Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • IF WE ARE SO PRIVILEGED, THEN WHY DON’T WE CONQUER AND OPPRESS YOU? I mean, that

    IF WE ARE SO PRIVILEGED, THEN WHY DON’T WE CONQUER AND OPPRESS YOU?

    I mean, that what a ‘bad’ person would do with privilege, right?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-04 09:01:00 UTC

  • INTOLERANCE IS A HIGH COST, A HIGH TAX THAT WE MUST PAY. TOLERANCE IS A FREE RID

    INTOLERANCE IS A HIGH COST, A HIGH TAX THAT WE MUST PAY. TOLERANCE IS A FREE RIDING – A DISCOUNT, A THEFT NOT A VIRTUE.

    Living Light – and safe.

    Sure, I have the contents of a four bedroom house in storage. But otherwise, my life consists of a little red sportscar, six large duffel bags full of wardrobe, a suitcase full of computer gear, and my working computer, id, iPad/exterior monitor, sound system, prescriptions, cables, batteries, umbrella, rain poncho, cash and a few gold coins I keep in my (very fancy) backpack and I never ever take my eye off of it. I keep a cord lock in the backpack and lock it to whatever I can when I am in a public place. Worst case I have a run bag with me at all times.

    Part of this habit is living in an iffy place during the revolution. Part of it is what my government did to me and am forever traumatised by. Part of it was what my divorce did to me. Part of it is autistic in that I must have rituals to remember where I put things. Part of it is just feeling that I don’t need to worry.

    I sleep with my phone, backpack and laptop next to the bed. So I don’t worry about them

    In America I always carry a sidearm out of advocacy. I have only needed it three times. Once when a psycho came after me and Allora when I turned his criminal activity in. And twice when people of different Color decided I was a target late at night. Yelling “help police!!” While pointing a sidearm is very different from returning the threat with macho.

    I know too many people who have had car trunks robbed because someone watched them place items in the boot then either waited or followed them to their next destination and stolen them.

    I have too much experience with east coast urban life. I know the evil men do. When I lived in Back Bay in Boston my heart raced twice a day: when I woke up and checked to see if my car was still there, and when I came home and checked to see that the door had not been banged in by thieves.

    I never feel as unsafe in Ukraine as I did in every American city.

    You know why?

    Intolerance.

    Men beat the hell out of you here for the slightest threatening action just like they used to in America.

    Every man a sheriff. Every man intolerant. Every man a hangman.

    Intolerance is a high tax.

    But we must pay it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-03 05:21:00 UTC

  • Hang ’em Early and Often (Really)

    (In response to news that Duarte will reinstitute the death penalty and hold weekly hangings, I’ve reluctantly agreed that this is an important tradition) [T]he death penalty is probably one of the most positive influences of all traditional institutions when used aggressively against violent career criminals. Particularly if they are young and have not reproduced. Sterilisation of females is probably even better since their constant ‘invisible’ crimes are moral and indirect thefts rather than ethical and direct thefts. So whether we hang or sterilize we make the world a better place. And the way to prevent hanging and sterilizing is to control reproduction by upward redistribution of rates of reproduction, rather than the downward that we have been conducting for the past century and a half – thereby losing a standard deviation in IQ. Hang early and often.

    —“You’re psycho.”—Todd Saunders

    Actually I have been forced to change to and hold this opinion by the evidence. Sorry. I’m a scientist not a priest.

  • Hang ’em Early and Often (Really)

    (In response to news that Duarte will reinstitute the death penalty and hold weekly hangings, I’ve reluctantly agreed that this is an important tradition) [T]he death penalty is probably one of the most positive influences of all traditional institutions when used aggressively against violent career criminals. Particularly if they are young and have not reproduced. Sterilisation of females is probably even better since their constant ‘invisible’ crimes are moral and indirect thefts rather than ethical and direct thefts. So whether we hang or sterilize we make the world a better place. And the way to prevent hanging and sterilizing is to control reproduction by upward redistribution of rates of reproduction, rather than the downward that we have been conducting for the past century and a half – thereby losing a standard deviation in IQ. Hang early and often.

    —“You’re psycho.”—Todd Saunders

    Actually I have been forced to change to and hold this opinion by the evidence. Sorry. I’m a scientist not a priest.

  • A RUSSIAN CRITIC OF PUTIN ADVISES PRO PUTIN LIBERTARIANS The thing that bothers

    A RUSSIAN CRITIC OF PUTIN ADVISES PRO PUTIN LIBERTARIANS

    The thing that bothers me is the theft of your business if you build one. The Putin Oligarchs are fine for the poor, but not for the entrepreneurial class. And therefore not eventually for anyone.

