Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Becker’s Use of Marginalism in Violence and Revolution

    BECKER’S USE OF MARGINALISM IN VIOLENCE AND REVOLUTION (predatory gains are linear, losses to prey are exponential) —“…a simple calculation that predatory interest groups and their taxpaying victims make: what return on my investment can I get by lobbying government? Becker’s insight is that the gains to predators are linear, but the losses to prey are exponential, thereby stiffening the resistance of victims as the aggression of predators plods on without similarly increased vigor. Think of a gang of robbers taking half the crop from peasants. They then return for the second half. The gain to the gang of the second half cut is the same as in their first extortion. Yet for peasants to lose the last half of their crops means possible starvation and the certain loss of seed corn. They can be expected to resist violently…”— Violence is always extant. This of course, is why the government’s search for pareto optimums, and biology and the market’s search for nash equilibriums are so different, and why Pareto optimums are so dangerous: the state produces ‘trigger events’ by some linear increase that produces a revolution: the exponential cost is too high and war or revolution is preferable to on more incremental predation.

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • Rothbardians Excel At Demonstrating The Evolution of Lying

    Apr 18, 2017 9:32am ROTHBARDIANS ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OF LYING I love destroying Rothbardians. It’s…. it’s such a great way of showing the way that Pilpul > Scriptural Justification > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > and Lying by Rationalism > Lying by Pseudoscience, has evolved from the origins of scriptural monotheism until today. Wisdom Literature > Scriptural (Authoritarian) LIterature > Pilpul > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > Kantian Rationalism > Marxist Rationalism > Rothbardian Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudo-Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudoscience. THE EVOLUTION OF LYING

  • Rothbardians Excel At Demonstrating The Evolution of Lying

    Apr 18, 2017 9:32am ROTHBARDIANS ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OF LYING I love destroying Rothbardians. It’s…. it’s such a great way of showing the way that Pilpul > Scriptural Justification > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > and Lying by Rationalism > Lying by Pseudoscience, has evolved from the origins of scriptural monotheism until today. Wisdom Literature > Scriptural (Authoritarian) LIterature > Pilpul > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > Kantian Rationalism > Marxist Rationalism > Rothbardian Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudo-Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudoscience. THE EVOLUTION OF LYING

  • The Origins of Ratio-Deceptionism – And the Roman Counter via Stoicism and Law

    THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and the Greeks discovered Ratio-Deceptionism. The greeks were treated the same way we treat the Jews today (as skillful liars). But the Romans, from whom we inherit our laws, and our government, actively ridiculed the greeks, used them as we use jews today, and prohibited them from office, and instead adopted the stoicism and empirical law. The greeks proliferated ‘ways of thinking’ – advocating markets for preferences, the jews doubled-down on one way of thinking – advocating an authoritarian way of thinking. But the Romans, conquering both sets of ‘liars’ did the opposite: there exist ways of not-acting and ways of not-speaking, and ways of not-arguing, that you may not demonstrate – but you may think and choose otherwise however you please. It was their failure to crush religious lies that was their falling. In other words, roman social science, like the social science I advocate, was via negativa: law. Why? aristocracy vs peasantry. We have, with the scientific enlightenment, continued this tradition to the present – and in the current era, to our detriment. The technique is quite simple: Rationalism is easily used to deceive, so when the information is insufficient to decide by rational means, we must gain more information by the empirical (existential). if that information is insufficient to decide by empirical means, we must gain more information by the operational (causal). If that information is insufficient to decide by causal means, then we must gain more information by the full accounting of consequences. If we possess categorical, internal-rational, external empirical, causal operational, fully accounted consequence, then the only means of decidability is PREFERENCE (trade). Cheers

  • The Origins of Ratio-Deceptionism – And the Roman Counter via Stoicism and Law

    THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and the Greeks discovered Ratio-Deceptionism. The greeks were treated the same way we treat the Jews today (as skillful liars). But the Romans, from whom we inherit our laws, and our government, actively ridiculed the greeks, used them as we use jews today, and prohibited them from office, and instead adopted the stoicism and empirical law. The greeks proliferated ‘ways of thinking’ – advocating markets for preferences, the jews doubled-down on one way of thinking – advocating an authoritarian way of thinking. But the Romans, conquering both sets of ‘liars’ did the opposite: there exist ways of not-acting and ways of not-speaking, and ways of not-arguing, that you may not demonstrate – but you may think and choose otherwise however you please. It was their failure to crush religious lies that was their falling. In other words, roman social science, like the social science I advocate, was via negativa: law. Why? aristocracy vs peasantry. We have, with the scientific enlightenment, continued this tradition to the present – and in the current era, to our detriment. The technique is quite simple: Rationalism is easily used to deceive, so when the information is insufficient to decide by rational means, we must gain more information by the empirical (existential). if that information is insufficient to decide by empirical means, we must gain more information by the operational (causal). If that information is insufficient to decide by causal means, then we must gain more information by the full accounting of consequences. If we possess categorical, internal-rational, external empirical, causal operational, fully accounted consequence, then the only means of decidability is PREFERENCE (trade). Cheers

  • First Questions of Personal, Ethical, Political Philosophy?

    —” Does “why shouldn’t I kill myself?” Qualifies as political question? Or polarity is internal here?”—Mea Culba 1) PERSONAL Q: First question of philosophy why do I not commit suicide? A: possibility for acquisition and influence (power) 2) ETHICAL Q: First question of ethics: why do I not kill you and take your things? A: Because cooperation is lower cost and higher return 3) POLITICAL Q: First question of politics: why do we not kill you and enslave your wives and daughters? A: Because it is much lower cost and much higher return. 4) TO WHAT DEGREE DO WE COOPERATE? 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you? BECAUSE I DON”T TRUST YOU ENOUGH TO COOPERATE THAT *MUCH* WITH YOU.