Theme: Coercion

  • The Crime Of Statism : Conspiracy

    [I] disagree vehemently with Walter Block on ethics, but I agree with his proposition that Statism should be criminalized. Under Propertarianism it’s the crime of conspiracy. And can be brought to justice by any citizen against any other.

  • Transnational Insurgencies Have Something In Common : They Win

    Pocket Advice —“Although transnational insurgencies comprise highly diverse groups across different conflicts and eras, they still have much in common. For one, such forces are winning: transnational insurgencies have won nearly half of the civil wars in which they have fought, almost twice the success rate of insurgencies overall. Several Israeli prime ministers have acknowledged that Israel’s victory in 1948 relied on the World War II veterans who aided the fledgling state against Arab armies. In other conflicts throughout history, prominent foreign fighters were either instrumental in extending insurgencies or making them costlier to suppress: the Marquis de Lafayette, the French general who fought for the American rebels during the Revolutionary War; the Italian general Giuseppe Garibaldi, who supported the Republican uprising in Brazil in the 1830s; and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed al Qaeda in Iraq under the U.S. occupation. “— –“The patterns of recruitment for such disparate fighters are broadly similar and, because of that, they all have the same Achilles’ heel…. Insurgent groups … use despair rather than optimism to recruit members. Generally, they tell recruits that they are losing a war of survival and that they face an existential threat.”– –“It might not seem like the most persuasive pitch, particularly for fighters who, if they join, must violate a number of laws and take up arms in an unfamiliar territory. But it works. …. The strategy works best with foreign recruits who share the movement’s ideology, ethnicity, or religion but who, unlike local fighters, do not have immediate communities and families in the line of fire.”– –“Such fighters are often persuadable because of their weak affiliations with their own country and national identity,”– –” In these conflicts, the foreign fighters, driven by the belief that they are fighting a desperate battle to the end, act more aggressively than local insurgents — even when their side is actually winning. It’s no accident that most suicide missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out by foreign fighters rather than local militants. “– –“Some insurgent groups, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, have taken advantage of this dynamic by using foreigners to target civilians when the local combatants will not. “–

  • Transnational Insurgencies Have Something In Common : They Win

    Pocket Advice —“Although transnational insurgencies comprise highly diverse groups across different conflicts and eras, they still have much in common. For one, such forces are winning: transnational insurgencies have won nearly half of the civil wars in which they have fought, almost twice the success rate of insurgencies overall. Several Israeli prime ministers have acknowledged that Israel’s victory in 1948 relied on the World War II veterans who aided the fledgling state against Arab armies. In other conflicts throughout history, prominent foreign fighters were either instrumental in extending insurgencies or making them costlier to suppress: the Marquis de Lafayette, the French general who fought for the American rebels during the Revolutionary War; the Italian general Giuseppe Garibaldi, who supported the Republican uprising in Brazil in the 1830s; and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed al Qaeda in Iraq under the U.S. occupation. “— –“The patterns of recruitment for such disparate fighters are broadly similar and, because of that, they all have the same Achilles’ heel…. Insurgent groups … use despair rather than optimism to recruit members. Generally, they tell recruits that they are losing a war of survival and that they face an existential threat.”– –“It might not seem like the most persuasive pitch, particularly for fighters who, if they join, must violate a number of laws and take up arms in an unfamiliar territory. But it works. …. The strategy works best with foreign recruits who share the movement’s ideology, ethnicity, or religion but who, unlike local fighters, do not have immediate communities and families in the line of fire.”– –“Such fighters are often persuadable because of their weak affiliations with their own country and national identity,”– –” In these conflicts, the foreign fighters, driven by the belief that they are fighting a desperate battle to the end, act more aggressively than local insurgents — even when their side is actually winning. It’s no accident that most suicide missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out by foreign fighters rather than local militants. “– –“Some insurgent groups, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, have taken advantage of this dynamic by using foreigners to target civilians when the local combatants will not. “–

