Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 06:52:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 06:52:00 UTC
EUGENIC REPRODUCTION WAS A CONSEQUENCE NOT A PURPOSE
(smart questions from Todd Myers)
TODD:
—“Presumably if you are working on an evolutionary model, morality would be evaluated on its ability to facilitate or hinder the likelihood that genes of those practicing it are passed on. “—
CURT:
I think that if universal moral rules necessary for cooperation are followed the result is eugenic. I think that eugenic reproduction (getting the best to reproduce more) is a necessary and higher good than dysgenic reproduction (what we are doing now). (Why do we pay less competent people to have more children instead of paying more competent people to have more children? In a world where children are not only unnecessary but undesirable, because of our success and promoting dysgenic reproduction.)
TODD:
—“Am I mistaken about the purpose of your project and its relation to sociobiological foundations?”—
CURT
Well, no, It’s not a purpose. I didn’t start out that way at all. It’s an interesting *consequence*. My purpose was to finish the classical liberal and anarchic program by creating a universal language of morality (ethical realism), the rules for constructing political systems (propertarianism), and to recommend ONE political system to perpetuate the historical uniqueness of western civilization as the world’s most innovative and adaptive peoples (aristocratic egalitarianism). So I just wanted to convert the european tradition into rational (and scientific) language. It wasn’t until very late that I understood that the northern european (aristocratic manorial) model was eugenic. But once I did understand, it became somewhat obvious why europe excelled for its reasons (facilitating reproduction of the best, while suppressing and underfeeding the rest) and asia for different reasons (killing a lot of trouble makers as often as possible,keeping the poor in slave conditions on the edge of starvation, and using wealth to feed the noble families who would work to study.) And conversely, why every other civilization did not.
So, the ultimate moral question though as to whether something is good or not, must in the end return to ‘is it good for man?’ Eugenic reproduction, economic productivity without population growth, continuous increases in consumption (of energy) without population growth, continuous technological innovation without population growth, and our eventual loss of dependence upon the planet for our existence, are probably all ‘goods’, and everything else is cooperating on those tests there while not doing harm to one another.
We have too much data now about the reproductive results and costs of ‘bad people’. It’s terrifying really. Then we have the problem of people who aren’t bad but are of so little use to others that they cannot find labor. It is these people who produce the most children. And that cannot remain in place for long.
I hope this answered your question. It was a very smart one.
Curt.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 04:03:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 08:15:00 UTC
http://bit.ly/1untQxqFIAT DEATH
(From Peter M. Van Coppenolle)
—“Bernanke suggests that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II….Ugh… Instead try this for 100% correlation:
1) Long Depression (1870 +) Capital Destruction by Silver Demonetisation
2) Great Depression (1929 +) Capital Destruction by Gold Confiscation
3) Greatest Depression (right now) Capital Destruction by Fiat Death
Me thinks Gold and Silver Capital is Constructive. No need for an economics degree to figure that out.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 02:55:00 UTC
—“Curt, some of them are afraid you are right.”—
Well I know that. But my argument is rock solid. They’ll catch on. I just have to create a bit of a problem in the space for long enough to get my point across. Then I’ll show them the way to reconcile it. It’s better if they reconcile it themselves before I do that so I will delay as long as possible. But I’ll show them how to reconcile their silly rothbardianism with reality.I’ll give them an out.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 02:48:00 UTC
LAWRENCE VANCE HAD NUMEROUS TERMINOLOGICAL ERRORS IN HIS RECENT POST ON LRC. – I FIXED THEM. NOW IT’S ACCURATE 😉
Apparently Larry doesn’t know his etymology, or his history, and like the progressives appropriated the term ‘liberal’, larry is a rothbardian who wants to appropriate the term “libertarian”. Apparently he thinks ‘libertarian’ isn’t a bias toward liberty. And libertarianism isn’t both the philosophy of liberty AND the name rothbard tried to appropriate for rothbardian anarcho capitalism.
Because larry seems to think that liberty is somehow about the appropriate use of violence instead of liberty. That makes him a rothbardian. Because the opinions of the rest of the libertarians in the world, and one’s analysis of the history of the use of the term libertarian, lead one to conclude that the term ‘libertarian’ means the primacy of liberty first – and before all other political goods. Not that there are no other political goods.
ACCORDING TO LARRY:
—“I am a Rothbardian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.
I am a Rothbardian. I am both thin and brutalist. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old Rothbardian – one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.
I am a Rothbardian. Rothbardianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.
I am a Rothbardian. I subscribe to the non-aggression principle that says, in the words of Murray Rothbard: “The only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” I am concerned with actions; I am not concerned with thoughts: I am concerned only with the negative consequences of thoughts. I believe that the non-aggression principle extends to government. Libertarians should therefore oppose or otherwise seek to limit the domestic and foreign meddling and intervention of governments, which are the greatest violators of the non-aggression principle.