    ——–

    (POSTED NOT LINKED) I CANNOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO LINK TO IT. SO HERE IS THE COPY AND PASTE

    Vera Kichanova shared Tatiana Moroz’s post — feeling angry.

    November 22 at 3:51pm · Kyiv ·

    I am mad as hell. A friend of mine and a libertarian star Tatiana Moroz asked her fb friends (mostly American libertarians) what they think about Putin https://www.facebook.com/tatiana.moroz/posts/10153258040193595. Many answered they “trust him 100%” because he is “anti-communist” and “opposing New World Order”. As a person who has lived under Putin most of my life (I was 9 when he came to power for the first time) I have a lot to say in response to this:

    “Modern Russia is much less socialist than the US and Putin is blantly anti communist.”

    Some westerners admire Putin for being “not openly a communist”. Well, I fondly hoped that whenever statism changes its name libertarians can still recognize it. Half of Russian economy is officially owned by state, and all the big monopolies that are de jure private actually belong to Putin’s friends, relatives or judo sparring partners—and now their children are already being appointed executives, thus, half of Russian economy is ruled by few dynasties.

    At the same time, when someone creates a successful business and refuses to play by their rules, they find a way to take it away in favor of someone more loyal. See the story of Pavel Durov, a libertarian hero who created a “Russian Facebook”, the major IT-company in Russia, and was forced to sell it to Putin’s friend after he refused to show the personal data of some Ukrainian activists (he is in exile now) http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandcu…/…/24279/1/pavel-durov

    A very popular argument for Putin being “anti-communist” is a flat taxation in Russia. Yes, that was a great improvement made during his first term, and it was implemented by his former economic advisor Andrei Illarionov, now a Cato Senior Fellow and a prominent Putin’s critic. Ten years ago (!) he resigned declaring that “Russia has become a different country. It is no longer a democratic country. It is no longer a free country”. There are no free market supporters in Putin’s administration now.

    But even if you prefer symbols to actions, a modern Russian ideology is still a mix of Stalinism and Orthodoxy. Other post-communist countries (like Baltic states and now Ukraine) have gone through decommunization process, but not Russia. The main street in almost every town is still called Lenin Street. Moscow authorities are planning to rebuild a monument of Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret police and the most bloody person in our history. The head of state is a former KGB officer, and there is no such thing as a “former KGB man”. None of the top officials who were Communist Party members in Soviet times (and most of them were) ever renounced the communist ideology.

    At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church has become an influential political force. The Cossacks were allowed to “patrol the morals” in the streets. The construction of 200 (!) new churches in Moscow was sponsored by the Moscow government. One can receive a prison term for offending “religious feelings” of other people http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Russia-introduces-jail-terms-f… Further, religious education is mandatory in all Russian schools. The Russian Patriarch calls Putin’s reign a “miracle of God”.

    As you probably know, two years ago a famous “gay propaganda law” was enacted making it illegal to equate straight and gay relationships and to show public affection. Soon after I and my fellows were beaten for “looking gay” in a bar owned by a representative of Moscow’s mayor. Three months later, my friend from Petersburg was attacked by two masked men at the meeting for the LGBT community. He sustained serious damage in one eye after being shot with a pneumatic pistol http://www.politico.com/…/03/russia-putin-lgbt-violence-116… Do I have to mention that Russian investigators refused to search for the thugs in both cases?

    Russia is a de-facto single-party state, just like the USSR. The laws on the majority of issues are being passed unanimously, since, as the State Duma speaker famously said, the “parliament is no place for discussions.” Independent parties are not allowed to participate in elections. Last summer, I was attacked by unknown criminals who broke my street booth and tore all the signatures I had collected in support of myself as a candidate for Moscow City Council.

    “The media will always demonize Putin because they work for “The Man” whose agenda is complete world dominance. Putin is one of a few remaining leaders who is standing in the way. The people of Russia, for the most part, are very happy with him. Not the brainwashed ones who are all for “globalism”.”

    Not brainwashed, right? The first thing Putin did when he became president was taking control over the media. Every country-wide channel now is controlled by the government, including your favorite Russia Today, which receives $300 million dollars from the Russian government every year. The opposition blogs are routinely blacklisted and online news outlets censored. For instance, Russian Wikipedia was temporarily blocked because of the article “Cannabis smoking”, a number of Bitcoin-related websites were blacklisted because “it contributes to shadow economy”, and my article on Siberia was blocked as promoting separatism http://studentsforliberty.org/…/journalist-vera-kichanova-…/

    As for anti-Putin movement, in 2011, we had the biggest civil uprising since the 1990s. As a result, 28 demonstrators were accused of inciting a riot and violence against the police—not celebrated opposition leaders but a random selection of the 100,000 protesters. In fact, Russian government set up this lottery to make us all afraid. “For an injured policeman, the liver of demonstrators should be smeared on the asphalt”, said Putin’s spokesman.

