Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Economics and Ethics of Violence

    by John Dow and Eli Harman (eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)John Dow So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy? Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy? Eli Harman There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies. John Dow So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability? How may we determine when we have reached this limit? Eli Harman When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. John Dow So, we have to pass the limit to identify it? Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability. Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence? John Dow If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability. Why not gossip/rallying/shaming? Eli Harman Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive. John Dow I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures. Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets? In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access. Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic. How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip? Eli Harman In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary. John Dow Hmm interesting. So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange. Three Markets:

    1. Market for Violence,
    2. Market for Production and the
    3. Market for Reproduction.

    Reasoning:

    • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
    • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
    • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
    • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
    • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
    • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
    • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
    • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
    • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

    (Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)

  • Would Libertarianism Exist Without Marx?

    —“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart (a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories. (b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone. The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again. But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication. Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons. Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.

  • Would Libertarianism Exist Without Marx?

    —“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart (a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories. (b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone. The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again. But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication. Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons. Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.

  • The Incentives of Leftist Parasites

    By Eli Harman Why are leftists and social justice warriors so immune to facts, logic, and arguments? It’s because social justice warriors are lying, parasitic, pieces of shit. The aim of lying about equality, is to force transfers and redistribution from the more equal, to the less, including the extension of trust, that will be abused, and the extension of opportunity, which will not be fully realized. All of this is costly, so it represents a parasitic burden on the people forced to provide it. The assumption of that burden, and its maintenance, are compelled and enforced by shaming, scolding, nagging, gossip, rallying, all the “feminine means of coercion,” all the tools of moral, social, and economic, ostracism that can be mustered and deployed to raise the cost of disagreement or dissent rather than address the points of contention in good faith. But because this wholesale plunder and parasitism through fraud creates great boons for its beneficiaries, and salves their fragile egos, they will fight tooth and nail to protect it. And on account of the proceeds of this parasitic plunder and fraud, reliable pawns for leftist elites are bought and paid for; the lynch pin of their demographic and democratic dominance; which they are not willing and not able to maintain by keeping pace with conservatives reproductively. There are nearly insoluable conflicts of interests here that can only be resolved, at the very least, by the physical removal of millions, and the vigorous, violent, and proactive production and supply of incentives, against engaging in dysgenic parasitism, plunder, and fraud. Otherwise it’s too profitable. It will be done. And the more it is done, and the longer it is done, the costlier it will be either to continue, or to stop; for the cost of either can only ever grow, until the final reckoning, and the final toll is paid (whichever way it is paid…)

  • The Incentives of Leftist Parasites

    By Eli Harman Why are leftists and social justice warriors so immune to facts, logic, and arguments? It’s because social justice warriors are lying, parasitic, pieces of shit. The aim of lying about equality, is to force transfers and redistribution from the more equal, to the less, including the extension of trust, that will be abused, and the extension of opportunity, which will not be fully realized. All of this is costly, so it represents a parasitic burden on the people forced to provide it. The assumption of that burden, and its maintenance, are compelled and enforced by shaming, scolding, nagging, gossip, rallying, all the “feminine means of coercion,” all the tools of moral, social, and economic, ostracism that can be mustered and deployed to raise the cost of disagreement or dissent rather than address the points of contention in good faith. But because this wholesale plunder and parasitism through fraud creates great boons for its beneficiaries, and salves their fragile egos, they will fight tooth and nail to protect it. And on account of the proceeds of this parasitic plunder and fraud, reliable pawns for leftist elites are bought and paid for; the lynch pin of their demographic and democratic dominance; which they are not willing and not able to maintain by keeping pace with conservatives reproductively. There are nearly insoluable conflicts of interests here that can only be resolved, at the very least, by the physical removal of millions, and the vigorous, violent, and proactive production and supply of incentives, against engaging in dysgenic parasitism, plunder, and fraud. Otherwise it’s too profitable. It will be done. And the more it is done, and the longer it is done, the costlier it will be either to continue, or to stop; for the cost of either can only ever grow, until the final reckoning, and the final toll is paid (whichever way it is paid…)

