Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • OVERTURNING NAP WITH NAP/IVP AND NAP/DP NAP does not make a legal framework btw.

    OVERTURNING NAP WITH NAP/IVP AND NAP/DP

    NAP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so.

    Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation.

    Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation.

    NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation.

    NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope.

    The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution.

    Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 01:13:00 UTC

  • YES, BUT **WHICH** NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE? Non Aggression, or the Non Aggressi

    YES, BUT **WHICH** NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE?

    Non Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion.

    The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression.

    But aggression against what?

    A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property

    –VS–

    B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto?

    The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in.

    The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational.

    Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation.

    Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority.

    The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 00:42:00 UTC

  • I felt a victim of my predatory government in the states. I feel the stress of p

    I felt a victim of my predatory government in the states. I feel the stress of poverty, corruption, and poor infrastructure in Ukraine – as well as the pressure of language. In Estonia I feel ‘safe’ or ‘comfortable’ for the fist time that I can remember. I can speak english. People are civil in proper protestant fashion, everything works, shops have stock.

    (Genetic pacification pacifies one’s governors as well you know.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-09 03:01:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE – THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS IS. (important concept) (l

    PROPERTY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE – THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS IS.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm)

    The informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs.

    One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration.

    So:

    – property exists prior to cooperation,

    – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice)

    – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality

    – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment).

    Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others.

    The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you).

    It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect.

    Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation.

    This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances.

    It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative.

    This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 23:53:00 UTC

  • Law: Genetic Pacification: The Problem of Retaliation.

    [I] think that anyone with knowledge of the intellectual history of law is keenly aware of the church’s problem of breaking up the large family holdings, and the law’s problem of preventing retaliation.

    What I think has proven difficult for most people in the conservative and certainly in the libertarian movements, is the recognition that property rights must extend to cover all those impositions that invoke retaliation.

    —-“Frost and Harpending argue that Human nature has been domesticated through breeding out violent men by the state. HBD chick & Jayman are arguing that the state replaced clan violence and directed it toward its enemies. It‘s really a question of whether cooperation with strangers on a mass scale occurred before or after the rise of the state. They agree on most things, “Yes, I see the two processes as being complementary. The dissolution of clannishness was both a cause and an effect of the pacification of social relations.”—-Bret Lynn

    (See http://www.europeanguardian.com/82-uncategorised/science/4-western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification)

    While we consider the central problem the state, the state is the result of suppressing private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.

    But the central problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.

    First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity.  Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.

  • Law: Genetic Pacification: The Problem of Retaliation.

    [I] think that anyone with knowledge of the intellectual history of law is keenly aware of the church’s problem of breaking up the large family holdings, and the law’s problem of preventing retaliation.

    What I think has proven difficult for most people in the conservative and certainly in the libertarian movements, is the recognition that property rights must extend to cover all those impositions that invoke retaliation.

    —-“Frost and Harpending argue that Human nature has been domesticated through breeding out violent men by the state. HBD chick & Jayman are arguing that the state replaced clan violence and directed it toward its enemies. It‘s really a question of whether cooperation with strangers on a mass scale occurred before or after the rise of the state. They agree on most things, “Yes, I see the two processes as being complementary. The dissolution of clannishness was both a cause and an effect of the pacification of social relations.”—-Bret Lynn

    (See http://www.europeanguardian.com/82-uncategorised/science/4-western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification)

    While we consider the central problem the state, the state is the result of suppressing private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.

    But the central problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.

    First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity.  Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.

  • Yes, You Can Use Violence To Create Peace

    —“You can’t bomb people into peace”— [A]rguably false. The great ‘peaces’ have all been the result of those empires possessing and exercising disproportionate power over trade routes, and in doing so creating single commercial zones, so that all competition is forced into the market for goods and services, and all political and military competition is suppressed. So the evidence is quite the contrary: you absolutely can bomb into peace. No question about it. In fact, bombing into peace is the standard by which such things are accomplished. The question is not the bombs, but whether one chooses to rule or exploit those one has bombed. If one chooses to rule, and rules by rule of law, then who GOVERNS is something quite different. Most polities will tolerate rule if they can continue governance (discretionary production of commons). It is not the provision of commons (government) that challenges less advanced people, but the adjudication of differences by objective means.

