Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • WHAT MORAL RULES DO YOU USE IN GLOBAL STRATEGY? (anti-russian pro-conflict warni

    WHAT MORAL RULES DO YOU USE IN GLOBAL STRATEGY?

    (anti-russian pro-conflict warning) (i warned you)

    I don’t understand why Crimea can’t be an independent country. I view voluntary secession as an inviolable human right of free association. I don’t understand why Crimea, which has been a Russian asset for a very long time, cannot choose to join Russia. I completely understand why Russia’s internal security requires the Crimean warm water ports.

    But that is very different from taking it by force. Especially when it could have been leased or purchased outright, and a referendum constructed that would easily have been possible by merely negotiating a discount on gas with Ukraine.

    If Russia cannot be a good world citizen, the the only alternative, is to yet again, militarily punish Russia; and to keep punishing Russia economically and politically every few generations until it learns to be a good world citizen. Fascination with the quality of life of one’s citizens, stable borders, and plentiful trade: period. Not restoration of the Caliphate or the Soviet Empire. The world needs far more smaller states not bigger ones, whose only value is the ability to conduct of war.

    We have spent five-hundred years of blood and treasure incompetently but steadily dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty. And we have spent spent the past twenty years building commercial ties and dependence the post-soviet sphere and the west, in the hope of bringing Russia into the modern word of prosperity.

    Because a militaristic and totalitarian Russia is intolerable to the west.

    Because while a German-Russian partnership, where both countries Suppress corruption, share resources and skills, is an asset to both the world and the west, and allows the american empire to contract – – while a Europe held hostage by a totalitarian Russia is a strategic impossibility for both america

    The only way to prevent energy being used as a weapon is to conquer or colonize the source of the energy.

    So, if Russia has given up on the respect for boundaries, maybe the west should give up on respect for boundaries, and colonize Moscow and Russian resources.

    Just drive them into poverty yet again, collapse their economy. And acknowledge that Russia is not ready willing and able to enter the modern world on its own.

    And it’s self defense to leave that kind of government in your back yard.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 15:06:00 UTC

  • THE IMMORALITY OF PACIFIST LIBERTARIANISM Pacifist (peasant and merchant) libert

    THE IMMORALITY OF PACIFIST LIBERTARIANISM

    Pacifist (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.

    The 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.

    For 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 10:05:00 UTC

  • TERNARY ETHICS vs BINARY vs SINGULAR Examples 1) Aristocracy(violence) vs Ghetto

    TERNARY ETHICS vs BINARY vs SINGULAR

    Examples

    1) Aristocracy(violence) vs Ghetto (trade) vs Peasantry (Submission)

    2) Prohibition on free riding vs private property vs community property

    3) Do not unto others… vs do only unto others.. vs do unto others…

    4) Ternary Ethics vs Binary Ethics vs Singular ethics (submission)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 13:49:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS: TERNARY ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN ETHICS vs BINAR

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS: TERNARY ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN ETHICS vs BINARY GHETTO ETHICS

    The first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff.

    If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff.

    If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff.

    It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange.

    You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence.

    The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary.

    It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence.

    The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior.

    But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea.

    But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary.

    So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding.

    Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies.

    It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less.

    We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 11:48:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://benswann.com/police-use-of-force-drops-60-when-officers-required-to-wear-video-cameras/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-11 19:39:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARD AS DESTROYER OF LIBERTY? So is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? O

    ROTHBARD AS DESTROYER OF LIBERTY?

    So 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 15:30:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE – THE FAILURE OF THE NAP AND ROTHBARDIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS

    THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE – THE FAILURE OF THE NAP AND ROTHBARDIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS

    MORALITY

    – Morality is a property of cooperation.

    – Violence is amoral. (Not immoral, but amoral.)

    – The purpose of the application of violence may or may not be moral.

    – If we are not cooperating then violence is amoral, regardless of purpose.

    – If we are cooperating, violence amoral, but its purpose is not.

    – If we are cooperating and one must obtain restitution then violence is moral.

    – If we are cooperating and violating property rights then violence for that purpose is immoral.

    Although technically speaking:

    1) Criminal violations are against body and property.

    2) Unethical violations are under asymmetry of information.

    3) Immoral violations are against asymmetry of awareness.

    In the construction of property rights by the suppression of free riding in its criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial forms, violence is not amoral, but a VIRTUE.

    Violence is a virtue not a vice.

    And attempts to obtain liberty without paying the cost of suppressing free riding are acts of fraud – attempts to obtain an expensive end without paying for it.

    Rothbardianism is Parasitism.

    Either the NAP is false or the definition of property is too narrow, because NAP covers criminal but not unethical and immoral actions. As such the NAP is a device for outlawing the moral use of violence in an effort to preserve the immoral and unethical use of deception.

    If instead, we state that property extends to all that humans have acted to obtain as their property by forgoing opportunity for consumption – then NAP against commons would be logical, and a prohibition against unethical and immoral behavior.

    Therefore you must either abandon the NAP or Rothbardian property rights, as immoral, unethical, and illogical.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 14:28:00 UTC

  • “Liberty is a political order that is created and maintained with force. It does

    –“Liberty is a political order that is created and maintained with force. It does have a source: violence. So far only Anglo-Saxon people have ever created a political order that allows for the kind of personal autonomy and agency that is what libertarians mean by “liberty.” Other Europeans have come close, and have successfully assimilated into Anglo-American liberty. Other people have not come even close. Most cultures do not even value it. It is suicidal for liberty to think that the West should open up to to non-Europeans that do not give a shit about our notions of liberty.”– Mike Peinovich

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 00:01:00 UTC

  • POSITION TOO : YOUR LIBERTY MAY BE VOLUNTARY BUT MINE ISN’T. I DEMAND IT AT THE

    http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/MY POSITION TOO : YOUR LIBERTY MAY BE VOLUNTARY BUT MINE ISN’T. I DEMAND IT AT THE POINT OF A GUN.

    And that is the only source of liberty – ever.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-07 16:32:00 UTC

  • VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-07 16:21:00 UTC