I am a Rothbardian. I believe in the golden rule. I believe in live and let live. I believe that a person should be free to do anything he wants, as long as his conduct is peaceful. I believe that vices are not crimes.
I am a Rothbardian. Our enemy is the state. Our enemy is not religion, corporations, institutions, foundations, or organizations. These only have power to do us harm because of their connection with the state. And since war is the health of the state, the state’s military, wars, and foreign interventions must be opposed root and branch.
I am a Rothbardian. I believe in laissez faire. Anyone should be free to engage in any economic activity without license, permission, prohibition, or interference from the state. The government should not intervene in the economy in any way. Free trade agreements, educational vouchers, privatizing Social Security, etc., are not the least bit libertarian ideas.
I am a Rothbardian. The best government is no government. That government that governs least is the next best government. Government, as Voltaire said, at its best state is a necessary evil and at its worst state is an intolerable one. The best thing any government could do would be to simply leave us alone.
I am a Rothbardian. Taxation is government theft. The government doesn’t have a claim to a certain percentage of one’s income. The tax code doesn’t need to be simplified, shortened, fairer, or less intrusive. The tax rates don’t need to be made lower, flatter, fairer, equal, or less progressive. The income tax doesn’t need more or larger deductions, loopholes, shelters, credits, or exemptions. The whole rotten system needs to be abolished. People have the right to keep what they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their money: spend it, waste it, squander it, donate it, bequeath it, hoard it, invest it, burn it, gamble it.
I am a Rothbardian. I am a libertine. I am a hedonist. I am a moral relativist outside of the use of violence. I am a devotee of an alternative lifestyle never seen by man.
I am a revolutionary. I am a social and moral nihilist. I neither wish to associate with nor aggress against those who are. I believe in the absolute freedom of association and discrimination.
I am a Rothbardian.”—
YES, LARRY, YOU ARE A ROTHBARDIAN. I AM NOT SURE YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN.
We have this big tent kind of thing. So we’ll let you in. No matter how silly your concept of how to obtain liberty is. Because we’re that kind of folk, you know. We’re libertarians.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 02:44:00 UTC
—“You think IQ research is dangerous to the status quo? Wait until researchers begin uncovering population group differences in the moral senses.”—
Yeah. Um. That will be awkward.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 00:42:00 UTC
HOPPE’S EEoPP AS A BRIDGE? NOPE.
I thought that maybe if I went through and briefly restated each chapter in Hoppe’s Economics and Ethics of Private Property I could so some good at bridging the gap. But it was a surprising bit of work today.
Section one, on economics, wouldn’t require any modification. It’s his best work.
But, I just re-read section two and it’s little more than a set of arguments justifying praxeology and apriorism. Sigh. Which I’ve put an operational bullet it.
As a nit, I don’t t think hoppe understood WHY operationalism didn’t satisfy all of mathematics only all demonstrable math. I think that it’s understandable, because very few people within the mathematical philosophy discipline understand it. But the reason is very simple: arbitrary precision, and the necessity of general rules. Mathematicians can get away with certain claims because it’s acceptable in all cases to apply their deductions in the absence of precision. But that’s a scary monster of a rat hole. I think i’ve settled this topic so I’m going to ignore it for now.
Chapter 15 (Rothbardian Ethics) could be restated as the ethics of out-group exchange, or the ethics of nation-states. But I would have to then add propertarianism as the ethics of in-group exchanges necessary to form a polity. One might counter that the rothbardian solution is to view each of us as ethically equal to a sovereign state, but that’s just an empty verbalism. We are still stuck with the reality of needing to get non-kin cooperate as kin up to some limit where interests diverge sufficiently that such cooperation is no longer in one’s interest.
The evidence that my ‘faction’ of libertarians are so bogged down in the fallacies of a priorism, that its impossible to move them is just piling up. And rothbardians aren’t that unique really. The percentage of mathematicians who subscribe to mathematical platonism is probably only slightly lower than the percentage of libertarians who subscribe to apriorism. Both are wrong, but you know, that doesn’t seem to matter if they can find a nail to hit with the hammer that they have in hand.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 11:52:00 UTC
—“if you’re not willing to fight for a just society, then you have no right to demand one, and no right to share in the benefits of one that others have fought for.”—
Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 10:56:00 UTC
WHY DID WE HAVE TO CREATE YET ANOTHER FORM OF MYSTICISM?
Natural rights? Intrinsic rights?
OMG. It was the 20th century for goodness sake. What kind of idiot would suggest you “had” (owned, possessed) the equivalent of a soul?
The source of any property right is anothers grant of it in exchange for the same, for the duration of your cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 09:24:00 UTC