most murderous neighbour possible other than China?

    I have met you and only spoken with you a bit. And I don’t necessarily think you are a liar.

    I think that like most libertines you are just punching far above your intellectual weight, and the combination off elf indoctrination into libertine ideology, a genetic anti-social bias and dunning Krueger blind you on the one hand and find outlet for your rage on the other.

    Your argument like most libertine arguments is immoral as I stated above; is the reason libertines fail in the moral marketplace; and is motivated by self congratulatory status masturbation to compensate for low desirability.

    The only difference between Ukrainians and Canadians is the influence of the neighbouring empire.

    America is not good. But Russia is the opposite of Liberty.

    Liberty evolved because we spoke the truth.

    Russia industrialised lying and turned it into a military doctrine.

    And you’ve been conquered by it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 04:52:00 UTC

  • 2001 to 2007, 3M-4M Units per year. (Steady) 2009 increases to 5.6M units. 2010

    2001 to 2007, 3M-4M Units per year. (Steady)

    2009 increases to 5.6M units.

    2010 maintains 5.6M units.

    2012 spikes to 8.6 million units.

    2013 a record 10.8 million units.

    In other words, the consumption of guns has tripled under Obama.

    (ATF Data)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-09 13:38:00 UTC