Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Individualism is a Privilege Earned

    [I] have a problem with causing suffering as punishment or for personal gratification. I have no problem with torture for the purpose of gathering information – particularly non-destructive torture. I certainly have no problem with killing, and I think we don’t do nearly enough of it. It’s cheap, effective, and provides exceptional incentives.

    Moreover, In individual societies we must limit punishment to the individual. In traditional societies, to the family, to primitive societies to the tribe, to corporeally organized to the state, and to religiously organized societies to all members.
    If you act as your own agent, for your own personal gain, then you have merely committed a crime. If you act on behalf of others you have committed a conspiracy.

    For these reasons we must hold groups accountable for the actions of their members, because actors acting on their behalf are their agents, and only those members possess the knowledge and incentives to contain the actions of their members.
    Individualism is a privilege earned by members of a society for suppression of the actions its members.
    Punish the group for the actions of the individuals and they will contain their group members – that’s what we do.

  • Individualism is a Privilege Earned

    [I] have a problem with causing suffering as punishment or for personal gratification. I have no problem with torture for the purpose of gathering information – particularly non-destructive torture. I certainly have no problem with killing, and I think we don’t do nearly enough of it. It’s cheap, effective, and provides exceptional incentives.

    Moreover, In individual societies we must limit punishment to the individual. In traditional societies, to the family, to primitive societies to the tribe, to corporeally organized to the state, and to religiously organized societies to all members.
    If you act as your own agent, for your own personal gain, then you have merely committed a crime. If you act on behalf of others you have committed a conspiracy.

    For these reasons we must hold groups accountable for the actions of their members, because actors acting on their behalf are their agents, and only those members possess the knowledge and incentives to contain the actions of their members.
    Individualism is a privilege earned by members of a society for suppression of the actions its members.
    Punish the group for the actions of the individuals and they will contain their group members – that’s what we do.

  • WHAT DEFINES TERRORISM? FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY IS ALWAYS JUST. –“Section 83.01 of

    WHAT DEFINES TERRORISM? FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY IS ALWAYS JUST.

    –“Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.”–

    Bingo. It’s not Criminal (for profit) it’s Political.

    Usual argument also includes the difference between:

    1) state actors (war)

    2) state sponsored actors (insurgency)

    3) state-tolerated actors (succor)

    4) non-state, organized actors (groups)

    5) non-state, non-organized actors (individuals)

    6) non-state organized rebels (groups)

    7) non-state non-organized rebels (individuals)

    In practice we treat non-state actors as criminals and state actors as acts of war. But the problem of state-tolerated actors who are indirectly sponsored my giving them shelter has become a problem. Weak states are not capable of preventing their territory from use as a staging area. Yet the post-war consensus is predicated on the inviolability of borders. Prior theory was that states are responsible for the actions of their citizens. In practice americans, as world policemen, hold states accountable under pre-war theory. However, the academy-state complex (what some of us call the Cathedral) ideology is that we cannot hold states or citizens accountable for the actions of their peers.

    NOW WHAT ABOUT JUST AND UNJUST ACTIONS?

    Well, we can fight to implement greater or lesser liberty (property rights). This is the only question we must answer.

    SO WE HAVE THREE AXIS

    1) State vs Non State`

    2) Internal vs External

    3) Increase or Decrease free riding (trust).

    Internal or external, individual or group, and increase in liberty: moral.

    Internal or external, individual or group, and decrease in liberty: immoral.

    So the only question as to whether one is conducting war, terrorism, or revolution is whether one is attempting to increase the scope of impositions on free riding.

    Fighting for increased liberty is always just.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-23 03:17:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE CONSERVATIVES MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIBERTINES? Because given moral justif

    WHY 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 04:06:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT? Because political systems are const

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 04:03:00 UTC

  • FOREIGN POLICY UNDER ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – IT’S NOT COMPLICATED. Y-AXIS

    FOREIGN POLICY UNDER ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – IT’S NOT COMPLICATED.

    Y-AXIS : Aristocratic Egalitarian Morality – Meaning an increase in the suppression of free riding in order to obtain higher trust, higher economic velocity, and greater liberty, in exchange for reciprocal warranty of the same.

    X-AXIS: Strategic Interest – meaning a decrease in economic, military and moral risk, and an increase in current costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-20 03:29:00 UTC

  • IS A PRIVELEGE EARNED I have a problem with causing suffering as punishment or f

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/16/from-moderate-democrats-to-white-evangelicals-nearly-every-demographic-group-believes-torture-can-be-justified/?tid=sm_fbINDIVIDUALISM IS A PRIVELEGE EARNED

    I have a problem with causing suffering as punishment or for personal gratification. I have no problem with torture for the purpose of gathering information – particularly non-destructive torture. I certainly have no problem with killing, and I think we don’t do nearly enough of it. It’s cheap, effective, and provides exceptional incentives.

    Moreover, In individual societies we must limit punishment to the individual. In traditional societies, to the family, to primitive societies to the tribe, to corporeally organized to the state, and to religiously organized societies to all members.

    If you act as your own agent, for your own personal gain, then you have merely committed a crime. If you act on behalf of others you have committed a conspiracy.

    For these reasons we must hold groups accountable for the actions of their members, because actors acting on their behalf are their agents, and only those members possess the knowledge and incentives to contain the actions of their members.

    Individualism is a privilege earned by members of a society for suppression of the actions its members.

    Punish the group for the actions of the individuals and they will contain their group members – that’s what we do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-18 02:35:00 UTC

  • Sure you can hire out your military service. But you can’t hire out your life. Y

    Sure you can hire out your military service. But you can’t hire out your life. You can only externalize the risk to your life at a large discount. So how about this: you’re welcome to hire out your service, but if your mercenary is killed we kill you and take your stuff and give it to his family?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 07:06:00 UTC

  • TAXES FOR THE COMMONS I have no problem paying for commons – when they’re in fac

    TAXES FOR THE COMMONS

    I have no problem paying for commons – when they’re in fact commons. I have a big problem with paying extortionary rents. And I have an even larger problem with paying for damage to the commons that we have built over millennia. People have no problem paying taxes that they agree with and many problems paying for taxes that they don’t agree with. The solution of course is to let people pay for what they agree with and not for what they don’t agree with. Representatives are for sale. Remove the agent from the principle agent problem. (Conversely I have an equally large problem with free riders on the commons.)

    I think I’m going to put together a web application with a budget model of the US Government and your extant taxes, and we’ll see how people would vote their money.

    That is a wonderful social science experiment. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 07:05:00 UTC

  • VERBAL PICKPOCKETS You object to propertarian constraints on political speech? W

    VERBAL PICKPOCKETS

    You object to propertarian constraints on political speech? Well, what you really mean, is that you will be deprived of your ability to conduct cunning verbal deceptions and thefts, that you have come to see as your privilege. But I fail to see how wit and soft thefts, is materially any different from violence and hard thefts. Thefts are thefts.

    The Cathedral’s academy trains legions of conceptual pickpockets, petty thieves, and brigands. Education that makes men cunning is no the same as education that makes men moral. Moral men eschew all theft, cunning men seek it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 04:03:00 UTC