Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • ADVICE: REFORMING POLICE INCENTIVES (1) Rescind the Federal courts-created “doct

    http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2014/10/15/incentives-matter-ferguson-police-abuse-swat-teams-roving-gangs-forfeiture-powers/#sthash.Qx7toLcY.dpufTOM’S ADVICE: REFORMING POLICE INCENTIVES

    (1) Rescind the Federal courts-created “doctrine” of “qualified immunity” under Federal law for cops;

    (2) Cops must, keep and pay for their own private liability insurance (NO municipal/county/state insurance or other citizen-backed “deep pocket”);

    (3) The pension pool of the relevant police department were required to contribute 10-20% of all judgments/settlements related to police abuse claims.

    – See more at: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2014/10/15/incentives-matter-ferguson-police-abuse-swat-teams-roving-gangs-forfeiture-powers/#sthash.Qx7toLcY.dpuf

    CURT’S ADVICE

    1) Eliminate Forfeiture

    2) Eliminate Entrapment (stings)

    3) Require Truthful Speech

    4) Require body cameras.

    FOR GOOD MEASURE

    5) Eliminate single-officer patrols.

    6) Require military body fat limits.

    AND POSSIBLY

    4) Separate judgement on arrests from investigation and restraint.

    “Truth Telling Is Enough”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 04:30:00 UTC

  • I have had only one circumstance where I had to call the police because of an ar

    I have had only one circumstance where I had to call the police because of an armed individual threatening me and my wife from outside our home. As soon as the police arrived I pulled the magazine, popped the chamber, and left the breach open on the table, and sat cross-legged on the floor. (The guy is a sociopath.)

    I’ve only pulled my weapon twice. Both times because of some freaking high idiot at night: once in Seattle, and once where I won’t mention.

    The cops are generally more scared than you are. They are almost always in novel circumstances.

    Rebel against revenue-raising police enforcement of cultural(normative), administrative and regulatory law at all times – raise the cost of enforcement as high as you can. But not against crimes of life and property. The fact that we have given police mal-incentives, is one thing. That doesn’t mean we rebel against them at all times. If we do, they don’t even have the opportunity to learn the difference between moral police action, and immoral police action.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 03:22:00 UTC

  • make you a deal. Eliminate collective bargaining laws and I am in

    http://www.shakesville.com/2015/04/we-need-jobs-to-support-people-not.htmlI’ll make you a deal. Eliminate collective bargaining laws and I am in.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-14 15:25:00 UTC

  • REDISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION, NOT ELIMINATION OF IT —“As the culture of no

    REDISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION, NOT ELIMINATION OF IT

    —“As the culture of non-discrimination against protected groups expands, the discrimination against unprotected groups increases. In societies that do not prohibit any type of discrimination, pecking order is not rigid and discrimination is dispersed. As new rules and social stigmas against certain types of discrimination appear, society shifts its natural disdain for the members of its lower side of any kind of spectrum to the unprotected. As new groups are added to the taboo list, the possibilities for dispersing discrimination narrow. As a result, all societal hate becomes directed against the very few. We have yet to see the evidence that the politics of anti-discrimination reduces the overall amount of discrimination (as opposed to particular manifestation of discrimination).”— Paul B

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-13 21:19:00 UTC

  • “Popularity is not an antidote to deception. … Truth and violence are.”–Chris

    —“Popularity is not an antidote to deception. … Truth and violence are.”–Christopher Bates

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-13 15:26:00 UTC

  • MORAL ARGUMENT AND RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION It was entirely possible, and often recom

    MORAL ARGUMENT AND RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION

    It was entirely possible, and often recommended, that Russia purchase Crimea and Donbas from Ukraine, by means of discounted oil price for 99 years. This would have been mutually beneficial, since the Donbas was the source of most ukrainian corruption, gangsters, and russophilia. And was the responsible for the political divisiveness that prevented reform.

    The Russians systematically conquered eastern Ukraine over the past two centuries, and created a false mythology to justify the muscovite conquest of european lands. Ukrainians had frequent debates about splitting the country. And this was the correct, non-aggressive means of solving the problem for all sides. But solving the problem was not the Russian intentino. The Russian intention is to preserve their power by preventing the spread of capitalism into Russia by the same form of uprisings that have restored Poland and Ukraine to european civilization after Muscovite (mongolian) conquest.

