Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • “The first problem in life is to stay alive. The second problem is to stay free.

    —“The first problem in life is to stay alive. The second problem is to stay free. The third problem is to stay productive, so that productivity will take care of you. In many societies, it’s a challenge just to solve the first problem, and the second two are luxuries. Many more societies are relatively safe, but victims of the second problem: they have predatory/weak criminal justice systems that engender little to no faith in the legitimacy of their government. If people feel their freedom can be taken away at any time for essentially no reason, why even worry about the third problem? For a society to thrive, all three problems of human life have to be protected by law: life, liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity.”— James Louis LaSalle

    (EDITED FOR CLARITY)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 11:48:00 UTC

  • EVERY REDISTRIBUTED DOLLAR IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANG

    EVERY REDISTRIBUTED DOLLAR IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE

    The central argument that I have against Social Democracy (Keynesian economics or dishonest socialism) is not the exacerbation of the business cycle, nor even redistribution, but that it is a means of violating a voluntary exchange between the productive and unproductive classes. Every forcibly redistributed dollar is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial and productive exchange. And what the productive classes would prefer in exchange, is largely respect for norms, respect for commons, and status signaling. Conservatives certainly don’t disfavor redistribution, they disfavor funding immorality. Most of us would be very happy to directly pay people who behave well, and not pay people who don’t, and to avoid the entire bureaucratic expansion caused by redistribution in services rather than income.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 14:07:00 UTC

  • DOESN’T BUY POSITIVE RIGHTS EITHER (positive rights are an idiot-test) It doesn’

    http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/blog/post/an-interview-with-john-searleSEARLE DOESN’T BUY POSITIVE RIGHTS EITHER

    (positive rights are an idiot-test)

    It doesn’t occur to him (or anyone else) that all non-positive human rights in the charter are expressions of property rights. (sigh).

    But that said. Positive rights constitute an idiot test. Its just one of those things. If you advocate for positive rights, you’re an idiot. Even if you advocate positive property rights. You’re just an idiot. You are a well intentioned idiot. But you are an idiot none the less.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 04:51:00 UTC

  • OUR WEALTH OF VIOLENCE –“We invest our violence in the corporation, where the a

    OUR WEALTH OF VIOLENCE

    –“We invest our violence in the corporation, where the anticipated return is higher than it would be otherwise. If that return is negative, then we liquidate our investment and use it to create a superior state of affairs.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-26 00:00:00 UTC

  • (INTRODUCTORY READING 4) MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS (cerebral

    (INTRODUCTORY READING 4)

    MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS

    (cerebral)(interesting)

    I hope that this spectrum: law, economics, assists us in understanding the position of praxeology in the list of moral constraints that require operational and intuitionistic tests of propositions, prior to making truth claims.

    LAW: STRICT CONSTRUCTION

    Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under propertarian property rights theory Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute the permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest affect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity.

    ECONOMICS: PRAXEOLOGY

    Intuitionism (praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law.

    PSYCHOLOGY: OPERATIONISM

    Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems.

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm

    MEDICINE: PROTOCOLISM (MEDICAL OPERATIONALISM)

    Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols.

    PHYSICS: OPERATIONALISM

    Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

    MATHEMATICS: INTUITIONISM

    Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

    ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL

    Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/750292715060100/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 07:04:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE (worth repeating) –“Territory is obtained, held, informa

    THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    (worth repeating)

    –“Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people. …. Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples……Everything else – voluntary cooperation, and economic competition in particular – is just a more useful way of getting there for those who are un-impulsive, productive, innovative, and trusting.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 06:04:00 UTC

  • Hayek and Hoppe Are Wrong: Peace, is not an intrinsic good.

    [H]ayek is right that a condition of liberty can only be constructed by organically evolutionary (common) law of property. Hoppe is right that institutions can replace monopoly bureaucracy.

    However, Hayek has no solution to making such a condition universally preferable; and Hoppe has no solution to the provision of the commons, nor for constructing a condition of liberty. Neither address the influence of the family or the intergenerational means of reproductive production or the entry of women’s socialistic biases into the sphere of politics – and neither addresses the problem of the conflict between the reproductive interests of the classes. Neither solves the problem of a heterogeneous post-agrarian, and possibly post familial, institutional system. Yet that is the set of conditions that we find ourselves in.

    I think I have persuasively argued that over the long term (anyone can benefit from implementing technology that was invented by others in the sort term), high velocity economies are only possible under liberty, and that liberty is only possible under high trust, and that only law under universal standing can construct high trust and liberty, and that those most interested in maintaining this structure are those in the lower middle class and upper proletariat, who are willing to fight to un-constrain their superiors, so that they can gain the privileges of the group with the best leaders. This is why the working classes are conservatively biased – they will fall in status and material possession without the advantages given them by support – the enablement – of their elites.

    So we can look at the successes of philosophers but also look at their failures. Hoppe tries to both preserve cosmopolitan separatism and reconstruct the hanseatic league. But this is not possible without the use of violence, exclusion, and the taking of territory sufficiently advantageous to produce the incentives to join such a polity, nor the economic advantage necessary to see it persist.

    Hoppe’s solution of starting a clean polity isn’t a solution at all. It’s the equivalent of communism for libertines.

    Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence to do so by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people.

    Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples.

    Everything else is just a better way of getting there.

    And the alternative is conquest and suicide. Both of which we are victims of.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Hayek and Hoppe Are Wrong: Peace, is not an intrinsic good.

    [H]ayek is right that a condition of liberty can only be constructed by organically evolutionary (common) law of property. Hoppe is right that institutions can replace monopoly bureaucracy.

    However, Hayek has no solution to making such a condition universally preferable; and Hoppe has no solution to the provision of the commons, nor for constructing a condition of liberty. Neither address the influence of the family or the intergenerational means of reproductive production or the entry of women’s socialistic biases into the sphere of politics – and neither addresses the problem of the conflict between the reproductive interests of the classes. Neither solves the problem of a heterogeneous post-agrarian, and possibly post familial, institutional system. Yet that is the set of conditions that we find ourselves in.

    I think I have persuasively argued that over the long term (anyone can benefit from implementing technology that was invented by others in the sort term), high velocity economies are only possible under liberty, and that liberty is only possible under high trust, and that only law under universal standing can construct high trust and liberty, and that those most interested in maintaining this structure are those in the lower middle class and upper proletariat, who are willing to fight to un-constrain their superiors, so that they can gain the privileges of the group with the best leaders. This is why the working classes are conservatively biased – they will fall in status and material possession without the advantages given them by support – the enablement – of their elites.

    So we can look at the successes of philosophers but also look at their failures. Hoppe tries to both preserve cosmopolitan separatism and reconstruct the hanseatic league. But this is not possible without the use of violence, exclusion, and the taking of territory sufficiently advantageous to produce the incentives to join such a polity, nor the economic advantage necessary to see it persist.

    Hoppe’s solution of starting a clean polity isn’t a solution at all. It’s the equivalent of communism for libertines.

    Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence to do so by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people.

    Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples.

    Everything else is just a better way of getting there.

    And the alternative is conquest and suicide. Both of which we are victims of.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Value of Conservatives vs Libertines

    [W]HY ARE CONSERVATIVES MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIBERTINES?
    Because given moral justification to correct violations of purity and sanctity a sufficient number of conservatives will use violence to restore order. Only conservatives act for social good alone. Libertines and progressives act only in their self interest. Why? Because libertinism is purely a status seeking effort, and progressivism is both status seeking and dysgenic.

    WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT?
    Because political systems are constructed by violence. And conservatives are willing to create an order that suppresses consumption in order to construct commons, and progressives are willing to use violence to destruct an order so that they can increase consumption. But libertarians are both small in number and unwilling to use violence.
    Violence raises the costs of non-cooperative action, so that cooperation is preferable to non-cooperative action.
    Libertines always look for discounts (freebies). There aren’t any. Order is expensive.
    For these reasons libertarians will only exist in absurdly wealthy periods of history, made possible by conservatives. Otherwise they will exist only as another rejection-cult, criticizing the fact that they are required to pay costs for norms that do not improve their status – but constrain it.

    WHY DO LIBERTARIANS ALWAYS LOSE?
    Libertinism. Meaning incorrect attribution of legal, economic, political and military value to costs of high-cost, high-trust norms. Conservatives do not make this mistake – if anything they over-value norms. Libertines discount norms. Progressives never even consider them or find prohibition on their consumption antithetical.

  • Value of Conservatives vs Libertines

    [W]HY ARE CONSERVATIVES MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIBERTINES?
    Because given moral justification to correct violations of purity and sanctity a sufficient number of conservatives will use violence to restore order. Only conservatives act for social good alone. Libertines and progressives act only in their self interest. Why? Because libertinism is purely a status seeking effort, and progressivism is both status seeking and dysgenic.

    WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT?
    Because political systems are constructed by violence. And conservatives are willing to create an order that suppresses consumption in order to construct commons, and progressives are willing to use violence to destruct an order so that they can increase consumption. But libertarians are both small in number and unwilling to use violence.
    Violence raises the costs of non-cooperative action, so that cooperation is preferable to non-cooperative action.
    Libertines always look for discounts (freebies). There aren’t any. Order is expensive.
    For these reasons libertarians will only exist in absurdly wealthy periods of history, made possible by conservatives. Otherwise they will exist only as another rejection-cult, criticizing the fact that they are required to pay costs for norms that do not improve their status – but constrain it.

    WHY DO LIBERTARIANS ALWAYS LOSE?
    Libertinism. Meaning incorrect attribution of legal, economic, political and military value to costs of high-cost, high-trust norms. Conservatives do not make this mistake – if anything they over-value norms. Libertines discount norms. Progressives never even consider them or find prohibition on their consumption antithetical.