Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM VIA THE COMMON LAW

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-evolution-of-suppression/THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM VIA THE COMMON LAW

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:13:00 UTC

  • (sarcasm)(blue-collar practicality) Talking with a friend over coffee. “We used

    (sarcasm)(blue-collar practicality)

    Talking with a friend over coffee.

    “We used to have a gun club in school. All the people in it were ‘normal’.

    “We can’t have gun clubs with the current distribution in public schools. We need private schools for that kind of thing. Or we need to return to regimented and strict discipline of the underclasses in school. The underclasses are too much of a problem.”

    “Hmmm…. it depends on which end of the range they’re on.”

    “Doh!”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 08:40:00 UTC

  • “You cannot have Switzerland without Germany. You cannot have Canada without USA

    —“You cannot have Switzerland without Germany. You cannot have Canada without USA .. Respect does not keep people from conquering you. The weak benefit from a friend who is feared.”— Doug Holland

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-08 15:17:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM EXPOSED (by joel davis) —“By a priori reasoning (conflating the

    LIBERTARIANISM EXPOSED

    (by joel davis)

    —“By a priori reasoning (conflating their own imaginary “moral” precepts with observable operations) they determine humans are universally entitled to property rights.

    Yet for property rights to have existential possibility they require enforcement. This enforcement COSTS the enforcers. Non-enforcers must PAY for this service.

    If an individual does not pay for the enforcement of his property rights, he receives them as a parasite.

    By extension, members of society require property rights to mutually gain from cooperative social cohesion.

    Enforcing payment for the costs of the enforcement of property protects society against the higher costs of non-cooperation.”—Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 21:19:00 UTC

  • “Identity politics mixed with a notion of universal tolerance renders preferenti

    —“Identity politics mixed with a notion of universal tolerance renders preferential ethic/moral propositions and normative means of decidability ineffective, therefore resorting to Law to accomplish their goals.

    I say law opposed to natural law, as the natural law would eventually restore normative and preferential in group methods (because it focusses on reciprocity and property in toto – property in toto includes social portfolios of groups – thus would protect the preferential and normative methods).

    Therefore identitarians must seek legislation or regulation as a means to accomplish their ends. The natural law would prevent their ends – ends which necessitate the destruction of social commons of other groups.

    If they accomplish the destruction of the “dominant culture”, destruction of each other (each “oppressed” group) would be a natural consequence.

    Natural Law stands as a last resort when preferential and normative means fails and stands as the default method across disparate groups who do not share or do not have enough overlap of preferential and normative means.

    Natural law provides commensurability between disparate groups.

    Legislation/regulation provides a method of destroying disparate groups – a means of predation(at worst) and parasitism (at best). “—Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 12:46:00 UTC

  • the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization. this is one of the fallacies of l

    the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization.

    this is one of the fallacies of libertarianism. in fact, minor increases in transaction costs produce multiplier effects on the economy and property rights and as a consequence – demand for the state.

    This argument goes back to one of the fallacies of introspection: which ‘man’ is ‘man’? Is he the superpredator that must be domesticated? The rational actor that we must limit to productive ends? The peaceful cooperator that was oppressed by the evolution of government or the state? Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau?

    Must we use authority(hobbes), markets(locke), or caretaking(rousseau) to construct our society for most optimum ends?

    or is it, as I have proposed, that man is a rational actor and that through domestication (eugenic reproduction by market means) we have limited the pool of humans to those that can function within the market order?

    We make use of KIN SELECTION in the pursuit of opportunities, NORMATIVE ostracization as a means of depriving others of opportunities , and CRIMINAL prosecution in order to punish them for violations, and WAR when all else fails.

    Because we must do so.

    only children or those with the minds of children seek monopoly solutions. There are three methods of coercion: violence and its threat, remuneration/deprivation of opportunity, and rallying/shaming.

    Lose any one and you merely open the door for predation by that means.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 19:20:00 UTC

  • Three Coercions: Public Speech, Credit and Finance, Military and Law. If a peopl

    Three Coercions: Public Speech, Credit and Finance, Military and Law. If a people specializes in these three disciplines they can rule.

    We killed the Templars, and allowed false speech, then permitted access to rule without military service.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:16:00 UTC

  • Why A Monopoly Economic Model? Power. Because there isn’t a need for a monopoly model.

    —“Curt , why won’t they let us have economic and cultural systems that are specific to the various cultures around the world? Why the obsession to force one system on differing people, many whom aren’t adept to a foreign survival strategy? Why not let many flowers bloom?”—Ankit Patel‎  Exactly. You know why? Where religion was the excuse for pursuing power in the past, morality the excuse for pursuing power after that, economics has been the excuse for pursuing power since marx.

  • Why A Monopoly Economic Model? Power. Because there isn’t a need for a monopoly model.

    —“Curt , why won’t they let us have economic and cultural systems that are specific to the various cultures around the world? Why the obsession to force one system on differing people, many whom aren’t adept to a foreign survival strategy? Why not let many flowers bloom?”—Ankit Patel‎  Exactly. You know why? Where religion was the excuse for pursuing power in the past, morality the excuse for pursuing power after that, economics has been the excuse for pursuing power since marx.

  • Open Borders Produce Forceful Redistribution.

    —“Property norms define superior and inferior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe