Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary excha

    MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST

    —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”—

    well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange.

    —“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”—

    Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’.

    The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against.

    blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation.

    —“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”—

    ok what’s your example.

    —“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:

    If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”—

    Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no.

    –“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?

    (I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”—

    There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really).

    —“I posed a yes-or-no question”—

    And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one.

    (a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality.

    So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade.

    In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality?

    well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary.

    –“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”—

    Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars.

    Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes.

    Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No.

    —“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”—

    It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it?

    –“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”—

    Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this

    That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively.

    Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal.

    Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not.

    That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice.

    Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible.

    Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions.

    Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution.

    Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul.

    —“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”—

    “Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.”

    Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts.

    Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism

    The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument.

    —“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”—

    I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you.

    So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment.

    –“I see”–

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 19:43:00 UTC

  • RIGHT SECTOR Right Sector seized military weaponry from an Interior Ministry ars

    RIGHT SECTOR

    Right Sector seized military weaponry from an Interior Ministry arsenal in western Ukraine, near Lviv, towards the end of the Maidan revolution.

    Following the collapse of the Yanukovych government, with police having largely abandoned the streets of Kiev, groups of young men, including members of Right Sector, patrolled them armed mostly with baseball bats and sometimes with guns.

    Right Sector recruited retired officers of the interior ministry and the security agencies.

    Right Sector delivered some weapons to Ukrainian authorities in the aftermath of the revolution, and kept others.

    Petro Poroshenko in an interview with DW English in late 2015, claimed that Right Sector was going to be disarmed and taken out of operations in Donbass, but still hasn’t done so as of 2017.

    Right Sector holds the position that the population should keep and bear arms, as in Switzerland.[110] Yarosh told the New York Times that the organization’s lawyers were drafting a bill modeled on Swiss notions of firearms possession.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 11:29:00 UTC

  • “There are about 3,000,000 American Federal government employees costing taxpaye

    —“There are about 3,000,000 American Federal government employees costing taxpayers $119,934 each on average (when you include benefits). This amounts to $359,802,000,000/year. I can’t even….”—-Kahl O’Dournian

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 22:24:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992892796091715584

  • A Note for Revolutionaries on Ammo

    —“Basic combat load is 7, 30 round magazines. It has been for a very long time. “— But when you state it as “200 rounds” people get a better idea of how few rounds that is. And Americans still too frequently run down on ammunition in a defensive firefight. —“Ignoring the basic correct answer is 210 rounds for the M4, here is a real combat load after 18 months before, during and after the surge in Iraq. I was a combat medic in an infantry unit deployed to a high tempo battlezone. We rolled outside the wire at least 5 days a week and often multiple times a day. About 1/4 of those would see some degree of combat. I carried a 30lb lite aid bag in addition to 10 magazines on my rack and drop pouches. Additionally my hot mag was a double and my main aid bag stayed on our vehicle with another 4 mags along with 65 lbs of medical gear. Long range patrols and extended ops were a bitch for me but after running out of ammo in one fight everything changed. I started dropping other gear from my load and replacing everything I could with composite material. I carried more than anyone but the squad gunner but it came in handy for others as well.I can function for 2 days without water. I can survive almost a week without food. My life expectancy in a firefight while out of ammo isn’t shit. In combat every bullet is a chance to save a life.”— Anon. In other words, he carried, 60 round hot mag, 10 30 round mags and 4 spare 30 round mags. 60 + 300 + 120 = 480. (My estimate of defensive ammo reserve from everything I’ve read is 600 rounds per man), and also from what I’ve read, no less than double that for a light machine gunner. Patrol is very dangerous. It’s searching for the enemy by presenting yourself as a target (bullet magnet). I prefer the Russian method: saturate the ground with artillery, roll in with equipment, destroy anything standing, kill everything that moves, and mop up the remainder on foot. The best way to hold territory is when everything other than you is pebbles, soot, splinters, or dead. –“Seven (7) mags was your “naked walking around load” and at no time was I more than a short distance away from an additional 10 mags. Point being, historically, I’m sure there was a prescribed basic load for the Italian military of the time but nobody ever says they had too much ammo in a firefight.”– Will Harm

