Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • THE ABSURDITY OF THE LIBERTINE LIE AND THE SOLUTION IN PROPERTARIAN LOGIC (worth

    THE ABSURDITY OF THE LIBERTINE LIE AND THE SOLUTION IN PROPERTARIAN LOGIC

    (worth repeating)

    Violence is the starting point for all cooperative, ethical, moral, and political questions. The first question of all ethics is quite simple: “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff?” All questions of cooperation, ethics, and politics are consequent to that question.

    It is a common fallacy, including the fallacy of argumentation, that violence is external to the question of cooperation. Arguing such is an attempt, by use of obscurant, verbalist deception, to forbid retaliation while retaining the ability to conduct fraud, conspiracy, and immorality.

    The fact that it was so easy to attract and persuade fools who fall prey to the rationalist fallacy, and to the fallacy of aggression, and even to the fallacy of argumentation, is an example of how simple it is to overload human reason.

    I find it somewhat humorous that we had to invent writing, numbers, arithmetic, history, and law, to compensate for our ability merely to remember. We had to invent mathematics, geometry to overcome the limits of our perception. We had an enormously absurd struggle to invent calculus of independent objects, and that Einstein’s (albeit not Poincare’s) revolution is nothing more than the absolute abandonment of relative framing.

    Yet the average imbecile still suggests that reason and rationalism are somehow of the same caliber as the various forms of calculation and the vast institutional networks for calculating, we have built in every single area of life, in order for us to compensate for the absolutely illusory competence of reason, perception, memory and judgement.

    Only an idiot would fall for such a fallacy. But then, without a means of calculation, it is easy to be an idiot.

    Hence, Propertarianism. ie: morality stated as calculation, independent of judgement, memory, perception, and reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:13:00 UTC

  • SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENE AND MAKE ME A FORTUNE 500 CEO? Feminists are abs

    SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENE AND MAKE ME A FORTUNE 500 CEO?

    Feminists are absurd. Now, here is the data. CEO’s of large companies are (a) really smart, and (b) tall. Now, there is a correlation between height and brain size which correlates with intelligence. But also, the very primitive power that superior height conveys is tangible, and measurable.

    Does that mean that the government should redistribute CEO positions from tall people to short people?

    Then why should we redistribute CEO positions (or any position in society) from socially superior people to socially inferior people?

    I have no problem with the fact that I can never play basketball well, and that in both soccer and volleyball I am working at a disadvantage. I have no problem that in business I am working at a disadvantage. I have no problem that even in the pursuit of desirable women that I am at a disadvantage. These are disadvantages. But I cannot comprehend wanting others to sacrifice the maximum that they can achieve in life to compensate for my disadvantage.

    Yet feminists will argue the opposite day in and day out. The fact is that women work fewer hours, are less willing to make economic sacrifices, less willing to take economic risks, are less loyal to internal political networks, and are vastly outnumbered at both the top and bottom of the intelligence and aggressive impulsivity scales.

    Just as I cannot possibly sense but 1/100’th of what an average women can about any other human being she encounters in the first fifteen seconds, I understand that nearly all women on earth, cannot make political assessments in the same short time frame.

    We are compatible. But we are not equal. And group competition requires we make the best use of our best, because everyone else is merely a commodity.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 05:13:00 UTC

  • “Before the bureaucrat, you have no obligation for grace. One does not blame the

    —“Before the bureaucrat, you have no obligation for grace. One does not blame the slave for trying to escape his master.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-16 12:20:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY REASON TO STUDY ECONOMICS IS TO JUSTIFY RULE OF LAW. (ok, yes, I”m taun

    THE ONLY REASON TO STUDY ECONOMICS IS TO JUSTIFY RULE OF LAW.

    (ok, yes, I”m taunting you with that statement)

    Humans are capable of four weapons of influence, and human institutions can be discussed using the frame of reference of any one of them – or all of them. I try to objectively address all of them in my work:

    1) Morality/Gossip/Ostracization/Cult/Religion : Priests and public intellectuals.

    2) Rules/force/punishment/law/Government : Warriors police, judges and politicians.

    3) Volition/exchange/reward/trade/Economics : traders, distributors financiers, bankers

    4) Production/education/utility/Knowledge : craftsmen, engineers, scientists

    Each group specializing in each frame of reference has evolved a language (a set of languages) and a discipline (a set of methods), and institutions (means of propagating, applying, organizing) for the application of their means of influence.

    I use the term ‘legal philosophy’ in the sense that the weapon of influence (force) using the institution of law, is different from the weapon of influence (morality) using gossip (public speech), in the institution of religion.

    Rothbard constructed a religious (cult) narrative, and hayek a legal narrative. My criticisms of mises is that he simply failed, because he conflated science, logic, and craft, thereby creating praxeology as a pseudoscience (by claiming logic constitutes a science). Just why the cosmopolitans (freud, marx, mises, rothbard, cantor, adorno, etc) created so many pseudosciences is something I have written quite a bit about, but can be boiled down to ‘verbalism’ and platonic truth, from the cultural emphasis on scripture and religion, rather than the western tradition of operationalism and testimonial truth, and the cultural emphasis on craft and martial order. (But again this is a very deep topic.)