  • Liberty Is Not A Product of Permission, But Of Choice

    [W]ithout states how is liberty enforced? It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation. If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers. *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*. That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them. Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves. [Y]ou cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    COMMENTS Curt Doolittle (Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.) Lee C Waaks If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it. Adrian Nielsen There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract. Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea. Darcy Neal Donnelly How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death? Curt Doolittle How have we done it in history? Militia

  • Liberty Is Not A Product of Permission, But Of Choice

    [W]ithout states how is liberty enforced? It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation. If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers. *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*. That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them. Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves. [Y]ou cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    COMMENTS Curt Doolittle (Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.) Lee C Waaks If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it. Adrian Nielsen There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract. Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea. Darcy Neal Donnelly How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death? Curt Doolittle How have we done it in history? Militia

  • From Free-Riding To Rent Seeking To Anarchy

    FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY People form governments to suppress the high transaction costs of criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. The consequence is that all that suppressed free riding is simply converted into rent seeking by the bureaucracy. By forming governments, we trade high transaction costs that are pervasive (rampant criminal, unethical and immoral behavior) for low transaction costs that are increasingly expensive (conspiratorial, corrupt and exploitative behavior). The question we face in advancing political theory, is how to prevent rent seeking as well as free riding. The answer is to allow insurance companies, the common law, the courts, and a fully articulated set of property rights to do their jobs for us. Yes, there are certain luxuries we may wish to produce as a commons. There is no reason that we cannot produce luxuries as a commons. But we cannot produce laws. We can only allow the courts to discover them.

  • From Free-Riding To Rent Seeking To Anarchy

    FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY People form governments to suppress the high transaction costs of criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. The consequence is that all that suppressed free riding is simply converted into rent seeking by the bureaucracy. By forming governments, we trade high transaction costs that are pervasive (rampant criminal, unethical and immoral behavior) for low transaction costs that are increasingly expensive (conspiratorial, corrupt and exploitative behavior). The question we face in advancing political theory, is how to prevent rent seeking as well as free riding. The answer is to allow insurance companies, the common law, the courts, and a fully articulated set of property rights to do their jobs for us. Yes, there are certain luxuries we may wish to produce as a commons. There is no reason that we cannot produce luxuries as a commons. But we cannot produce laws. We can only allow the courts to discover them.

  • WHY SQUANDER INHERITANCE THROUGH REDISTRIBUTION? Why should I squander my earnin

    WHY SQUANDER INHERITANCE THROUGH REDISTRIBUTION?

    Why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution?

    If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital?

    My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal.

    Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-25 02:57:00 UTC

  • RUSSIANS ARE NOW SPONSORING TERRORISM IN EASTERN UKRAINE Nice. Using women as hu

    RUSSIANS ARE NOW SPONSORING TERRORISM IN EASTERN UKRAINE

    Nice. Using women as human shields too.

    I’m all in favor of voluntary ethnonationalism. I’m not in favor of parasitic systemically unethical, systemically immoral, and bureaucratically corrupt civilizations.

    Russia has nothing to offer the world except suffering, corruption and poverty.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 12:44:00 UTC

  • IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, IRRATIONAL, LIBERTY DESTROYING ROTHBARDIANS. Once you realiz

    IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, IRRATIONAL, LIBERTY DESTROYING ROTHBARDIANS.

    Once you realize that rothbardian libertarians are genetically biased to act immorally, and that Rothbardianism helps them justify their immorality, then you realize that they’re just as impossible to discourse with rationally as progressives. Both are morally blind to the majority of the moral spectrum. Conservatives see the entire moral spectrum. The problem is that they use allegorical language, so it’s very hard to get them to talk about this subject in rational, economic terms. It’s just not intuitive to them that their philosophy is simply one of hyper efficient economics – the most trustworthy society yet developed. And since they’re the most trustworthy, they’re the most economically productive.

    Meanwhile they’re losing the battle against deceitful left, and immoral libertarians.

    The only solution for libertarianism is to return its foundations to their original ethics of aristocracy and nobility, and as a consequence to the thought leadership of the conservatives.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 11:27:00 UTC