Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • WHAT’S THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM? IT”S NOT COMPLICATED. IT”S JUST ANOTHER POST

    WHAT’S THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM? IT”S NOT COMPLICATED. IT”S JUST ANOTHER POSTMODERN LIE

    WHY IS TERRORISM USEFUL?

    1 – It’s inexpensive.

    2 – It only requires a small number of people.

    3 – It doesn’t require coordination of activity.

    4 – It gets a LOT of attention for very little effort.

    5 – It both influences policy and modifies public perception.

    6 – It encourages sympathizers and imitators by granting them a vehicle for self image, status, perception of power, and identity.

    7 – It illustrates the inherent weakness of the state and state actors (it dispels the illusion of control)

    8 – It creates intolerable political, public, and economic stress even if it causes little real damage to property.

    “TERRORISM IS THE BEST ADVERTISING STRATEGY, EVER.”

    Worse: And it’s fun. You have to grasp that it’s empowering. It’s exhilarating. Or you can’t understand the motivation for participating in it. Most of us walk through life feeling powerless. Radicals don’t.

    Two guys, one car, and random shooting almost did almost as much damage to the economy as the spring 2008 rise in oil prices. Terrorism is effectively employed by revolutionaries and reactionaries internally, and terrorists and state sponsored terrorists.

    PURVEYORS OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

    – State Actors (War/Warriors/Soldiers)

    – State Sponsored Private Actors (state sponsored terrorists)

    – External (out-group) private actors (terrorists)

    – Internal (in-group) private actors (radicals, revolutionaries)

    THE USE OF POSTMODERN VERBAL OBSCURANTISM TO JUSTIFY THE CORPORATE STATE

    1) It’s an abuse of the terms “terrorist” or “terrorism” to apply them to internal actors, because it grants the assumption of legitimacy to the state, and the pejorative illegitimacy of the actor.

    I no case is an external (out group) actor a revolutionary. In no case is an in-group member a terrorist.

    2) the problem of stating in-group and out-group members only emerges under state corporatism and it’s advocacy of multiculturalism as a means of importing low cost labor to support aging social systems. Or in the USA where racial divisions have been a source of conflict since the founding of the government.

    The use of ‘terrorism’ for internal actors is another “postmodernism”: a linguistic contrivance to obscure the causal properties of a conflict, as the natural problems that arise when we attempt to launder causal properties from terms in order to … lie.

    Postmodern obscurantism – the effort to justify the multi-cultural state and the socialist program – is the reason for this false dilemma. There is no difficulty in defining terrorism, as we can see above. Instead, there is an obvious falsehood in the definition of a corporate democratic state: it is impossible for groups with different reproductive strategies, the associated signals and mythos, the associated allocations of property rights, and the different capabilities those groups possess in organizing and conducting production, to cooperate in political systems under majority rule, since by definition such a system imposes a monopoly set of definitions of property rights and obligations – when property rights allocations must reflect the reproductive strategies of the groups.

    As such, without the false assumption of the legitimacy of state corporatism, then the original definitions stand.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-31 14:04:00 UTC

  • Seriously. I’m just running around trying to make jobs and wealth and I feel lik

    Seriously. I’m just running around trying to make jobs and wealth and I feel like most of my energy goes to avoiding state sponsored vampires.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 06:50:00 UTC

  • Why doesn’t the government just come out and say “It’s open season on white prot

    Why doesn’t the government just come out and say “It’s open season on white protestant males!”

    Cause that’s how I feel these days.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 06:47:00 UTC

  • MIGHT ISN”T GOOD OR BAD – IT’S WHAT YOU DO WITH IT Might can be used to make rig

    MIGHT ISN”T GOOD OR BAD – IT’S WHAT YOU DO WITH IT

    Might can be used to make right, or to make wrong. But it is very hard to make right WITHOUT might. In fact, I do not think it is POSSIBLE to make right without might.

    So, might itself is not matter of morality. It is a matter of what it’s used for.

    The source of prosperity is the systematic suppression of free riding (cheating) by the organized use of violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 06:05:00 UTC

  • “LIBERTY REQUIRES POINTED WEAPONS, POINTED ARGUMENTS, AND THE WILLINGNESS TO USE

    “LIBERTY REQUIRES POINTED WEAPONS, POINTED ARGUMENTS, AND THE WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM BOTH”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 02:21:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY’S POINTS Libertarianism needs a reformation. The church was an instrumen

    LIBERTY’S POINTS

    Libertarianism needs a reformation.

    The church was an instrument of totalitarianism whose pacifism came from its weakness, not it’s intentions, where were always self interest.

    The Aristocracy ACTED, and the church TALKED.

    The church’s rhetoric is a dialectical competitor to Aristocratic action.

    The church’s arguments cannot be understood EXCEPT as only half of the dialectical argument with Aristocracy.

    The pacifist church could not exist without the warrior caste.

    And liberty cannot exist without a militia.

    A militia do not beg for liberty – they take it by force.

    And by taking it with force, they make it for others.

    The source of liberty was, is, and always will be the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms.

    Property is the result of that prohibition on free riding – ‘cheating’.

    Property is not the cause of liberty, and it is not created by ‘appeals to reason’.

    Property is the consequence of the organized suppression of ‘cheating’ in all its forms.

    And Rothbardian ethics fully endorse and justify ‘cheating’.

    THAT IS WHY WE FAIL

    We need leadership with solutions that will work. Not tolerance.

    Appeals to tolerance are merely a symptom of our lack of good philosophical arguments.

    Our lack of good philosophical arguments is evidenced by our failure to enfranchise the worlds moral specialists: conservatives.

    Conservatives are the moral specialists, not us. And we can, and have, measured that fact empirically.

