Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • INSURGENCIES HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON: THEY WIN. —“Although transnational insu

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141107/david-malet/foreign-fighters-playbook?cid=soc-tumblr-in-snapshots-foreign_fighters_playbook-040914%22–TRANSNATIONAL INSURGENCIES HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON: THEY WIN.

    —“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. “–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 16:16:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF PERMISSION, BUT OF CHOICE Without states how is libe

    LIBERTY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF PERMISSION, BUT OF CHOICE

    Without 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.

    You cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 05:09:00 UTC

  • UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE” –BINARY– Under binary logic (of arg

    UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE”

    –BINARY–

    Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent)

    REJECTION (binary 0)

    Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange.

    Boycott of all exchanges.

    Rejection of exchange.

    CONSENT (binary 1)

    Restitution via court

    Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost)

    Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost)

    –TERNARY–

    But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence)

    VIOLENCE (ternary)

    Restitution via violence

    Transfer via violence.

    Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement

    High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 10:03:00 UTC

  • FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY People form governments to suppress

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 08:03:00 UTC

  • Rules of Ethical and Moral Exchanges

    DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).

  • Rules of Ethical and Moral Exchanges

    DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).

  • Profound Propertarian Insight

    [E]nlightenment Political and economic ethics, whether under classical liberal, libertarian, socialist and ‘dishonest socialist (keynesian)’ theory are predicated on the two assumptions (a)that moral and ethical behavior are ‘givens’ that we must agree upon, and that (b) our labors in the act of production are the means by which we earn rewards. This logic assumes that entry into, and participation in the market (society, the order in which cooperation is possible), is all that one obtains for one’s constant payment of the costs of respecting property and other norms. However, norms that permit property rights, and norms that permit trust (low transaction costs), and norms that prohibit conspiracy, are as equal in value in creating a polity in which the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) is possible. Respect for property rights, eschewing corruption and conspiracy, and demonstrating honestly, are all costs that the individual must bear. And he must bear them prior to any participation in production. But if it is not possible for the individual to participate in the market (and it demonstrably is not), then entry into the market is not POSSIBLE, and as such it is non-rational for that individual to pay the very high costs of entry into that market. And therefore demands that they respect for property, honesty, and combat against conspiracy and corruption are simply attempts at theft of their opportunity, time and effort, without compensation. As such, the alternative is to pay people to respect property rights, demonstrate honesty, eschew corruption and conspiracy, so that they work to enable the voluntary organization of production (capitalism), and function as consumers – to pay people to construct a society, polity, and economy, wherein the dynamic voluntary organization of production is possible. [P]eople who enforce and respect property rights, manners, ethics, morals and norms, do so at a cost. The benefit of capitalism for everyone, is that production can be cheaply (low transaction costs) organized dynamically and voluntarily. However, if we cannot equally participate in the market (as we did under labor and farming) then the only alternative is to pay people for the work of facilitating the dynamic and voluntary organization of production. Those people, paid as such, will have the same interests as producers: to minimize state consumption of the fruits of productivity. That logic can be attacked from any number of angles but in the end, the result will be the same. You cannot make an operational argument in favor of property rights and at the same time defeat this argument. (Or you can try a lot, but it won’t work.) Conversely, telling people that they must pay high costs for rights that they cannot make use of is merely theft by capitalist means.

  • Profound Propertarian Insight

    [E]nlightenment Political and economic ethics, whether under classical liberal, libertarian, socialist and ‘dishonest socialist (keynesian)’ theory are predicated on the two assumptions (a)that moral and ethical behavior are ‘givens’ that we must agree upon, and that (b) our labors in the act of production are the means by which we earn rewards. This logic assumes that entry into, and participation in the market (society, the order in which cooperation is possible), is all that one obtains for one’s constant payment of the costs of respecting property and other norms. However, norms that permit property rights, and norms that permit trust (low transaction costs), and norms that prohibit conspiracy, are as equal in value in creating a polity in which the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) is possible. Respect for property rights, eschewing corruption and conspiracy, and demonstrating honestly, are all costs that the individual must bear. And he must bear them prior to any participation in production. But if it is not possible for the individual to participate in the market (and it demonstrably is not), then entry into the market is not POSSIBLE, and as such it is non-rational for that individual to pay the very high costs of entry into that market. And therefore demands that they respect for property, honesty, and combat against conspiracy and corruption are simply attempts at theft of their opportunity, time and effort, without compensation. As such, the alternative is to pay people to respect property rights, demonstrate honesty, eschew corruption and conspiracy, so that they work to enable the voluntary organization of production (capitalism), and function as consumers – to pay people to construct a society, polity, and economy, wherein the dynamic voluntary organization of production is possible. [P]eople who enforce and respect property rights, manners, ethics, morals and norms, do so at a cost. The benefit of capitalism for everyone, is that production can be cheaply (low transaction costs) organized dynamically and voluntarily. However, if we cannot equally participate in the market (as we did under labor and farming) then the only alternative is to pay people for the work of facilitating the dynamic and voluntary organization of production. Those people, paid as such, will have the same interests as producers: to minimize state consumption of the fruits of productivity. That logic can be attacked from any number of angles but in the end, the result will be the same. You cannot make an operational argument in favor of property rights and at the same time defeat this argument. (Or you can try a lot, but it won’t work.) Conversely, telling people that they must pay high costs for rights that they cannot make use of is merely theft by capitalist means.

  • The Central Problem Of Violence In Human Societies? Or The Central Problem Of Free Riding?

    –“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).

    [T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.

  • The Central Problem Of Violence In Human Societies? Or The Central Problem Of Free Riding?

    –“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).

    [T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.