    So It is not that I fail to grasp that economics must be stated in a particular language. Or that I fail to grasp the missing formal logic of cooperation that mises intuited must exist, but failed to develop. Or that it is possible to articulate economics objectively as a scientific discipline.

    ***It is that since the means of OBTAINING a free society MUST (as far as we know) depend upon the rule of law (Hayek), then the philosophical framework for CONSTRUCTING rule of law must be articulate as a legal one. In fact, no understanding of economics will meaningfully effect rule of law under property rights, other than to justify it. Or more strongly: it is unnecessary to understand economics except as a means of justifying the law necessary to construct the voluntary organization of production.**** (That should be slightly mind-bending for most people.)

    There are reasons why a small internal community like judaism or gypsies or any other cult can rely on the pressure of ostracism. But to possess land, and build fixed capital necessary for organized production, one requires the institution of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-14 01:51:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN INCENTIVES FOR THE POLICE

    PROPERTARIAN INCENTIVES FOR THE POLICE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 06:23:00 UTC

  • TOYO TOM: POLICE AND PROPERTARIAN SOLUTIONS

    TOYO TOM: POLICE AND PROPERTARIAN SOLUTIONS.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 04:33:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE CLASSICAL LIBERALS (LIBERTARIANS) CONCERNED WITH “RIGHTS”? ANSWER: RULE

    WHY ARE CLASSICAL LIBERALS (LIBERTARIANS) CONCERNED WITH “RIGHTS”? ANSWER: RULE OF LAW.

    Our only known method of eliminating authority, is to create rules of behavior under rule of law, where (a) all rights are expressed as property rights, (b) all obligations and prohibitions apply to all, without exception, (c) all rights evolve from property rights by judicial application of the principles of property rights: (i)requirement for production/ prohibition on parasitism / non-conflict, via (ii) homesteading/first-use/abandonment and voluntary-exchange/construction, under (iii) the presumption of reasonable knowledge, and reasonable actor (Propertarianism:sympathetic testing), (iv) truthful testimony, (v) judged by peers – to new circumstances. Propertarianism requires also, (vi) such judgements be expressed as (vi.i) original intentions and (vi.ii) strict construction, and (vi.iii) in operational language.

    NOTES

    1) Progressives: Moral intuitions are insufficient for judgement in these matters, regressive, and dysgenic for these matters. Reason is insufficient for these matters. Our reason has ALWAYS failed us, in no small part because we are victims of cognitive bias that only disciplined application of science can moderately mitigate.

    2) Conservatives: Moral traditions are insufficiently adaptive in real time for these matters. Our traditions evolved when technology was relatively static. and our traditions failed us when technology changed faster than our traditions could adapt.

    3) Libertines: amorality is insufficient for the formation of a polity that does not resort to either retaliation or authority to prevent retaliation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 11:18:00 UTC

  • DRINKING AGE AND FIGHTING AGE? (worth repeating) In war you follow orders, destr

    DRINKING AGE AND FIGHTING AGE?

    (worth repeating)

    In war you follow orders, destroy and kill, and are in the constant presence of others who can violently constrain you – even kill you.

    At home you have precisely the opposite conditions: you act on your own volition, are prohibited from almost every possible harm, you are in the presence of others who are by law limited in constraint of you.

    Liberty requires cognizance and alcohol and testosterone erase it. So no. Drinking at home, and fighting in war are very different environments. The two have nothing to do with one another as long as young males under the influence of alcohol continue to cause a disproportionate amount of damage.

    The question isn’t moral, and the environments are not commensurable. It’s empirical and the environments pose opposite conditions with opposite consequences.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 09:56:00 UTC

  • AGGRESSION VS HARM VS COST Sequence: 1 – I have no agreement with you, and there

    AGGRESSION VS HARM VS COST

    Sequence:

    1 – I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint.

    2 – I will not aggress against you.

    3 – I will not cause you harm.

    4 – I will not cause you to bear a cost.

    5 – I will bear costs of reciprocal insurance.

    6 – I will bear kin selection costs.

    Aggression leaves open unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action.

    Harm leaves open the problem of relative costs – and therefore is not an objective and sufficient means of measurement.

    Costs are universally applicable independent of scale, not relative, and prohibit criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action of all kinds.

    —–

    The fact that so many people are fooled into the fallacy of aggression as sufficient criteria for the formation of a voluntarily organized polity, is evidence of the frailty of rationalism.

    The purpose of rationalism is justification. The purpose of scientific methods is to prevent justification.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 04:48:00 UTC

  • vs Harm vs Cost I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint. I wil

    http://justification.th/Aggression vs Harm vs Cost

    I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint.

    I will not aggress against you.

    I will not cause you harm.

    I will not cause you to bear a cost.

    I will bear costs of reciprocal insurance.

    I will bear kin selection costs.

    Aggression leaves open unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action.

    Harm leaves open the problem of relative costs – and therefore is not an objective and sufficient means of measurement.

    Costs are universally applicable independent of scale, not relative, and prohibit criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action of all kinds.

    —–

    The fact that so many people are fooled into the fallacy of aggression as sufficient criteria for the formation of a voluntarily organised polity, is evidence of the frailty of rationalism.

    The purpose of rationalism is justification. The purpose of scientific methods is to prevent justification.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-04 04:15:00 UTC