Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Classical Liberalism -> Libertarianism -> Anarcho Capitalism -> NRx ->Propertari

    Classical Liberalism -> Libertarianism -> Anarcho Capitalism -> NRx ->Propertarianism.

    –Johannes Meixner

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 12:56:00 UTC

  • SURE, MANY PEOPLE ABANDON LIBERTINISM (ANARCHISM). BUT DOES ANYONE ABANDON LIBER

    SURE, MANY PEOPLE ABANDON LIBERTINISM (ANARCHISM). BUT DOES ANYONE ABANDON LIBERTY OR LIBERTARIANISM, REALLY?

    (from a series of comments on Matt Zwolinski’s page)

    It is very difficult NOT to abandon anarchy – other than as a research program. Anarchism is an exceptionally fruitful research program for analysis of institutions, but it is reliant upon intentionally excluding variables: the demonstrated behavior of man. But abandoning anarchism is not the same as abandoning liberty or libertarianism.

    As far as I know we all go through a similar cycle: exploring the limits and returning to some means of producing commons in the classical liberal model. The anarchic model has been a fruitful research program in investigating alternative means of producing commons, but the assumption of persistence without institution, myth and ritual seems to fail.

    When you say ‘someone is, or was, a libertarian’ do you mean (a) giving higher preference to liberty as a moral intuition, or (b) using libertarian institutions to achieve some other moral intuition, or (c) both.

    As far as I know a lot of people in (a) explore and abandon anarchism. A lot of people in (b) do not possess intuition (a). And an individual that possesses intuition (a), and studies institutions (b), seems extremely unlikely to abandon (a).

    So I can’t think of anyone who abandons or abandoned liberty. As far as I know it’s a cognitive bias. We merely change our institutional preferences. I can think of many people who seek an means of justifying non-libertarian moral biases, who then gives up on them.

    Anyone who works at the problem long enough, as one of formal institutions over demonstrated behavior of man, will eventually follow the same path. If one’s ambition is mere verbal rebellion, we can’t qualify that as political science – it’s just elaborate moral indignation, or a distraction from other strategic intentions. Either anarchism is existentially possible or it’s not. Liberty is achievable in the sense that moral constraints expressed as the total prohibition on violations of property, whether by individual or organization, regardless of the organization, can be made enforceable by an in-group third party. But no case can be made that I know of that can survive without a monopoly definition of property, a monopoly definition of property rights, the common law to adjudicate them, universal standing, an exclusive territory, a militia to defend the boundaries, the people, the assets and the law, some ritual that propagates intuitionistic persistence of the rule of law, and at least one individual as a decision maker for undecidable propositions – not the least of which is to call up such a militia to restore those rights.

    Liberty provides decidability to moral propositions by requiring consent to transfers. Progressivism favors consumption and conservatism favors accumulation – of human capital in particular. But neither requires consent.

    Of the three criteria for decisions only liberty provides operational decideability, and only operational decideability under voluntary exchange makes full use of the knowledge of the other two dimensions.

    Humans function as a moral division of labor, and we libertarians are the moderators – the market makers: we demand voluntary exchange between the three axis.

    (Although that might take a bit of pondering to grasp.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 12:51:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM’S PROHIBITION FALLACY : PROHIBITION WAS A SUCCESS —“…alcohol

    LIBERTARIANISM’S PROHIBITION FALLACY : PROHIBITION WAS A SUCCESS

    —“…alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

    Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

    Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition’s 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

    Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation’s 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.

    Prohibition did not end alcohol use. What is remarkable, however, is that a relatively narrow political movement, relying on a relatively weak set of statutes, succeeded in reducing, by one-third, the consumption of a drug that had wide historical and popular sanction.”—

    NYT / Mark H. Moore; Mark H. Moore,

    professor of criminal justice at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

    Published: October 16, 1989

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 11:08:00 UTC

  • The only thing better than the love of a good woman, is the love of more good wo

    The only thing better than the love of a good woman, is the love of more good women. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 06:29:00 UTC

  • The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumst

    The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumstances, and men do not. Men are hard-coded by about 15 or 16, even if we don’t mentally complete our maturity until 22, 32, or even 40. We just decrease in energy level from that point onward. Women are not damaged in utero, so they start out with an advantage, and mature by their early teens – at the expense of a more integrated mind, and less ability to escape its multitude of impulses. But to find happiness in acceptance in a cooperative group, women will adapt to all sorts of environments. Which is why they can survive in the workplace so much longer under perishable patterns of production (switching jobs). I am sure to women it frustrates them that the higher regions are so predominantly, if not exclusively male. But that is because we are specialists. Everything we do goes toward narrower set of ends. That is not the case for women. But conversely, for two-thirds of men, modernity is painful because it changes, and they cannot adapt as do women. Civilization is much better for women than for men. Most of us are happy with pickup trucks, guns, some food, some guys to fight, and some friends to fight other guys with. That is our natural state. 🙂 And we have to be trained out of it by the use of substitutes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 06:28:00 UTC

  • “Eastern Slavs: Respectable IQs similar to Mediterranean Europeans, as are machi

    —“Eastern Slavs: Respectable IQs similar to Mediterranean Europeans, as are machismo levels, but significantly less exposure to agriculture. And a lot more alcohol. So as expected, homicide rates amongst South Slavs, e.g. Serbs and West Slavs, e.g. Poles are now pretty low – almost as low as in Western Europe proper (though against that you have to adjust for them having far fewer Third World immigrants). The East Slavs and Balto-Finnish groups, however, are still in the grip of a strong if receding alcohol epidemic, so their homicide rates are considerably inflated, if to nowhere near African or Latin American levels. Even in Russia itself, homicide rates amongst ethnic Russians veer higher as you go north, where Slavic Russians admixed with Balto-Finns. The Balto-Finns were the last major European ethnic group to adopt agriculture. (While the alcohol epidemic as of today is less severity in Estonia or Latvia than in Russia, to say nothing of Finland, that is a function of their greater socio-economic progress).”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 05:48:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISMS FRONTIER FALLACY —“19th century frontier Americans: Had extrem

    LIBERTARIANISMS FRONTIER FALLACY

    —“19th century frontier Americans: Had extremely high homicide rates. In his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker gives homicide rate figures of 50/100,000 for Abilene, Kansas, 100/100,000 for Dodge City (no wonder you want to get the hell out of it), 229/100,000 in Fort Griffin, Texas, and 1,500/100,000 (sic) in Wichita. Back then, apart from being a bit less intelligent than today (Flynn Effect), Americans were also far more alcoholic. This is little known now, but back then, the US was known as the “Alcoholic Republic,” with alcohol consumption per capita being roughly twice what it is today despite much lower incomes. The frontier towns would not only have been more alcoholized than average, but were also extremely macho, explained in theory by the high male-to-female ratio,”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 05:15:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIQlFtRUVxZGJRZ2s/view

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-23 05:12:00 UTC

  • Intuitionism: A Structural Critique | Danny Frederick – Academia.edu

    https://www.academia.edu/7706184/Ethical_Intuitionism_A_Structural_CritiqueEthical Intuitionism: A Structural Critique | Danny Frederick – Academia.edu

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-22 18:23:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-22 18:12:00 UTC