Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • How Much Longer Will You Trust Your Liberty To Your Fellow Man?

    –“Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they have not the might to secure.”–Eli Harman

    [Y]our fellow men and women do not desire liberty. They desires consumption, status, and ease. Liberty requires great expense, revolt against the masses, and constant diligence. The source of liberty is the organize application of violence to deny access to others, that which you have labored to obtain by voluntary means. The left’s irrational utopian vision is no worse than the rothbardian irrational libertarian utopia. Aristocratic egalitarians invented liberty. And the manufactured it with organized violence.

  • How Much Longer Will You Trust Your Liberty To Your Fellow Man?

    –“Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they have not the might to secure.”–Eli Harman

    [Y]our fellow men and women do not desire liberty. They desires consumption, status, and ease. Liberty requires great expense, revolt against the masses, and constant diligence. The source of liberty is the organize application of violence to deny access to others, that which you have labored to obtain by voluntary means. The left’s irrational utopian vision is no worse than the rothbardian irrational libertarian utopia. Aristocratic egalitarians invented liberty. And the manufactured it with organized violence.

  • Libertarian Non-logic Of 'Rights'

    [Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.

  • Libertarian Non-logic Of ‘Rights’

    [Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.

  • Libertarian Non-logic Of 'Rights'

    [Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.

  • Libertarian Non-logic Of ‘Rights’

    [Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.

  • The Immorality Of Pacifist Libertarianism

    [P]acifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty. Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence. Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language. We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy. [T]he source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty. The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense. Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard. [F]or millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them. Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them. That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.

  • The Immorality Of Pacifist Libertarianism

    [P]acifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty. Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence. Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language. We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy. [T]he source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty. The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense. Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard. [F]or millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them. Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them. That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.

  • Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?

    [S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.

  • Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?

    [S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.