    Now, if a protester is detained for the second time, he or she risks receiving up to five years in prison. By the way, I have been arrested six times for peacefully protesting and once as a reporter http://www.forbes.com/…/ive-been-arrested-at-six-anti-puti…/ Despite that, 50,000 of my fellow countrymen went out in the streets of Moscow last year in protest of our government’s aggressive actions in Crimea. Have you seen it on Russia Today? No need to ask.

    “[Putin] seems to be the only head of state in power that uses common sense.. .also seems like he actually cares for the well being of humanity…”

    “He’s for restoring and preserving his nation. That’s more than I can say for our leader!”

    “Surely Russia’s wealth has increased and he’s not exactly imposing his footprint that much, although there are certainly some questionable issues on his foreign policy I’m sure

    Questionable issues, really?!

    Putin admitted that Russian troops took over Crimea, removing any doubt that it was an occupation and not a popular uprising. (The same kind of referendum is illegal in Russia: public calls for actions violating the territorial integrity of country are punishable by 4 years in prison.) Many separatists fighting in Ukraine are Russian citizens, some of their commanders formerly served for Russian special services. If you need more facts on Russia’s regime comparing to Ukraine I recommend you to read this: http://libertarian-party.ru/…/an-appeal-to-western-libertar…

    In addition, Russian military budget is the second largest in the world. Russia, by the way, still has a conscription army, and many those fighting in Ukraine and Syria are subject to a military draft. Journalists who investigated secret burials of Russians paratroopers killed in Ukraine were severely attacked

    http://www.rferl.org/…/russia-pskov-politicia…/26558191.html Russian officials, however, finally admitted there were regular army soldiers in Ukraine, but said they were fighting voluntarily while being “on vacation.”

    “Anytime the US media demonizes someone there’s something good about them.”

    Would you join ISIS just because Obama said it’s evil? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. I don’t want to spend my whole life proving this obvious thing, and I’d appreciate if you help me to spread the truth.

    Don’t be Confused Pro-Putin Libertarians, please.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 08:33:00 UTC

  • Defense vs Rule vs Government

    [I] have no problem defending or ruling other peoples. These are both moral and costly. I have a problem with governing other people. And profiting from it. Why? Because defense and rule of law are universal truths. Governing: producing commons, are preferences and strategies. I consider that none of even the most enlightened people’s business. And worse, beyond their capacity.

  • Defense vs Rule vs Government

    [I] have no problem defending or ruling other peoples. These are both moral and costly. I have a problem with governing other people. And profiting from it. Why? Because defense and rule of law are universal truths. Governing: producing commons, are preferences and strategies. I consider that none of even the most enlightened people’s business. And worse, beyond their capacity.

  • How Do We Know The ‘Right’ Taxation?

    Q&A:

    —“How does one find out if taxes are indeed limited? How does one figure out whether “the price is right” under a monopoly?”—

    [I] think what you might mean is how we know what commission to calculate. And given that commissions and sales taxes are well understood phenomenon I’m not sure how that’s particularly difficult. Most shopping malls charge ‘commissions’ or ‘fees’ that are a percentage of revenue. They can be universal or particular, but that question is empirical not moral. ***As an adjunct to rule of law, and therefore free of discretion, the formula must remain constant. But the formula itself is irrelevant. The point being that the purpose of any producer of commons would be to increase common revenues, not decrease common profits.*** In other words, the problem is in providing the correct incentive to those who specialize in the production of commons, and to prevent loading framing and overloading in their arguments. Otherwise a sales tax that individuals vote in favor of initiatives is kind of hard to argue with.

  • How Do We Know The ‘Right’ Taxation?

    Q&A:

    —“How does one find out if taxes are indeed limited? How does one figure out whether “the price is right” under a monopoly?”—

    [I] think what you might mean is how we know what commission to calculate. And given that commissions and sales taxes are well understood phenomenon I’m not sure how that’s particularly difficult. Most shopping malls charge ‘commissions’ or ‘fees’ that are a percentage of revenue. They can be universal or particular, but that question is empirical not moral. ***As an adjunct to rule of law, and therefore free of discretion, the formula must remain constant. But the formula itself is irrelevant. The point being that the purpose of any producer of commons would be to increase common revenues, not decrease common profits.*** In other words, the problem is in providing the correct incentive to those who specialize in the production of commons, and to prevent loading framing and overloading in their arguments. Otherwise a sales tax that individuals vote in favor of initiatives is kind of hard to argue with.

  • The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

    (important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.