  • A Note for Revolutionaries on Ammo

    —“Basic combat load is 7, 30 round magazines. It has been for a very long time. “— But when you state it as “200 rounds” people get a better idea of how few rounds that is. And Americans still too frequently run down on ammunition in a defensive firefight. —“Ignoring the basic correct answer is 210 rounds for the M4, here is a real combat load after 18 months before, during and after the surge in Iraq. I was a combat medic in an infantry unit deployed to a high tempo battlezone. We rolled outside the wire at least 5 days a week and often multiple times a day. About 1/4 of those would see some degree of combat. I carried a 30lb lite aid bag in addition to 10 magazines on my rack and drop pouches. Additionally my hot mag was a double and my main aid bag stayed on our vehicle with another 4 mags along with 65 lbs of medical gear. Long range patrols and extended ops were a bitch for me but after running out of ammo in one fight everything changed. I started dropping other gear from my load and replacing everything I could with composite material. I carried more than anyone but the squad gunner but it came in handy for others as well.I can function for 2 days without water. I can survive almost a week without food. My life expectancy in a firefight while out of ammo isn’t shit. In combat every bullet is a chance to save a life.”— Anon. In other words, he carried, 60 round hot mag, 10 30 round mags and 4 spare 30 round mags. 60 + 300 + 120 = 480. (My estimate of defensive ammo reserve from everything I’ve read is 600 rounds per man), and also from what I’ve read, no less than double that for a light machine gunner. Patrol is very dangerous. It’s searching for the enemy by presenting yourself as a target (bullet magnet). I prefer the Russian method: saturate the ground with artillery, roll in with equipment, destroy anything standing, kill everything that moves, and mop up the remainder on foot. The best way to hold territory is when everything other than you is pebbles, soot, splinters, or dead. –“Seven (7) mags was your “naked walking around load” and at no time was I more than a short distance away from an additional 10 mags. Point being, historically, I’m sure there was a prescribed basic load for the Italian military of the time but nobody ever says they had too much ammo in a firefight.”– Will Harm

  • The Ambitions of Cattle

    —“Curt, what are your thoughts on metamodernism?”— No matter how you slice it, activists on the left are nothing more than human cattle seeking the monopoly of a cattle herd, the indifference (equality) of cattle in a herd, and the safety of cattle in the herd, in order to obtain a sense of ‘not being left behind’, and ‘a sense of control over a world” in which the continuous production of differences and hierarchies is constantly equilibrated by markets that are by definition out of our control, but entirely in our service. People who obtain their direction from the movement of the herd, their information from the herd, and color their decisions from the herd, display the cognitive biases of the herd: the sentiments of women. Meanwhile the conservative says “if we simply raise good families, and produce good commons the markets will provide by externality all that we can want or imagine”. These are the cognitive biases of the pack. The sentiments of men. It was men who made markets, property, families, marriage, continuous innovation, and the worship of the sun and stars, against the will of women, who at all times and all places seek to return us to the primitivism that is not in their interest but ours. The left are to be sated, comforted, and disciplined, but like women, never permitted to fulfill their ambitions and return us to primitivism.

  • The Ambitions of Cattle

    —“Curt, what are your thoughts on metamodernism?”— No matter how you slice it, activists on the left are nothing more than human cattle seeking the monopoly of a cattle herd, the indifference (equality) of cattle in a herd, and the safety of cattle in the herd, in order to obtain a sense of ‘not being left behind’, and ‘a sense of control over a world” in which the continuous production of differences and hierarchies is constantly equilibrated by markets that are by definition out of our control, but entirely in our service. People who obtain their direction from the movement of the herd, their information from the herd, and color their decisions from the herd, display the cognitive biases of the herd: the sentiments of women. Meanwhile the conservative says “if we simply raise good families, and produce good commons the markets will provide by externality all that we can want or imagine”. These are the cognitive biases of the pack. The sentiments of men. It was men who made markets, property, families, marriage, continuous innovation, and the worship of the sun and stars, against the will of women, who at all times and all places seek to return us to the primitivism that is not in their interest but ours. The left are to be sated, comforted, and disciplined, but like women, never permitted to fulfill their ambitions and return us to primitivism.

  • Um. We don’t live under capitalism whatsoever. We live under financialism, socia

    Um. We don’t live under capitalism whatsoever. We live under financialism, social democracy (the redistributive state), and rule by the mob instead of rule of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-04 08:23:00 UTC

  • LET ME HELP YOU. Trump knows how to play brinkmanship, and he is fully aware tha

    LET ME HELP YOU.

    Trump knows how to play brinkmanship, and he is fully aware that everyone at the table understands that the bloodiest civil war in human history is hanging over Washington’s head. He cannot lose. The only way to win is to leave him alone and ignore him. Everything else just makes him more powerful, further reinforces the base, advances his longer term objectives of withdrawing the states from paying the costs of policing the worlds institutions of finance, transport, and trade.

    People who work in bureaucracies, particularly in the civilized west, who have little knowledge of military and political history, who have never had the responsibility of building businesses at scale, particularly with little personal money, and particularly in a trade as corrupt as construction and the demands of construction in relation to state bureaucracies, unions, and foreign corruption are profoundly naive.

    The most powerful method of management in an environment of mistrust is chaos, by which one applies long term pressure to achieve strategic ends.

    It’s not complicated. It’s trivially simple. You just need financial and political independence, and minority of men willing to kill for you.

    And that is because I do the same thing…..

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-03 19:35:00 UTC

  • “We Cannot Keep up With the Radical Left – Paris Is Burning”

    (PARIS IS BURNING) —“…he defended the way police had handled the violence, saying little could be done to stop trouble-makers from infiltrating the crowds. “We can only detain a certain number of people who turn up like you or I in civilian clothing and then suddenly are dressed in black bloc outfits in the middle of the crowd,” he said. “We cannot keep up, even with 21 police units mobilised against movements which all of a sudden appear on a scale we’ve never seen before.” Radical leftist groups had issued a call on social media — both in French and English — for people to take part in a “revolutionary May 1″ on the 50th anniversary of the 1968 student and worker protests which nearly brought down the government of the day.”—-