Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • The Meaning of “Incremental Suppression”

    (organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding).

    11329943_844618748949499_3787539329878715636_n

    [T]he logic of the Incremental Suppression of Free Riding via the evolution of the Common Law.

    1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.

    2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.

    3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.

    4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment) – they protect the institution by severe policing of cheaters.

    5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).

    6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.

    7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights”.

    8) Community member (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.

    9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)

    10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.

    11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for tyranny and redistribution.

    [A]ristocracy, Egalitarianism, Morality, Nomocracy, Meritocracy, Science, and Eugenic Evolution are mutually dependent.

    The diagram shows the incremental suppression of parasitism starting from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.

    Only the west succeeded in developing the norm of truth. And without truth telling we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law.

    Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. And this new emperor is naked also.

    Truth is enough to rescue the west.  Truth is enough.


  • GUNS: TIME FOR REFORM, BUT NOT OF GUNS (feminist ideology trigger warning) THE D

    GUNS: TIME FOR REFORM, BUT NOT OF GUNS

    (feminist ideology trigger warning)

    THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER

    It certainly means that people taking brain altering chemicals should be required to put them in storage for the duration. So far, it looks like the primary difference between American ‘shooters’ and others, is that an absurd amount of Americans are taking various brain altering chemicals for various forms of depression. And that they have this depression and are taking those chemicals for the simple reason that American culture produces intolerable loneliness in exchange for extraordinary levels of personal consumption.

    – The Absolute Nuclear Family creates the potential for loneliness.

    – Internal Migration of people to capital rather than capital to people creates loneliness.

    – Normatively diverse schools create conflict in youth.

    – Normative diversity creates conflict in life.

    – Access to political power under capitalism rewards normative diversity, cultural diversity and genetic diversity, and conflict.

    Blame: Socialists, Economists: the prioritization of monetary consumption over familial insurance, and Feminists: the prioritization of feminism over family bonds and insurance.

    Women are the world’s consumers, and they created consumerism because they cannot resist the nesting impulse, any more than an addict can resist his fix. And women prefer permissive motherhood rather than normative constraint motherhood, because it is much more work to raise your child to be a competitive, productive and cooperative member of society than it is to not train your child to be so.

    Labor was a trivial problem. Women were the reason for the decline of western civilization.

    It’s painful. It’s impolitic. But it’s true. Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-20 06:15:00 UTC

  • REQUIRES MORAL INCENTIVE : VIOLENCE IS MORAL PERSUASION —“Across practices, ac

    http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/people-do-violence-because-their-moral-codes-demand-it/VIOLENCE REQUIRES MORAL INCENTIVE : VIOLENCE IS MORAL PERSUASION

    —“Across practices, across cultures, and throughout historical periods, when people support and engage in violence, their primary motivations are moral. By ‘moral’, I mean that people are violent because they feel they must be; because they feel that their violence is obligatory. They know that they are harming fully human beings. Nonetheless, they believe they should. Violence does not stem from a psychopathic lack of morality. Quite the reverse: it comes from the exercise of perceived moral rights and obligations.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 23:34:00 UTC

  • Lending Then Repossessing Your Violence

    [I] was born with a wealth of violence. I lend that violence to the state to use on my behalf collective gain. However, should the state no longer work in my interests, or should any man break my contract for cooperation, I reserve my right to withdraw my deposit of violence and use it to both restore cooperation and to restore the state to the pursuit of my interests. It’s not complicated.

  • Lending Then Repossessing Your Violence

    [I] was born with a wealth of violence. I lend that violence to the state to use on my behalf collective gain. However, should the state no longer work in my interests, or should any man break my contract for cooperation, I reserve my right to withdraw my deposit of violence and use it to both restore cooperation and to restore the state to the pursuit of my interests. It’s not complicated.

  • Outlaw religions with dual ethics – Its fraud. Outlaw religions with laws – it’s

    Outlaw religions with dual ethics – Its fraud.

    Outlaw religions with laws – it’s fraud.

    There is but one negative law: imposition of costs.

    There is but one positive law: love.

    Any other doctrine is one of warfare: power, not religion: cooperation.

    The prohibition on the establishment of a religion is not the same as the extirpation of fraud.

    Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-17 04:35:00 UTC

  • LENDING AND REPOSESSING YOUR WEALTH OF VIOLENCE I love violence. I am a super-pr

    LENDING AND REPOSESSING YOUR WEALTH OF VIOLENCE

    I love violence. I am a super-predatory. I have a wealth of violence. I am a man. I was born with my wealth of violence. I lend that violence to the state to use on my behalf collective gain. However, should the state no longer work in my interests, or should any man break my contract for cooperation, I reserve my right to withdraw my deposit of violence and use it to both restore cooperation and to restore the state to the pursuit of my interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-16 12:52:00 UTC

  • The purpose of democracy is oppression

    The purpose of democracy is oppression.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-16 02:43:00 UTC

  • Answering Charles Murray on Legalizing Blackmail

    RE: http://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-asks-why-should-blackmail-be-a-crime-walter-block-makes-the-case-for-legalizing-blackmail/ [W]alter Block starts with the rhetorical position that property is a natural right rather than the result of a necessary contractual exchange of rights, agreed to in order to construct property rights that are adjudicable, in order to prevent retaliation for impositions of costs upon one another, by providing a means of restitution and punishment by the community rather than retaliation by the individual. His position is illogical. The first question of ethics is not one in which we assume the value of cooperation, but one in which we assume the value of predation. So cooperation must be preferable to predation. And it is only preferable if it is productive.

    Cooperation must be rational or it is irrational (obviously). For cooperation to be rational, it must be: – Mutually Productive, – Fully informed, – Warrantied to be fully informed, – Consisting of Voluntary Exchange or Transfer, – Free of negative externality (of the same criteria). If these are all true then there is no need for retaliation. Walter Block, like his mentor Rothbard, is attempting to restate Maimonides’ dualist ethics as if they are a universal good. Instead of a utilitarian tactic for a minority living at the behest of a tyrant attempting to minimize his costs of policing. But, the first logically necessary question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’ Block’s position on blackmail is one in which it is preferable to kill the blackmailer and take his stuff rather than to cooperate with him. So, it’s not complicated. Dualist (and poly-logical) ethics cannot by logical necessity be advocated as a universal ethic – it’s a logical contradiction. Natural rights are used as a nonsensical justification for various spurious ends. We do not presume rights, nor are they ‘existent’ prior to contract. They are merely the necessary terms for rational political contract. Cosmopolitan ethics attempt to preserve ingroup parasitism on outgroup members, while at the same time prohibiting the formation of family organizations that suppress parasitism. Rothbardian anarchism (libertinism), is an expression of group evolutionary strategy that ‘games’ (circumvents) the defenses of western aristocratic, truth telling civilization. So, instead, the first rule of ethics is that one should not engage in parasitism. Blackmail is unproductive and parasitic, and therefore a violation of the agreement for non-imposition of costs that serves as the only rational incentive to cooperate. (Although this level of argument is probably a bit deep for even the interested and informed.) Cheers

  • Answering Charles Murray on Legalizing Blackmail

    RE: http://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-asks-why-should-blackmail-be-a-crime-walter-block-makes-the-case-for-legalizing-blackmail/ [W]alter Block starts with the rhetorical position that property is a natural right rather than the result of a necessary contractual exchange of rights, agreed to in order to construct property rights that are adjudicable, in order to prevent retaliation for impositions of costs upon one another, by providing a means of restitution and punishment by the community rather than retaliation by the individual. His position is illogical. The first question of ethics is not one in which we assume the value of cooperation, but one in which we assume the value of predation. So cooperation must be preferable to predation. And it is only preferable if it is productive.

    Cooperation must be rational or it is irrational (obviously). For cooperation to be rational, it must be: – Mutually Productive, – Fully informed, – Warrantied to be fully informed, – Consisting of Voluntary Exchange or Transfer, – Free of negative externality (of the same criteria). If these are all true then there is no need for retaliation. Walter Block, like his mentor Rothbard, is attempting to restate Maimonides’ dualist ethics as if they are a universal good. Instead of a utilitarian tactic for a minority living at the behest of a tyrant attempting to minimize his costs of policing. But, the first logically necessary question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’ Block’s position on blackmail is one in which it is preferable to kill the blackmailer and take his stuff rather than to cooperate with him. So, it’s not complicated. Dualist (and poly-logical) ethics cannot by logical necessity be advocated as a universal ethic – it’s a logical contradiction. Natural rights are used as a nonsensical justification for various spurious ends. We do not presume rights, nor are they ‘existent’ prior to contract. They are merely the necessary terms for rational political contract. Cosmopolitan ethics attempt to preserve ingroup parasitism on outgroup members, while at the same time prohibiting the formation of family organizations that suppress parasitism. Rothbardian anarchism (libertinism), is an expression of group evolutionary strategy that ‘games’ (circumvents) the defenses of western aristocratic, truth telling civilization. So, instead, the first rule of ethics is that one should not engage in parasitism. Blackmail is unproductive and parasitic, and therefore a violation of the agreement for non-imposition of costs that serves as the only rational incentive to cooperate. (Although this level of argument is probably a bit deep for even the interested and informed.) Cheers