    I have only one moral principle I must follow: liberty for all who will exchange it with me. But in exchange for liberty I require not only insurance of physical property, but truth telling: the total prohibition of parasitism. Because without the total prohibition of parasitism, it is irrational for me to forgo the utility of violence to obtain what I desire.

    This demand for the total suppression of parasitism what separates european aristocratic liberty, from parasitic libertine pretenses of liberty.

    Speak the truth, by warrantying your speech, or admit that you do not warranty your speech to be truthful, and as such engage in parasitism:

    1 – Internally consistent (logical)

    2 – Externally correspondent. (empirical)

    3 – Operationally Defined (praxeological)

    4 – Free of parasitism, consisting only of voluntary transfers. (moral)

    5 – Parsimonious (falsified)

    We must end parasitic deceits in the pursuit of liberty. Rothbardian ethics are another pseudoscientific, elaborate, cosmopolitan deceit, just as Freudian Psychologizing, and Marxist History.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 06:29:00 UTC

  • Mark. So you mean to argue that it is immoral or illogical for people to struggl

    Mark.

    So you mean to argue that it is immoral or illogical for people to struggle to free themselves of tyranny and poverty? And that it is immoral or illogical to send them weapons to free themselves of tyranny and poverty?

    And that you are so omniscient, knowledgeable and wise that you can predict the future of these people?

    Do you mean to justify statism? Do you mean to justify invasion? Do you mean to justify the usurpation of borders? Do you mean to justify aggression by military means? Do you mean to state that the Ukrainian people, to whom Russians prosecuted a holocaust and intentional starvation to kill the by the millions have nothing to fear from the most murderous neighbour possible other than China?

    I have met you and only spoken with you a bit. And I don’t necessarily think you are a liar.

    I think that like most libertines you are just punching far above your intellectual weight, and the combination off elf indoctrination into libertine ideology, a genetic anti-social bias and dunning Krueger blind you on the one hand and find outlet for your rage on the other.

    Your argument like most libertine arguments is immoral as I stated above; is the reason libertines fail in the moral marketplace; and is motivated by self congratulatory status masturbation to compensate for low desirability.

    The only difference between Ukrainians and Canadians is the influence of the neighbouring empire.

    America is not good. But Russia is the opposite of Liberty.

    Liberty evolved because we spoke the truth.

    Russia industrialised lying and turned it into a military doctrine.

    And you’ve been conquered by it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 04:52:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION Either laws completely and totally limit

    RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION

    Either laws completely and totally limit our executives in all circumstances other than defensive warfare, or there is no rule of law. Administrative ‘law’ is an impossibility. We can issue administrative commands, and by deceit, claim that they hold the same properties as law. We can issue regulatory commands, and by deceit claim that they hold the same properties as law. But they always have been convenient deceits – to grant to arbitrary human wish that which is necessary law of cooperation.

    Law is discovered, and recorded by neutral jurists, no less scientifically than physical laws, biological processes, and mechanical operations: as we invent new means of involuntary transfer – from the most simplistic and obvious violence theft and fraud, to the most indirect and obscure socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking and free riding – we register this new means of involuntary transfer (just as we register patents) as new prohibitions on involuntary transfer: law.

    We can choose to construct contracts for the production of commons, using government, and we can resolve those contracts in courts, using laws. But beyond the voluntary production of commons, all else is usurpation and command.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 01:45:00 UTC

  • Cut Russia out of the internet. Cut the hard wires. Cut the Satellites. Cut the

    Cut Russia out of the internet. Cut the hard wires. Cut the Satellites. Cut the SWIFT system. Let them die of their own follies.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-04 06:05:00 UTC

  • A SYSTEM FOR THE LOWER CLASSES? Pay them to maintain the normative and physical

    A SYSTEM FOR THE LOWER CLASSES?

    Pay them to maintain the normative and physical commons and have only one child. Stop paying them if they don’t behave well, and sterilize them if they have an additional child. Imprison them in the desert at hard labor if they commit three strikes. I am against redistribution. But I am in favor of paying people to construct the voluntary organization of production we call property rights and the commons. And people who DON”T want to pay those classes are simply trying to make those classes pay the high price of constructing the voluntary organization of production – against their own interests. Paying people isn’t redistribution. It’s compensation. And you can be fired from the job.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-26 07:51:00 UTC