  • Invasion vs Immigration

    by John Dow

    1. Imagine two hypothetical nations.. Let’s call them Nation A and Nation B.
    2. They have different cultures.. Let’s call them Culture A and Culture B.
    3. And because of these different cultures, they have different sociopolitical structures.. Let’s call them Sociopolitical Structure A and Sociopolitical Structure B.
    4. Now, if a bunch of people from Nation A all decide to force their way into Nation B for the purpose of altering Nation B’s sociopolitical structure, we correctly call this an invasion.
    5. However, if a large number of people from Nation A immigrate to Nation B, they will gain sociopolitical influence, and because they have Culture A, they cause the sociopolitical structure to alter akin to Nation A.In both scenarios, people from Nation A are occupying Nation B and altering their sociopolitical structure.

      So really, a military invasion and mass immigration differ only in method, but have the same result.

      If someone aides a foreign power to invade their own nation, this is called treason, so why do we tolerate those who endorse and facilitate mass immigration?

  • Invasion vs Immigration

    by John Dow

    1. Imagine two hypothetical nations.. Let’s call them Nation A and Nation B.
    2. They have different cultures.. Let’s call them Culture A and Culture B.
    3. And because of these different cultures, they have different sociopolitical structures.. Let’s call them Sociopolitical Structure A and Sociopolitical Structure B.
    4. Now, if a bunch of people from Nation A all decide to force their way into Nation B for the purpose of altering Nation B’s sociopolitical structure, we correctly call this an invasion.
    5. However, if a large number of people from Nation A immigrate to Nation B, they will gain sociopolitical influence, and because they have Culture A, they cause the sociopolitical structure to alter akin to Nation A.In both scenarios, people from Nation A are occupying Nation B and altering their sociopolitical structure.

      So really, a military invasion and mass immigration differ only in method, but have the same result.

      If someone aides a foreign power to invade their own nation, this is called treason, so why do we tolerate those who endorse and facilitate mass immigration?

  • The Law of Conservation of Costs

    by John Dow Much like thermodynamics – where energy cannot be created or destroyed merely transformed – in economics, cost cannot be created or destroyed, merely transferred. The Government offsets limited liability with the cost it bares to establish the sovereignty with which it can limit liability. Without a Sovereign Insurer, businesses which impose damages on other parties would likely face retaliation unless they compensate for their damages. The Sovereign supresses this retaliation with superior force, yet it spares the party upon whom damages have been imposed the cost of retaliation by also insuring them against these damages, albeit within limits. Violence is just another form of labour, and a costly one at that. Just as labour has a price, so does violence. If you don’t like it, take up arms and revolt against the Government, if you can afford it.

  • The Law of Conservation of Costs

    by John Dow Much like thermodynamics – where energy cannot be created or destroyed merely transformed – in economics, cost cannot be created or destroyed, merely transferred. The Government offsets limited liability with the cost it bares to establish the sovereignty with which it can limit liability. Without a Sovereign Insurer, businesses which impose damages on other parties would likely face retaliation unless they compensate for their damages. The Sovereign supresses this retaliation with superior force, yet it spares the party upon whom damages have been imposed the cost of retaliation by also insuring them against these damages, albeit within limits. Violence is just another form of labour, and a costly one at that. Just as labour has a price, so does violence. If you don’t like it, take up arms and revolt against the Government, if you can afford it.

  • Common Shareholders Are Not Demonstrably Owners

    COMMON SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT OWNERS OF ORGANIZATIONS Ownership: control. Ownership (control) of WHAT? Ownership denies others use, consumption, transfer, and fruits. So what ownership do shares actually convey? RESIDUAL FRUITS. Shareholdership in practice provides a limited ownership to residual capital.