    But conservatives cannot reform their ancient moral code because their philosophy is metaphorical, not rhetorical.

    Their moral arguments are not open to rational criticism.

    Which is why they retreat into religion.

    And we are not, with Rothbard’s ethics, either giving them a tool to express their morality in rational terms, so that THEY can reform their ideas.

    By failing our role as the intellectual leaders of aristocratic egalitarian liberty, we drive the conservatives into religion as their only defense against the state.

    Our failures: The failure of libertarianism. The failure to obtain liberty.

    The failure to constrain the expansion of the state.

    All of this is our fault.

    We fail not because the world does not understand us.

    It is because our prophet was terribly, terribly, immorally wrong.

    The source of liberty – property rights – is the enfranchisement of any individual who will use the threat of violence to suppress free riding – cheating – anywhere and everywhere.

    And all other arguments are cheap and failed attempts to obtain liberty at a discount by relying on the empty verbalism of the church.

    LIBERTY REQUIRES POINTED WEAPONS, POINTED ARGUMENTS, AND THE WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM BOTH.

    Everything else, is just a cheap and ineffective technique for trying to obtain liberty at a discount.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 02:09:00 UTC

  • “ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”

    “ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:19:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARD’S ETHICAL GHETTO Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the

    ROTHBARD’S ETHICAL GHETTO

    Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal.

    Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others.

    Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty.

    There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics.

    Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:15:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE A PARASITIC SCAM. Rothbard’s ethics are just another a pa

    ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE A PARASITIC SCAM.

    Rothbard’s ethics are just another a parasitic scam seeking to replace low transaction cost state parasitism, with high transaction cost universal parasitism. Aristocratic Egalitarians (protestants) had it right: universal responsibility for the universal suppression of all involuntary extractions, thereby forcing every living soul to compete in the market for goods and services, where his efforts produce a virtuous cycle.

    1) We can describe all involuntary extractions of property as one of the following: Criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial (statist). Attached is one of my diagrams that illustrates this spectrum. The curve on the right is the DEMONSTRATED demand curve for liberty. Because it represents the REPRODUCTIVE return on forgone opportunities (opportunity costs).

    2) All costs are opportunity costs. That definition of property is the human behavioral definition of property, not some artificially constructed definition of property that was created to justify aggression against property by non physical means. (Which is the very purpose of Rothbard’s argument.) If all costs are opportunity costs then it is not possible to make the argument for bribery except as an excuse to justify theft. (and it is an excuse to justify theft, which is why it’s almost universally rejected except by social outcasts.)

    The human intuitive perception of property, the human normative description of property, and the reproductively and cooperatively NECESSARY and non-arbitrary definition of property, is defined by the requirements for decreasing transaction costs of cooperation. From the most severe and direct (crime) to the most indirect and imperceptible (displacement via outbreeding or immigrating. A fact which is illustrated in the diagram.)

    3) As I’ve said. Either the NAP is insufficient, or the definition of property rights is insufficient. I’m able to construct an argument that the NAP is sufficient as long as the definition of property rights is DESCRIPTIVE.

    But it is not possible to rationally choose an arbitrary description of private property limited to that which is necessary for economic production (private property) and its dependent ethics, and not ALSO leave unanswered the further definitions of property in all its forms that create the trust necessary for rational risk taking in a polity.

    My original assumption was that first mises made the error because of his obsession with commodity prices, which are a reductio example of property, and that rothbard further expanded that error with his appeal to predatory extractive ghetto ethics, as an group evolutionary theory. And I can forgive both authors for such errors. We cannot expect all men to be wise in all matters.

    But as time has progressed I’ve understood the damage that has resulted from the emphasis on a FAILED minority strategy (low trust society), to a successful majority strategy (high trust societies) in producing both eugenic reproduction and expanding wealth.

    4) What is circular reasoning, is the arbitrary definition of rothbardian private property rights as a means of justifying involuntary extraction via PRIVATE SECTOR PARASITISM, as a means of replacing involuntary extraction via STATE PARASITISM.

    Rothbard’s ethics, statism and socialism, are parasitic. ROTHBARD’S ETHICS ARE PARASITIC. Only high trust property rights are fully productive and NOT parasitic. ONLY those high trust ethics. ONLY THOSE AND NO OTHER. Northwestern europeans managed to almost exterminate all involuntary extraction and forcing all human action into the market for goods and services. All of it. Forbidding all other means of free riding.

    Apriorism is an interesting tool for deceiving mediocre minds via overloading. It works in mathematical philosophy for the same reason it works in ethical philosophy: because these reductive arguments rely on aggregation of concepts that obscure the causal properties. So, yes, rothbardianism is a parasitic scam.

    5) If we can get past that point we will get to the dispute over whether it is rational for people to exchange pervasive parasitism, pervasive transaction costs in daily life, for limited parasitic rents, corruption and conspiracy via the state.

    CLOSING

    All costs are opportunity costs. Humans DEMONSTRATE that they behave this way in all circumstances. And it is rational for them to do so. And irrational for them not to. And Rothbardian ethics are an attempt to trade one parasitic scam for another. Nothing more.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-24 21:18:00 UTC

  • KIRK ON VIOLENCE “In every principal premise of his argument, Stephen declared,

    KIRK ON VIOLENCE

    “In every principal premise of his argument, Stephen declared, Mills suffered from an inadequate understanding of human nature and history. All the great moments of humankind said Stephen, have been achieved by force, not by free discussion; and if we leave forced out of our calculations, very soon we will be subject to the intolerant wills of men who have no scruples about employing force against us. It is consummate folly to tolerate every variety of opinion, on every topic, out of devotion to an abstract “liberty”; for opinion soon finds its expression in action, and the fanatics whom we tolerated will not tolerate us when they have power.” (Pages 23–24).

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-23 16:08:00 UTC