    Aristocracy’s function is to rule, not necessarily to govern. We prohibit violence and theft, prohibit error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit., and adjudicate differences. We do not favor much else other than beauty. Aristocracy uses limits. Hypotheses we leave to others.

  • Yes, You Can Use Violence To Create Peace

    —“You can’t bomb people into peace”— [A]rguably false. The great ‘peaces’ have all been the result of those empires possessing and exercising disproportionate power over trade routes, and in doing so creating single commercial zones, so that all competition is forced into the market for goods and services, and all political and military competition is suppressed. So the evidence is quite the contrary: you absolutely can bomb into peace. No question about it. In fact, bombing into peace is the standard by which such things are accomplished. The question is not the bombs, but whether one chooses to rule or exploit those one has bombed. If one chooses to rule, and rules by rule of law, then who GOVERNS is something quite different. Most polities will tolerate rule if they can continue governance (discretionary production of commons). It is not the provision of commons (government) that challenges less advanced people, but the adjudication of differences by objective means.

    Aristocracy’s function is to rule, not necessarily to govern. We prohibit violence and theft, prohibit error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit., and adjudicate differences. We do not favor much else other than beauty. Aristocracy uses limits. Hypotheses we leave to others.

  • Revolution: Threats by Which We Raise The Cost of the Status Quo

    [R]EVOLUTION: THE  THREAT: THE PROMISE: “THE BURNINGS”The Burnings: (a) the advocates of lying, deceit, and pseudoscience (people: public intellectuals) (b) the executors of lying, deceit, pseudoscience (bureaucrats) (b) the institutions of pseudoscience (academy, bureaucracy, media) (c) the works of pseudoscience (Freudianism, marxism, Keynesianism, postmodernism) (d) the advertising of ugliness, deceit, and pseudoscience (modern and postmodern art)

    Burn the “Cathedral Complex” to ashes. It’s not just statues of Lenin and Stalin that need to be destroyed. It’s statues to lying, deceit, and pseudoscience: all the works of the “era of deceit” – the Pseudoscientific and postmodern period. That is how it is done. Crucifying, Impaling, Guillotining, Hanging, Breaking, and Burning. It’s a very clear, informationally dense message. The Albigensian solution: Eradicate the lies as the Egyptians eradicated monotheism, and as the Christians eradicated stoicism and polytheism; and as the church eradicated the Albigensians, and as the Marxists and socialists eradicated truth, goodness and beauty. End the tyranny of lies.  Restore the Truthful Civilization: The Civic Society. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Revolution: Threats by Which We Raise The Cost of the Status Quo

    [R]EVOLUTION: THE  THREAT: THE PROMISE: “THE BURNINGS”The Burnings: (a) the advocates of lying, deceit, and pseudoscience (people: public intellectuals) (b) the executors of lying, deceit, pseudoscience (bureaucrats) (b) the institutions of pseudoscience (academy, bureaucracy, media) (c) the works of pseudoscience (Freudianism, marxism, Keynesianism, postmodernism) (d) the advertising of ugliness, deceit, and pseudoscience (modern and postmodern art)

    Burn the “Cathedral Complex” to ashes. It’s not just statues of Lenin and Stalin that need to be destroyed. It’s statues to lying, deceit, and pseudoscience: all the works of the “era of deceit” – the Pseudoscientific and postmodern period. That is how it is done. Crucifying, Impaling, Guillotining, Hanging, Breaking, and Burning. It’s a very clear, informationally dense message. The Albigensian solution: Eradicate the lies as the Egyptians eradicated monotheism, and as the Christians eradicated stoicism and polytheism; and as the church eradicated the Albigensians, and as the Marxists and socialists eradicated truth, goodness and beauty. End the tyranny of lies.  Restore the Truthful Civilization: The Civic Society. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine